Federal Register: October 31, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 211)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 59047-59097] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [[Page 59047]] _______________________________________________________________________ Part III Department of Health and Human Services _______________________________________________________________________ Health Care Financing Administration _______________________________________________________________________ 42 CFR Part 400, et al. Medicare: Physician Fee Schedule for Calendar Year 1998; Payment Policies and Relative Value Unit Adjustments and Clinical Psychologist Fee Schedule; Final Rule Medicare: Physician Fee Schedule Conversion Factor for Calendar Year 1998; Sustainable Growth Rate for Fiscal Year 1998; Notice Medicare: Physician Fee Schedule for Calendar Year 1998; Payment Policies and Relative Value Unit Adjustments; Practice Expense Relative Value Units Adjustments; Proposed Rule [[Page 59048]] DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Care Financing Administration 42 CFR Parts 400, 405, 410, 411, and 414 [BPD-884-FC] RIN 0938-AH94 Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies and Adjustments to the Relative Value Units Under the Physician Fee Schedule, Other Part B Payment Policies, and Establishment of the Clinical Psychologist Fee Schedule for Calendar Year 1998 AGENCY: Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), HHS. ACTION: Final rule with comment period. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This final rule makes several policy changes affecting Medicare Part B payment. The changes relate to physician services, including geographic practice cost index changes, clinical psychologist services, physician supervision of diagnostic tests, establishment of independent diagnostic testing facilities, the methodology used to develop reasonable compensation equivalent limits, payment to participating and nonparticipating suppliers, global surgical services, caloric vestibular testing, and clinical consultations. This rule also implements provisions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 relating to practice expense relative value units, screening mammography, colorectal cancer screening, screening pelvic examinations, and EKG transportation. In addition, we are finalizing the 1997 interim work relative value units and are issuing interim work relative value units for new and revised codes for 1998. DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective January 1, 1998. This rule is a major rule as defined in Title 5, United States Code, section 804(2). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. section 801(a)(1)(A), we are submitting a report to the Congress on this rule on October 30, 1997. Comment Date: We will accept comments on interim RVUs for selected procedure codes identified in Addendum C. Comments will be considered if we receive them at the appropriate address, as provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on December 30, 1997. ADDRESSES: Mail written comments (1 original and 3 copies) to the following address: Health Care Financing Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: BPD-884-FC, P.O. Box 26688, Baltimore, MD 21207-0488. If you prefer, you may deliver your written comments (1 original and 3 copies) to one of the following addresses: Room 309-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201, or Room C5-09-26, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850. Because of staffing and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission. In commenting, please refer to file code BPD-884-FC. Comments received timely will be available for public inspection as they are received, beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of the document, in Room 309-G of the Department's offices at 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, on Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. (phone: (202) 690- 7890). Copies: To order copies of the Federal Register containing this document, send your request to: New Orders, Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. Specify stock number 069-001-00101 and enclose a check or money order payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or enclose your Visa or Master Card number and expiration date. Credit card orders can also be placed by calling the order desk at (202) 512-1800 or by faxing to (202) 512-2250. The cost for each copy is $8. As an alternative, you can view and photocopy the Federal Register document at most libraries designated as Federal Depository Libraries and at many other public and academic libraries throughout the country that receive the Federal Register. Copies of the source files for this document can also be purchased on high density 3.5 inch personal computer diskettes for $17. Send your request to: Superintendent of Documents, Attention: Electronic Products, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082. Enclose a check or money order payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or enclose your Visa or Master Card number and expiration