|
|
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Background Clinicians use visit codes to bill for services involving the evaluation of patients and the management of their care. The existing guidelines for coding and documenting these services, as well as proposed revisions, have been criticized as complex, clinically irrelevant, and costly. We investigated whether easily measured characteristics of physician–patient visits accurately reflect differences in the amount of work performed. Such characteristics might provide the basis for a simple and equitable physician-payment scheme.
Methods We collected information about the amount of physicians' work, the time spent in encounters with patients, and characteristics of patients and visits for 19,143 physician–patient visits in the practices of 339 urologists, rheumatologists, and general internists. Physicians recorded the actual time involved in evaluating the patient and managing his or her care during each visit and estimated the work involved in relation to a standardized, hypothetical visit. We used multivariate linear regression to identify factors related to differences in the total amount of work and to calculate work and work intensity (work per minute) for different types of visits.
Results The duration of the face-to-face encounter with the patient or family (encounter time) was strongly predictive of the total amount of work. Total work, however, did not increase in direct proportion to encounter time. Visits with shorter encounter times were more intense than longer ones, in part because the work involved in providing fixed services, such as review of records and entry of information, did not vary in direct proportion to the length of the face-to-face encounter. Work intensity was greater for new patients than for established patients, for patients referred by other physicians than for those who were not, and for patients with new rather than previously existing problems.
Conclusions A simple coding scheme based on time spent by the physician in the face-to-face encounter and a limited set of characteristics of the visit would accurately reflect total work in actual practice. A fee structure based on these factors and the inverse relation between work per minute and encounter time would provide equitable payment while encouraging efficiency and discouraging "up-coding" of services.
Source Information
From the New York Academy of Medicine, New York (R.D.L.); and RAND, Washington, D.C. (M.S.M.). Dr. Lasker was affiliated with the Physician Payment Review Commission when this work was performed.
Address reprint requests to Dr. Lasker at the Division of Public Health, New York Academy of Medicine, 1216 Fifth Ave., Rm. 452, New York, NY 10029, or at rlasker{at}nyam.org.
Related Letters:
Reimbursement for Evaluation and Management Services
Bystryn J.-C., Braun P., Dunn D. L., Dykers J. R., Goldman L. D., Gulya A. J., Gutman J., Kelwala S., Reynolds R. D., Gutknecht D. R., Lasker R. D., Marquis M. S., Iezzoni L. I.
Extract |
Full Text
N Engl J Med 1999;
341:1619-1622, Nov 18, 1999.
Correspondence
This article has been cited by other articles:
HOME | SUBSCRIBE | SEARCH | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | COLLECTIONS | PRIVACY | TERMS OF USE | HELP | beta.nejm.org Comments and questions? Please contact us. The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved. |
Previous
