2006 proposed fee schedule - American Society of Clinical Oncology
2006 proposed fee schedule - American Society of Clinical Oncology 2006 proposed fee schedule - American Society of Clinical Oncology
To illustrate this point, as shown in Table 34, the 358 2005 national payment amount in the nonfacility setting for CPT code 99203 (Office/outpatient visit, new), is $97.02 which means that currently a beneficiary is responsible for 20 percent of this amount, or $19.40. Under this proposed rule the 2006 national payment amount in the nonfacility setting for CPT code 99203, as shown in Table 34, is $93.33 which means that, in 2006, the beneficiary coinsurance for this service would be $18.66. Very few of the changes we are proposing impact overall payments and therefore will affect Medicare beneficiaries’ coinsurance liability. Proposals discussed above that do affect overall spending would similarly impact beneficiaries’ coinsurance. For example, we have tried to ensure that the proposal concerning physician self-referral for nuclear medicine services would not adversely impact the medical care of Medicare or Medicaid patients. While we recognize that these proposed revisions may have an impact on current arrangements under which patients are receiving medical care, there are other ways to structure these arrangements so that patients may continue to receive medically necessary nuclear medicine services. In almost all cases, we believe this proposal concerning physician referral for nuclear medicine services should not require substantial changes in
delivery arrangements and would help minimize anti-competitive behavior that can affect where a 359 beneficiary receives health care services and possibly the quality of the services furnished. We also believe it will minimize the number of medically unnecessary nuclear medicine procedures billed to the Medicare and Medicaid programs. N. Accounting Statement As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in Table 38 below, we have prepared an accounting statement showing the classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of this proposed rule. This table includes the impact of the proposed changes in this rule on providers and suppliers and encompasses the anticipated negative update to the physician fee schedule based on the statutory SGR formula. Expenditures are classified as transfers to Medicare providers/or suppliers (that is, ESRD facilities and physicians, other practitioners and medical suppliers that receive payment under the physician fee schedule or Medicare Part B).
- Page 307 and 308: decisions are central to the health
- Page 309 and 310: however. We are particularly intere
- Page 311 and 312: The collection requirement in this
- Page 313 and 314: eporting requirements are discussed
- Page 315 and 316: IV. Response to Comments Because of
- Page 317 and 318: achieve the objectives with less si
- Page 319 and 320: 319 The analysis and discussion pro
- Page 321 and 322: 321 for a new code may change becau
- Page 323 and 324: 323 TABLE 30--Impact of Practice Ex
- Page 325 and 326: hour for these specialties. As note
- Page 327 and 328: Both physical/occupational therapy
- Page 329 and 330: 329 proposing to add cardiology cat
- Page 331 and 332: Speciality Impact of Removing Aberr
- Page 333 and 334: Family TABLE 32--Impact of Multiple
- Page 335 and 336: 335 column includes the current est
- Page 337 and 338: Specialty Medicare Allowed Charges
- Page 339 and 340: 339 Non-Facility Facility % % HCPCS
- Page 341 and 342: 341 have undertaken a similar analy
- Page 343 and 344: of the updated GPCI data. For the R
- Page 345 and 346: C. Medicare Telehealth Services In
- Page 347 and 348: 347 TABLE 37--Impact of Proposed Ch
- Page 349 and 350: 349 of the increase to the drug add
- Page 351 and 352: plus current AAP priced drug paymen
- Page 353 and 354: 353 the center up to what it would
- Page 355 and 356: satisfies the requirements of the i
- Page 357: 357 certainty the extent of these s
- Page 361 and 362: List of Subjects 42 CFR Part 405 Ad
- Page 363 and 364: (including by refunding amounts in
- Page 365 and 366: (2) Any financial incentives provid
- Page 367 and 368: 7. The authority citation for part
- Page 369 and 370: * * * * * PART 413--PRINCIPLES OF R
- Page 371 and 372: 371 D. Redesignating paragraphs (l)
- Page 373 and 374: 373 (3) The additional nursing hour
- Page 375 and 376: cost components relating to trainin
- Page 377 and 378: CAPD and CCPD) when the facility ac
- Page 379 and 380: Indirect Sales means from the manuf
- Page 381 and 382: amount for the quarter to the neare
- Page 383 and 384: 383 25. The heading for Part 426 is
- Page 385 and 386: 385 (Catalog of Federal Domestic As
- Page 387 and 388: 1. CPT/HCPCS code. This is the CPT
- Page 389 and 390: grace period. This indicator is no
- Page 391 and 392: 5. Physician work RVUs. These are t
- Page 393 and 394: ADDENDUM B: RELATIVE VALUE UNITS (R
- Page 395 and 396: ADDENDUM B: RELATIVE VALUE UNITS (R
- Page 397 and 398: ADDENDUM B: RELATIVE VALUE UNITS (R
- Page 399 and 400: ADDENDUM B: RELATIVE VALUE UNITS (R
- Page 401 and 402: ADDENDUM B: RELATIVE VALUE UNITS (R
- Page 403 and 404: ADDENDUM B: RELATIVE VALUE UNITS (R
- Page 405 and 406: ADDENDUM B: RELATIVE VALUE UNITS (R
- Page 407 and 408: ADDENDUM B: RELATIVE VALUE UNITS (R
To illustrate this point, as shown in Table 34, the<br />
358<br />
2005 national payment amount in the nonfacility setting for<br />
CPT code 99203 (Office/outpatient visit, new), is $97.02<br />
which means that currently a beneficiary is responsible for<br />
20 percent <strong>of</strong> this amount, or $19.40. Under this <strong>proposed</strong><br />
rule the <strong>2006</strong> national payment amount in the nonfacility<br />
setting for CPT code 99203, as shown in Table 34, is $93.33<br />
which means that, in <strong>2006</strong>, the beneficiary coinsurance for<br />
this service would be $18.66.<br />
Very few <strong>of</strong> the changes we are proposing impact overall<br />
payments and therefore will affect Medicare beneficiaries’<br />
coinsurance liability. Proposals discussed above that do<br />
affect overall spending would similarly impact<br />
beneficiaries’ coinsurance.<br />
For example, we have tried to ensure that the proposal<br />
concerning physician self-referral for nuclear medicine<br />
services would not adversely impact the medical care <strong>of</strong><br />
Medicare or Medicaid patients. While we recognize that<br />
these <strong>proposed</strong> revisions may have an impact on current<br />
arrangements under which patients are receiving medical<br />
care, there are other ways to structure these arrangements<br />
so that patients may continue to receive medically necessary<br />
nuclear medicine services. In almost all cases, we believe<br />
this proposal concerning physician referral for nuclear<br />
medicine services should not require substantial changes in