2006 proposed fee schedule - American Society of Clinical Oncology

multi-specialty PEAC that were based on presentations from the
relevant specialties after being closely scrutinized by the PEAC
using standards and packages agreed to by all involved
specialties. Second, the refined CPEP/RUC data are more current
than the SMS data for the majority of specialties. Third, for
direct costs, it appears more accurate to assume that the costs
of the clinical staff, supplies and equipment are the same for a
given service, regardless of the specialty that is performing
it. This assumption does not hold true under the top-down
direct cost methodology, where the specialty-specific scaling
factors create widely differing costs for the same service.
We also would argue that the proposed methodology is less
confusing and more intuitive than the current approach. First,
the nonphysician work pool would be eliminated and all services
would be priced using one methodology, eliminating the
complicated calculations needed to price nonphysician work pool
services. Second, the method for calculation of direct costs
can now be described in sentences rather than paragraphs.
Third, any revisions made to the direct inputs would now have
predictable results. Changes in the direct practice inputs for
a service would proportionately change the PE RVUs for that
service without significantly affecting the PE RVUs for
unrelated services.
The proposed methodology would also create a system that
would be significantly more stable from year-to-year than the
61