19.02.2013 Views

Notice: This CMS-approved document has been submitted - Philips ...

Notice: This CMS-approved document has been submitted - Philips ...

Notice: This CMS-approved document has been submitted - Philips ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>CMS</strong>-1403-FC<br />

We also proposed to apply similar revisions to the<br />

equipment time-in-use to the other 2 CPT codes, CPT codes<br />

93015 and 93017.<br />

Comment: The manufacturer of the equipment technology<br />

and the specialty society were supportive of these proposed<br />

changes. In addition, the AMA RUC noted that it would<br />

address this issue at the 2008 October AMA RUC meeting.<br />

Response: We have received and accepted the AMA RUC<br />

recommendations for CPT 93025, 93015 and 93017 which<br />

support all of the changes in our proposal. The PE<br />

database is revised to reflect these changes.<br />

d. Revisions to §414.22(b)(5)(i) Concerning Practice Expense<br />

Current regulations at §414.22(b)(5)(i) provide an<br />

explanation of the two levels of PE RVUs for the facility<br />

and nonfacility settings that are used in determining<br />

payment under the PFS. Section 414.22(b)(5)(i)(A)<br />

discusses facility PE RVUs and §414.22 (b)(5)(i)(B)<br />

discusses nonfacility PE RVUs. Language in each of these<br />

sections incorrectly implies that the facility PE RVU is<br />

lower than or equal to the nonfacility PE RVUs. However,<br />

there are some instances where the facility PE RVUs may<br />

actually be greater than the nonfacility PE RVUs. In order<br />

to address this inaccuracy, we proposed to revise<br />

§414.22(b)(5)(i)(A) and (B) to remove this language.<br />

66

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!