date. Credit card orders for the diskettes can also be placed by calling (202) 512-1530 or by faxing to (202) 512-1262. The file formats on the diskettes are ASCII and WordPerfect 6.1. This Federal Register document is also available from the Federal Register online database through GPO Access, a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office. Free public access is available on a Wide Area Information Server (WAIS) through the Internet and via asynchronous dial-in. Internet users can access the database by using the World Wide Web; the Superintendent of Documents home page address is http://www.access.gpo.gov/su__docs/, by using local WAIS client software, or by telnet to swais.access.gpo.gov, then log in as guest (no password required). Dial-in users should use communications software and modem to call (202) 512-1661; type swais, then log in as guest (no password required). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For staff in the Center for Health Plans and Providers, Plan and Provider Purchasing Policy Group, Division of Practitioner and Ambulatory Care: Jim Menas, (410) 786-4507 (for issues related to practice expense relative value units). Regina Walker-Wren, (410) 786-9160 (for issues related to the clinical psychologist fee schedule). William Morse, (410) 786-4520 (for issues related to the supervision of diagnostic tests and independent diagnostic testing facilities). Ward Pleines, Center for Health Plans and Providers, Chronic Care Purchasing Policy Group, Division of Cost Reporting, (410) 786-4528, (for issues related to the reasonable compensation equivalent limit update factor). Anita Heygster, Center for Health Plans and Providers, Plan and Provider Purchasing Policy Group, Division of Integrated Delivery Systems, (410) 786-4486 (for issues related to participating and nonparticipating suppliers). Bill Larson, Office of Clinical Standards and Quality, Coverage and Analysis Group, (410) 786-4639 (for issues related to screening mammography, screening pelvic examinations, and screening colorectal cancer examinations). Stanley Weintraub, Center for Health Plans and Providers, Plan and Provider Purchasing Policy Group, Division of Practitioner and Ambulatory Care, (410) 786-4498 (for all other issues). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this final rule, we provide background on the statutory authority for and development of the physician fee schedule. We also explain in detail the process by which certain interim work relative value units (RVUs) are reviewed and, in some cases, revised. Section 1848(c)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act (the Act) provides that adjustments in RVUs resulting from an annual review of those RVUs may not [[Page 59049]] cause total physician fee schedule payments to differ by more than $20 million from what they would have been had the adjustments not been made. Thus, the statute allows a $20 million tolerance for increasing or reducing total expenditures under the physician fee schedule. We have determined that net increases because of changes to the physician fee schedule would have added to projected expenditures in calendar year 1998 by approximately $300 million. Therefore, we are making the budget neutrality adjustment required by changes in payment policy and Physicians' Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) through the conversion factor (CF). A CF is a national value that converts RVUs into payment amounts. Effective January 1, 1998, there will be one CF, as specified by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA 1997) (Public Law 105-33), enacted on August 5, 1997. (Anesthesia has a separate CF but is paid using a different formula.) The CF is updated annually. We have made the adjustment to achieve budget neutrality as we were best able to estimate. As a result, the total projected expenditures from the revised fee schedule are estimated to be the same as they would have been had we not changed the RVUs for any individual codes or added new codes to the fee schedule. Addenda to this rule provide the following information: Addendum A--Explanation and Use of Addenda B Through G. Addendum B--1998 Relative Value Units and Related Information Used in Determining Medicare Payments for 1998. Addendum C--Codes with Interim Relative Value Units. Addendum D--1999 Geographic Practice Cost Indices by Medicare Carrier and Locality. Addendum E--1998 Geographic Practice Cost Indices by Medicare Carrier and Locality. Addendum F--1999 Versus 1997 Geographic Adjustment Factor (GAF) by 1998 Fee Schedule Area. Addendum G--Counties Included in 1998 Localities (Alphabetically by State and Locality Name Within State). The RVUs and revisions to payment policies in this final rule apply to physicians' services furnished on or after January 1, 1998. To assist readers in referencing sections contained in this preamble, we are providing the following table of contents. Some of the issues discussed in this preamble affect the payment policies but do not require changes to the regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations. Information on the regulation's impact appears throughout the