Advertisement

May 24, 2013

2013 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule: Issues of Interest to Independent Laboratories

Yesterday the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) published a final rule with comment period implementing the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule for 2013, and it covers a number of  issues of interest to independent laboratories.  Most importantly, payment for the technical component of surgical pathology (CPT Code 88305) will decrease by about 52% as of January 1st, if the conversion factor remains the same.   Although payment for the profession component will rise by 2%, and CMS noted the Obama Administration’s commitment to preventing the 26.5% reduction based on the Sustainable Growth Rate methodolog from taking effect, these measures are cold comfort for the laboratory industry.  The College of American Pathologists has posted an informative Special Report providing details about other pathology payment changes.

In an apparent attempt to address a controversial policy announced by Palmetto GBA in August 2012, CMS revised the description of HCPCS code G0416 (surgical pathology; gross and microscopic examination for prostate need saturation biopsy sampling, 1-20 specimens) to cover 10-20 specimens.  According to CMS, this change will  ”better reflect the interaction of this service, and associated RVUs, with billing for surgical pathology.”  This change is open for public comment.  Laboratories presumably may now use 88305 if billing for less than 10 jars, but this revision does not address the confusion created by Palmetto GBA’s policy – or the NCCI edit on which it is based – because those statements seemed to say that laboratories must use G0416 regardless of collection methodology (and not just in the case of saturation biopsies).  

CMS also provided guidance regarding the 101 new CPT codes for molecular pathology services. Stakeholders have differed on whether CMS should place these codes on the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule or on the Physician Fee Schedule.  CMS settled the issue by announcing that the codes would remain on the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule for CY 2013 but admitted that a physician interpretation may be medically necessary in some cases to produce a meaningful test result.  CMS thus created G0452 (molecular pathology procedure; physician interpretation and report), which will be a clinical laboratory interpretation service paid off of the Physician Fee Schedule.  CMS intends to monitor utilization to ensure appropriate use.

Finally, as expected, CMS implemented a change to 42 C.F.R. § 415.130(d) to confirmed that as of June 30, 2012, an independent laboratory is prohibited from billing Medicare for the technical component of certain pathology services provided to patients of hospitals that qualified for grandfather protection.  A prior post provides additional details regarding the expiration of legislation that authorized this exception to the rule that most services provided to hospital patients must be billed by the hospital.   

These changes undoubtedly represent CMS’s ongoing efforts to cut costs and likely signal more cuts to come.

©1994-2013 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Member

Karen is the Practice Leader of the firm’s Health Law Section.

202-4347324

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.