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 />

In the CY 2008 PFS final rule with comment period<br />

(72 FR 66248), one commenter suggested that we “flip” the<br />

MP RVUs between the PCs and TCs, or make them equal.<br />

Reversing the RVUs would reduce the MP RVUs for the TC and<br />

increase the MP RVUs for the PC. The AMA’s PLI workgroup<br />

recommended that we reduce the MP RVUs for the TC for these<br />

codes to zero. The workgroup suggested that there are no<br />

identifiable separate costs for professional liability for<br />

the TC. The workgroup also recommended that the MP RVUs<br />

removed from the TC for these codes be redistributed across<br />

all physicians’ services.<br />

We responded that we did not believe it would be<br />

appropriate to “flip” the PC and TC MP RVU values because<br />

the professional part of the MP RVUs <strong>has</strong> undergone a<br />

resource-based review, is derived from actual data, and is<br />

consistent with the resource-based methodology for PFS<br />

payments. We stated that we would not simply equalize the<br />

PC and TC RVU values because we had no data to demonstrate<br />

that the MP costs for the technical portion of these<br />

services are the same as the professional portion.<br />

We also noted that we have received several comments<br />

supporting the decision to examine the possibility of<br />

developing a resource-based methodology for the technical<br />

portion of the MP RVUs. The commenters supported the<br />

87

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!