preamble and not exclusively in section VIII. Table of Contents I. Background A. Legislative History B. Published Changes to the Fee Schedule C. Components of the Fee Schedule Payment Amounts D. Summary of the Development of the Relative Value Units 1. Work Relative Value Units 2. Practice Expense and Malpractice Expense Relative Value Units II. Specific Proposals for Calendar Year 1998 A. Resource-Based Practice Expense Relative Value Units 1. Phased-In Implementation 2. Adjustment for Practice Expense Relative Value Units for 1998 3. Additional Provisions B. Geographic Practice Cost Index Changes 1. Work Geographic Practice Cost Indices 2. Practice Expense Geographic Practice Cost Indices a. Employee Wage Indices b. Rent Indices c. Medical Equipment, Supplies, and Miscellaneous Expenses 3. Malpractice Geographic Practice Cost Indices C. Fee Schedule for Clinical Psychologist Services 1. Background 2. Legislative Changes 3. Physician Payment Reform 4. Related Federal Register Document 5. Policy Pertaining to Clinical Psychologist Services 6. Rationale and Alternatives Considered D. Diagnostic Tests 1. Ordering of Diagnostic Tests 2. Supervision of Diagnostic Tests 3. Independent Diagnostic Testing Facility E. Reasonable Compensation Equivalent Limit Update Factor 1. Background 2. Change in the Methodology Used to Develop Reasonable Compensation Equivalent Limits F. Payment to Participating and Nonparticipating Suppliers G. Increase in Work Relative Value Units for Global Surgical Services to Account for the 1997 Increases for Work Relative Value Units in Evaluation and Management Services H. Caloric Vestibular Testing I. Clinical Consultations J. Actual Charges III. Implementation of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 A. Changes in Practice Expense Relative Value Units for 1998 B. Coverage of Screening Mammography and Related Payment Changes C. Colorectal Cancer Screening 1. Coverage Determination in Screening Barium Enemas 2. Provisions of the Final Rule 3. Frequency Limits and Conditions of Coverage 4. Payment Limits 5. Screening Colonoscopy in an Ambulatory Surgical Center D. Coverage of Screening Pelvic Examination (Including a Clinical Breast Examination) and Related Payment Changes E. Reinstatement of the Payment for Transportation of EKG Equipment F. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking for Provisions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 IV. Refinement of Relative Value Units for Calendar Year 1998 and Responses to Public Comments on Interim Relative Value Units for 1997 A. Summary of Issues Discussed Related to the Adjustment of Relative Value Units B. Process for Establishing Work Relative Value Units for the 1998 Fee Schedule 1. Work Relative Value Unit Refinements of Interim and Related Relative Value Units (Includes Table 1--Work Relative Value Unit Refinements of 1997 Interim and Related Relative Value Units) 2. Establishment of Interim Work Relative Value Units for New and Revised Physicians' Current Procedural Terminology Codes and New HCFA Common Procedure Coding System Codes for 1998 a. Methodology (Includes Table 2--American Medical Association Specialty Society Relative Value Update Committee and Health Care Professionals Advisory Committee Recommendations and HCFA's Decisions for New and Revised 1998 CPT Codes) b. Discussion of Codes for Which the RUC Recommendations Were Not Accepted C. Other Changes to the 1998 Physician Fee Schedule and Clarification of CPT Definitions V. Provisions of the Final Rule VI. Collection of Information Requirements VII. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking and Response to Comments VIII. Regulatory Impact Analysis A. Regulatory Flexibility Act B. Geographic Practice Cost Index Changes C. Fee Schedule for Clinical Psychologist Services D. Diagnostic Tests E. Reasonable Compensation Equivalent Limit Update Factor F. Payment to Participating and Nonparticipating Suppliers G. Increase in Work Relative Value Units for Global Surgical Services to Account for the 1997 Increases for Work Relative Value Units in Evaluation and Management Services H. Caloric Vestibular Testing I. Clinical Consultations J. Changes in Practice Expense Relative Value Units for 1998 K. Coverage of Screening Mammography and Related Payment Changes L. Colorectal Cancer Screening M. Coverage of Screening Pelvic Examination (Including a Clinical Breast Examination) and Related Payment Changes N. Reinstatement of the Payment for Transportation of EKG Equipment [[Page 59050]] O. Elimination of the Separate Budget-Neutrality Adjuster for the Work Relative Value Units P. Effect of Changes Resulting from Adjustments to the Relative Value Units Q. Net Impact of Relative Value Unit Changes on Medicare Specialties 1. Impact Estimation Methodology 2. Overall Fee Schedule Impact 3. Specialty Level Effect (Includes Table 3-- Impact on Medicare Payments by Specialty Due to Changes in Relative Value Units) R. Five-Year Impacts of Benefit Changes (Includes Table 4-- Projected Budget Impact of New Benefits) S. Rural Hospital Impact Statement Addendum A--Explanation and Use of Addenda B Through G. Addendum B--1998 Relative Value