Advertisement

April 17, 2014

Study Finds that the AMA Committee Recommendations on Doctor Fees Are Followed Nine Times out of Ten

To calculate physicians’ fees under Medicare – which in turn influence some state and private payers’ decisions on how they will pay doctors -- the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) relies on the recommendations of an American Medical Association advisory panel. A study led by Miriam Laugesen, PhD, at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health, found that the Medicare and Medicaid agency closely followed the committee’s recommendations on the fees physicians are paid, which are based on an assessment of time and effort associated with various physicians’ services.

The findings are reported in the May issue of Health Affairs.

The analysis by Dr. Laugesen, Mailman School Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Management, and colleagues at UCLA and the University of Illinois, shows that for services provided between 1994 and 2010, CMS agreed with 87.4% of the recommendations of the committee, known as RUC or the Relative Value Update Committee. The study looked at 2,768 reimbursable services. When the agency differed with these recommendations, it tended to recommend lower fees for certain radiology and medical specialty services.

In recent years primary care doctors have expressed concerns that the AMA committee, which includes representatives from 31 physicians’ organizations, has too little representation from their ranks and is partly responsible for the increasing pay gap between primary care doctors and specialists. While the current study did not directly examine this issue, it did find that CMS’s decisions are less likely to lower fees for evaluation and management services, which account for a large percentage of primary care providers’ income, than for fees of medical specialists.

“This is encouraging for providers in primary care and other specialties that bill the greatest proportion of these services,” said Dr. Laugesen, who is the principal investigator.  “However, it does not explain why there has been no reduction in the income gap between primary care providers and specialists.”

Recommendations on physician payments are based on several factors, including the amount of time a procedure takes, the technical skill and mental judgment required, as well as the stress that the physician experiences—a factor related to patient risk. Medicare and Medicaid payments are adjusted for geographical differences in costs based on where the provider is located.

If policy makers or physicians want to change the update process but keep the Medicare fee schedule in its current form, the authors suggest that Congress and CMS make some long-term investments in the agency’s ability to undertake research and analysis of issues such as how the effort and time associated with various physician services is determined. Such an investment, they write, “could pay dividends throughout the health care system.”

© 2013 Columbia University

About the Author

Professor and Political Scientist

Miriam J. Laugesen is a political scientist. Much of her research is focused on the design and politics of physician payment policy within Medicare. Professor Laugesen received a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) Investigator Award for a project titled "The Politics of Relative Values" which explores why Medicare payment reforms fell short of their original objectives to contain costs and equalize payment between primary care physicians and specialists. The study investigates ways to encourage more coordinated, effective, and better-compensated primary care for Medicare...

212-304-5264

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. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  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.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.