This Viewpoint explores the use of relative value units assigned by the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale in US physician payment systems and the need to rebuild this scale to reflect changes in modern clinical practice.

This cross-sectional study assesses the impact of changes to medical billing and coding work relative value units in 2021.

OBJECTIVE: Reimbursement for surgical procedures is determined by a computation of the relative value unit (RVU) associated with CPT codes. It is based on the amount of work required to provide a service, resources available, and level of expertise involved. Given the evolution of changes in the limb lengthening field, we wanted to evaluate whether the RVU values were comparable across different orthopaedic subspecialties. Consequently, this study compares the work relative value unit (wRVU) totals of 3 common pediatric orthopaedic surgeries-arthroscopic ACL reconstruction, spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, and antegrade femoral intramedullary limb lengthening.
METHODS: This was an IRB-approved, multicenter, retrospective chart review. Charts of subjects who had ACL reconstructions, including meniscal repairs; spinal fusion surgeries for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (7 to 12 levels), including Ponte osteotomies, and femoral antegrade internal limb lengthening procedures, each completed by fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons were reviewed. Comparisons were carried out between several parameters, including mean duration per procedure, number of CPT codes billed per procedure, number of postoperative visits in the 90-day global period, and the wRVU for each procedure.
RESULTS: Fifty charts (25 per center) per procedure were reviewed. The wRVU per hour was lowest in the antegrade femur lengthening group ( P < 0.0001). The number of postoperative visits in the 90-day global postsurgery period was significantly higher in the antegrade femur lengthening group ( P < 0.0001). Intramedullary limb lengthening also had the least number of CPT codes billed.
CONCLUSIONS: RVUs per time are statistically lowest in the limb lengthening group and highest in the scoliosis group. The limb lengthening patient also requires significantly more visits and time in the postoperative period compared with the other groups. These extra visits during the global period do not add any RVU value to the lengthening surgeon and occupy clinic spots that could be filled with new patients. Based on these data, a review of the RVU values assigned to the limb lengthening codes may be necessary.
METHODS: Level III-retrospective comparison study.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the premium associated with a career in academic surgery, as measured by compensation normalized to the work relative value unit (wRVU).
BACKGROUND: An academic surgical career embodying innovation and mentorship offers intrinsic rewards but is not well monetized. We know compensation for academic surgeons is less than their nonacademic counterparts, but the value of clinical effort, as normalized to the wRVU, between academic and nonacademic surgeons has not been well characterized. Thus, we analyzed the variations in the valuation of academic and nonacademic surgical work from 2010 to 2022.
METHODS: We utilized Medical Group Management Association Provider Compensation data from 2010, 2014, 2018, and 2022 to compare academic and nonacademic surgeons. We analyzed raw total cash compensation (TCC), wRVU, TCC per wRVU (TCC/wRVU), and TCC to collections (TCCtColl). We calculated collections per wRVU (Coll/wRVU). We adjusted TCC and TCCtColl for inflation using the Consumer Price Index. Linear modeling for trend analysis was performed.
RESULTS: Compared with nonacademic, academic surgeons had lower TCC (2010: $500,415.0±23,666 vs $631,515.5±23,948.2, -21%; 2022: $564,789.8±23,993.9 vs $628,247.4±15,753.2, -10%), despite higher wRVUs (2022: 9109.4±474.9 vs 8062.7±252.7) and higher Coll/wRVU (2022: 76.68±8.15 vs 71.80±6.10). Trend analysis indicated that TCC will converge in 2038 at an estimated $660,931.
CONCLUSIONS: In 2022, academic surgeons had more clinical activity and superior organizational revenue capture, despite less total and normalized clinical compensation. On the basis of TCC/wRVUs, academia charges a premium of 16% over nonacademic surgery. However, trend analysis suggests that TCC will converge within the next 20 years.

UNASSIGNED: China\'s National Health Service Items Standard (NHSIS) establishes a relative value system and plays an important role in pricing. However, there are few empirical evaluations of the objectivity of the NHSIS-estimated relative value.
UNASSIGNED: This paper presents a comparison between physician work relative value units (wRVUs) estimates for 70 common surgical procedures from NHSIS and those from the U.S. Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS). We defined the ratio of the wRVUs for sample procedures to the benchmark procedure (inguinal hernia repair) as a standardized relative value unit (SRVU), which was used to standardize the data for both schedules. We examined the variances in the ranking and quantification of SRVUs across specialties and procedures, as well as how SRVUs impact procedure reimbursement prices between the two schedules.
UNASSIGNED: There was no systematic difference between MHSIS-estimated SRVUs and MPFS-estimated, but the dispersion of MPFS-estimated SRVU was greater than that of MHSIS-estimated, and the discrepancies increased with surgical risk and technical complexity. The discrepancies of SRVUs were significant in cardiothoracic procedures. Additionally, whether SRVUs were based on MPFS or MHSIS, there was a positive association between them and payment prices. However, in terms of the impact of SRVUs on payment pricing, the NHSIS system was lower than the MPFS system.
UNASSIGNED: China has made incremental progress in estimating the relative value of healthcare services, but there are shortcomings in valuation methods and their impact on pricing. The modular assessment method should be considered as a component to optimize reform.