Units and Related Information Used in Determining Medicare Payments for 1998. Addendum C--Codes with Interim Relative Value Units. Addendum D--1999 Geographic Practice Cost Indices by Medicare Carrier and Locality. Addendum E--1998 Geographic Practice Cost Indices by Medicare Carrier and Locality. Addendum F--1999 Versus 1997 Geographic Adjustment Factor (GAF) by 1998 Fee Schedule Area. Addendum G--Counties Included in 1998 Localities (Alphabetically by State and Locality Name Within State). In addition, because of the many organizations and terms to which we refer by acronym in this final rule, we are listing these acronyms and their corresponding terms in alphabetical order below: AMA--American Medical Association. BBA--1997 Balanced Budget Act of 1997 CF--Conversion factor. CFR--Code of Federal Regulations. CPI--Consumer Price Index. CPI-U--Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. CPT--[Physicians'] Current Procedural Terminology [4th Edition, 1997, copyrighted by the American Medical Association]. CT--Computerized axial tomography. FDA--Food and Drug Administration. GAF--Geographic adjustment factor. GPCI--Geographic practice cost index. HCFA--Health Care Financing Administration. HCPCS--HCFA Common Procedure Coding System. HHS--[Department of] Health and Human Services. HUD--[Department of] Housing and Urban Development. IDTF--Independent Diagnostic Testing Facility. IPL--Independent Physiological Laboratory. MEI--Medicare Economic Index. MRI--Magnetic resonance imaging. OBRA--Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. PC--Professional component. RUC--[AMA's Specialty Society] Relative [Value] Update Committee. RVU--Relative value unit. TC--Technical component. I. Background A. Legislative History Since January 1, 1992, Medicare has paid for physician services under section 1848 of the Social Security Act (the Act), ``Payment for Physicians' Services.'' This section contains three major elements: (1) A fee schedule for the payment of physician services; (2) a method to control the rates of increase in Medicare expenditures for physicians' services; and (3) limits on the amounts that nonparticipating physicians can charge beneficiaries. The Act requires that payments under the fee schedule be based on national uniform relative value units (RVUs) based on the resources used in furnishing a service. Section 1848(c) of the Act requires that national RVUs be established for physician work, practice expense, and malpractice expense. Section 1848(c)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act provides that adjustments in RVUs because of changes resulting from a review of those RVUs may not cause total physician fee schedule payments to differ by more than $20 million from what they would have been had the adjustments not been made. As noted above, if this tolerance is exceeded, we must make an adjustment to the conversion factor (CF) to preserve budget neutrality. Section 1848(e)(1)(C) of the Act requires us to review and, if necessary, adjust the geographic practice cost indices (GPCIs) at least every 3 years. This section also requires us to phase in the adjustment over 2 years and implement only one-half of any adjustment if more than 1 year has elapsed since the last GPCI revision. The GPCIs were first implemented in 1992 and were reviewed and revised in 1995. Thus, we are required to complete the second GPCI review and implement only one-half of any adjustment by 1998 and one-half in 1999. The Act requires that payments vary among fee schedule areas according to geographic indices. In general, the fee schedule areas that existed under the prior reasonable charge system were retained under the fee schedule. A detailed discussion of fee schedule areas can be found in the June 5, 1991 proposed rule (56 FR 25832) and in the November 25, 1991 final rule (56 FR 59514). We are required by section 1848(e)(1)(A) of the Act to develop separate indices to measure relative cost differences among fee schedule areas compared to the national average for each of the three fee schedule components. While requiring that the practice expense GPCIs and malpractice GPCIs reflect the full relative cost differences, the Act requires that the work indices reflect only one-quarter of the relative cost differences compared to the national average. B. Published Changes to the Fee Schedule In the June 18, 1997 proposed rule (62 FR 33159), we listed all of the final rules published through November 22, 1996 relating to the updates to the RVUs and revisions to payment policies under the physician fee schedule. In the June 1997 proposed rule (62 FR 33158), we discussed several policy options affecting Medicare payment for physicians' services including resource-based practice expense RVUs, geographic practice cost index changes, clinical psychologist services, supervision of diagnostic tests, establishment of independent diagnostic testing facilities, the methodology used to develop reasonable compensation equivalent limits, payment to participating and nonparticipating suppliers, global surgical services, caloric vestibular testing, clinical consultations, and payments based on actual charges. This