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

CMS-1403-FC
a standing panel of experts to help identify overvalued
services and to review AMA RUC recommendations.
The AMA RUC, MedPAC and other specialty societies
requested that we clarify the timing of the 5-Year Review
of PE RVUs. The AMA RUC believes that the increases to PE
RVUs for some codes are not attributable to the direct
inputs of the codes under the PE methodology transition.
Rather, the AMA RUC believes the increases are attributable
to our acceptance and incorporation of supplemental survey
data for certain specialties. MedPAC supports the review
of PE inputs for the fastest growing procedure codes.
MedPAC also requests that CMS and the AMA RUC review the PE
inputs of high-volume codes, particularly those whose
inputs are not based on physician surveys.
Response: We look forward to continuing to work with
the AMA RUC in reviewing these issues and receiving
alternative approaches for identifying misvalued codes from
the specialty societies. We are aware that these
approaches are long-term and will require time and effort
from the AMA RUC and specialty societies to complete these
reviews. We also believe the outlined approaches will
address MedPAC’s concerns. In selecting these codes and
reviewing the AMA RUC’s recommendations regarding misvalued
codes we have taken into consideration whether there is a
883