UNASSIGNED: We sought to determine if work relative value unit differences exist between analogous, sex-specific procedures.
UNASSIGNED: Representatives from the AUA and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists independently reviewed the entire procedural code set and identified sex-specific procedures that had an analogous procedure in the opposite sex. These pairs were then evaluated and compared using current American Medical Association Relative Value Scale Update Committee methodology. Comparable code pair values were then examined to determine any systemic bias in the work relative value units assigned between the procedures. Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were used to determine any differences in procedure or physician time values. The methodology used considered global period, intraservice time, total time, hospital days, postoperative office visits, and the date of the committee review.
UNASSIGNED: Of the 10 directly analogous code pairs reviewed, 7 of the female procedures had higher work relative value unit differences (range 0.29-6.47), and 3 of the male procedures had higher work relative value unit differences (range 1.23-2.34). There was no statistical difference between the code pair work relative value units. The work relative value unit per minute of intraservice time and total time were not statistically different.
UNASSIGNED: In this study, we compared operative procedures performed in women with clinically comparable operative procedures performed in men that had similar surgical approaches, global periods, and valuation methodologies. Overall, no statistical differences in work relative value units were demonstrated.

OBJECTIVE: A lack of improvement in productivity in recent years may be the result of suboptimal measurement of productivity. Hospitals and clinics benefit from external benchmarks that allow assessment of clinical productivity. Work relative value units have long served as a common currency for this purpose. Productivity is determined by comparing work relative value units to full-time equivalents (FTEs), but FTEs do not have a universal or standardized definition, which could cause problems. We propose a new clinical labor input measure-\"clinic time\"-as a substitute for using the reported measure of FTEs.
METHODS: In this observational validation study, we used data from a cluster randomized trial to compare FTE with clinic time. We compared these two productivity measures graphically. For validation, we estimated two separate ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models. To validate and simultaneously adjust for endogeneity, we used instrumental variables (IV) regression with the proportion of days in a pay period that were federal holidays as an instrument. We used productivity data collected between 2018 and 2020 from Veterans Health Administration (VA) cardiology and orthopedics providers as part of a 2-year cluster randomized trial of medical scribes mandated by the VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks (MISSION) Act of 2018.
RESULTS: Our cohort included 654 unique providers. For both productivity variables, the values for patients per clinic day were consistently higher than those for patients per day per FTE. To validate these measures, we estimated separate OLS and IV regression models, predicting wait times from the two productivity measures. The slopes from the two productivity measures were positive and small in magnitude with OLS, but negative and large in magnitude with IV regression. The magnitude of the slope for patients per clinic day was much larger than the slope for patients per day per FTE. Current metrics that rely on FTE data may suffer from self-report bias and low reporting frequency. Using clinic time as an alternative is an effective way to mitigate these biases.
CONCLUSIONS: Measuring productivity accurately is essential because provider productivity plays an important role in facilitating clinic operations outcomes. Most importantly, tracking a more valid productivity metric is a concrete, cost-effective management tactic to improve the provision of care in the long term.

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: To propose a research method for identifying \"practicing interventional radiologists\" using 2 national claims data sets.
METHODS: The 2015-2019 100% Medicare Part B data and 2015-2019 private insurance claims from Optum\'s Clinformatics Data Mart (CDM) database were used to rank-order radiologists\' interventional radiology (IR)-related work as a percentage of total billed work relative value units (RVUs). Characteristics were analyzed at various threshold percentages. External validation used Medicare self-designated specialty with Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) membership records; Youden index evaluated sensitivity and specificity. Multivariate logistic regression assessed practicing IR characteristics.
RESULTS: In the Medicare data, above a 10% IR-related work threshold, only 23.8% of selected practicing interventional radiologists were designated as interventional radiologists; above 50% and 90% thresholds, this percentage increased to 42.0% and 47.5%, respectively. The mean percentage of IR-related work among practicing interventional radiologists was 45%, 84%, and 96% of total work RVUs for the 10%, 50%, and 90% thresholds, respectively. At these thresholds, the CDM practicing interventional radiologists included 21.2%, 35.2%, and 38.4% designated interventional radiologists, and evaluation and management services comprised relatively more total work RVUs. Practicing interventional radiologists were more likely to be males, metropolitan, and earlier in their careers than other radiologists at all thresholds.
CONCLUSIONS: Most radiologists performing IR-related work are designated in claims data as diagnostic radiologists, indicating insufficiency of specialty designation for IR identification. The proposed method to identify practicing interventional radiologists by percent IR-related work effort could improve generalizability and comparability across claims-based IR studies.

暂无摘要。