final rule affects the regulations set forth at part 400, which consists of an introduction and definitions; part 405, which consists of regulations on Federal health insurance for the aged and disabled; part 410, which consists of regulations pertaining to supplementary medical insurance benefits (Part B); part 411, which consists of regulations pertaining to exclusions from Medicare and limitations on Medicare payment; and part 414, which consists of regulations pertaining to the payment for Part B medical and other health services. It also discusses changes to work RVUs affecting payment of physician services. The information in this final rule updates information in the June 18, 1997 proposed rule (62 FR 33158). C. Components of the Fee Schedule Payment Amounts Under the formula set forth in section 1848(b)(1) of the Act, the payment amount for each service paid for under the physician fee schedule is the product of three factors: (1) A nationally uniform relative value for the service; (2) a geographic adjustment factor (GAF) for each physician fee schedule area; and (3) a nationally uniform CF for the service. The CF converts the relative values into payment amounts. For each physician fee schedule service, there are three relative values: (1) An RVU for physician work; (2) an RVU for practice expense; and (3) an RVU for malpractice expense. For each [[Page 59051]] of these components of the fee schedule there is a GPCI for each fee schedule area. The GPCIs reflect the relative costs of practice expenses, malpractice insurance, and physician work in an area compared to the national average for each component. The general formula for calculating the Medicare fee schedule amount for a given service in a given fee schedule area can be expressed as: Payment=[(RVUwork x work adjuster x GPCIwork )+(RVUpractice expense x GPCIpractice expense)+ (RVUmalpractice x GPCImalpractice) x CF] The CF for calendar year 1998 appears in Addendum A. The RVUs for calendar year 1998 are in Addendum B. The GPCIs for calendar year 1998 are in Addendum E. Section 1848(e) of the Act requires the Secretary to develop GAFs for all physician fee schedule areas. The total GAF for a fee schedule area is equal to a weighted average of the individual GPCIs for each of the three components of the service. Thus, the GPCIs reflect the relative costs of practice expenses, malpractice insurance, and physician work in an area compared to the national average. In accordance with the law, however, the GAF for the physician's work reflects one-quarter of the relative cost of physician's work compared to the national average. D. Summary of the Development of the Relative Value Units 1. Work Relative Value Units Approximately 7,500 codes represent services included in the physician fee schedule. The work RVUs established for the implementation of the fee schedule in January 1992 were developed with extensive input from the physician community. The original work RVUs for most codes were developed by a research team at the Harvard School of Public Health in a cooperative agreement with us. In constructing the vignettes for the original RVUs, Harvard worked with panels of expert physicians and obtained input from physicians from numerous specialties. The RVUs for radiology services are based on the American College of Radiology relative value scale, which we integrated into the overall physician fee schedule. The RVUs for anesthesia services are based on RVUs from a uniform relative value guide. We established a separate CF for anesthesia services while we continue to recognize time as a factor in determining payment for these services. As a result, there is a separate payment system for anesthesia services. Proposed RVUs for services were published in a proposed rule in the Federal Register on June 5, 1991 (56 FR 25792). We responded to the comments in the November 25, 1991 final rule. Since many of the RVUs were published for the first time in the final rule, we considered the RVUs to be interim during the first year of the fee schedule and gave the public 120 days to comment on all work RVUs. In response to the final rule, we received comments on approximately 1,000 services. We responded to those comments and listed the new RVUs in the November 25, 1992 notice for the 1993 fee schedule for physicians' services. We considered these RVUs to be final and did not request comments on them. The November 25, 1992 notice (57 FR 55914) also discussed the process used to establish work RVUs for codes that were new or revised in 1993. The RVUs for these codes, which were listed in Addendum C of the November 25, 1992 notice, were considered interim in 1993 and open to comment through January 26, 1993. We responded to comments received on RVUs listed in Addendum C of the November 25, 1992 notice (57 FR 56152) in the December 2, 1993 final rule (58 FR 63647) for the 1994 physician fee schedule. The December 2, 1993 final rule discussed the process used to establish RVUs for codes that were new or revised for 1994. The RVUs for these codes, which are listed in Addendum C of the December 2, 1993 final rule (58 FR 63842), were considered interim in 1994 