The 2019 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) proposed rule outlined three big changes that, if enacted, would effect documentation, coding, and payment for office/outpatient visit codes (99201-99215).

Proposal 1. Simplify History and Exam Documentation Requirements: Practitioners would be required to focus their documentation only on what has changed since the last visit or on pertinent items that have not changed, rather than re-documenting a defined list of required elements such as review of a specified number of systems and family/social history. Also, the practitioner could indicate in the medical record that they reviewed and verified the chief complaint and history, without having to re-enter the information.

Proposal 2: Remove History and Exam from E/M Leveling Decision: Under current E/M documentation guidelines, the history and exam are two of the three elements (along with MDM) to be considered when selecting the overall level of E/M service to be reported. CMS is proposing to eliminate the history and exam from consideration. As a result, MDM would stand as the sole determinant of E/M service level. Providers could continue to use time as the determining factor in selecting and E/M service level, if coordination and care comprise the majority of the visit.

Proposal 3: Pay a Single Rate for levels 2-5 E/M visits: In return for simplified documentation requirements and coding guidelines, CMS is proposing streamlined E/M payments. Providers would receive the same reimbursement ($135) for all level 2-5 new patient visits, and for all level 2-5 established patient visits ($93).

Question Title

* 1. In your opinion, would the above CMS proposals ease the burden on providers?

Question Title

* 2. In your opinion, would the above CMS proposals ease the burden on coders/compliance staff?

Question Title

* 3. Do you expect the financial impact of the proposed E/M changes to your practice be positive, negative, no expected change?

Question Title

* 4. If the financial impact is negative, are the reduced documentation requirements an equitable trade-off, in the minds of your providers?

Question Title

* 5. Given the Medicare proposal to pay a single rate for outpatient E/M service levels 2-5, would it make sense to change the E/M codes in CPT to reflect only two levels of new and established outpatient E/M services?

Question Title

* 6. If there are only two payment levels for new and established outpatient E/M services, should the decision-making criteria be re-defined to reflect only two levels of decision-making?

Question Title

* 7. Do you think Medicare should adopt a similar approach for all E/M services (rather than confine the proposed revisions to office/outpatient visit codes (99201-99215)?

To share your comments regarding the CMS proposals, go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the “Submit a comment” instructions.

Question Title

* 8. Does your practice/health system use wRVUs to determine provider compensation or bonus?

Question Title

* 9. Which operational challenges will your practice/health system face if the Proposed Rule is enforced in the Final Rule? Select all that apply.

Question Title

* 10. What percentage of the services your practice/health system bills are new and established outpatient visits?

Question Title

* 11. What percentage of your practice/health systems services include reporting modifier 25?

Question Title

* 12. If your practice/health system has performed a financial analysis, please share the percentage you will lose or gain from the Proposed Rule changes.

Question Title

* 13. Do you think the quality of documentation will decrease if the changes in the Proposed Rule are made?

Question Title

* 14. If given the choice, which of the following methods will your practice/health system follow to determine new and established outpatient visits?

Question Title

* 15. Does your practice/health system code E/M categories other than new and established patient visits?

Question Title

* 16. Please share any other comments regarding this proposal you'd like us to consider.

T