and open to comment through January 31, 1994. We proposed RVUs for some non-Medicare and carrier-priced codes in our June 24, 1994 proposed rule (59 FR 32760). Codes listed in Table 1 of the June 1994 proposed rule were open to comment. These comments, in addition to comments on RVUs published as interim in the December 2, 1993 final rule were addressed in the December 8, 1994 final rule (59 FR 63432). In addition, the December 8, 1994 final rule discussed the process used to establish RVUs for codes that were new or revised for 1995. Interim RVUs for new or revised procedure codes were open to comment. Comments were also accepted on all RVUs considered under the 5-year refinement process. The December 8, 1995 final rule (60 FR 63124) addressed comments on RVUs published as interim in the December 8, 1994 final rule. In addition, the December 8, 1995 final rule discussed the process used to establish RVUs for codes that were new or revised for 1996. The November 22, 1996 final rule (61 FR 59490) addressed all comments received in response to our May 3, 1996 proposed notice (61 FR 19992) on the 5-year review of work RVUs, finalized the 1996 interim work RVUs, and issued interim RVUs for new and revised procedure codes for 1997. 2. Practice Expense and Malpractice Expense Relative Value Units Section 1848(c)(2)(C) of the Act required that the practice expense and malpractice expense RVUs equal the product of the base allowed charges and the practice expense and malpractice percentages for the service. Base allowed charges are defined as the national average allowed charges for the service furnished during 1991, as estimated using the most recent data available. For most services, we used 1989 charge data ``aged'' to reflect the 1991 payment rules, since those were the most recent data available for the 1992 fee schedule. Section 121 of the Social Security Act Amendments of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-432), enacted on October 31, 1994, and amended by the BBA 1997, requires us to develop a methodology for a resource-based system for determining practice expense RVUs for each physician service. In developing the methodology, we considered the staff, equipment, and supplies used in providing medical and surgical services in various settings. The legislation required the new payment methodology to be phased in over 4 years, effective for services furnished in 1999. II. Specific Proposals for Calendar Year 1998 In response to the publication of the June 1997 proposed rule, we received approximately 8,600 comments. We received comments from individual physicians, health care workers, and professional associations and societies. The majority of the comments addressed the proposals related to resource-based practice expense RVUs, supervision of diagnostic tests, and payments based on actual charges. The proposed rule discussed policies that affect the number of RVUs on which payment for certain services would be based. Certain changes implemented through this final rule are subject to the $20 million limitation on annual adjustments contained in section 1848(c)(2)(B) of the Act. After reviewing the comments and determining the policies we will implement, we have estimated the costs and savings of these policies and added those costs and savings to the estimated costs associated with any other changes in RVUs for 1998. We discuss in detail the effects of these changes in the [[Page 59052]] Regulatory Impact Analysis (section VIII). For the convenience of the reader, the headings for the policy issues in section II correspond to the headings used in the June 1997 proposed rule (62 FR 33158). More detailed background information for each issue can be found in the June 1997 proposed rule. A. Resource-Based Practice Expense Relative Value Units Section 121 of the Social Security Act Amendments of 1994 (Public Law 103-432), enacted on October 31, 1994, requires us to develop a methodology for a resource-based system for determining practice expense RVUs for each physician service. The June 1997 proposed rule (62 FR 33160), contained the proposed resource-based practice expense RVUs. We received a substantial number of comments on our proposal, both favorable and unfavorable. Before the close of the comment period on August 18, 1997, the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33) was enacted on August 5, 1997. The BBA 1997 delayed implementation of the resource- based practice expense system until 1999. The BBA 1997 contained additional requirements. 1. Phased-in Implementation Instead of paying for all services entirely under a resource-based practice expense system in 1999, the system will be implemented over a 4-year period. The practice expense RVUs for 1999 will be based on the product of 75 percent of the previous year's practice expense RVUs (1998) and 25 percent of the resource-based practice expense RVUs. For the year 2000, the percentages will be 50 percent of the charge-based practice expense RVUs and 50 percent of the resource-based practice expense RVUs. For 2001, the percentages will be 25 percent of the charge-based practice expense RVUs and 75 percent of the resource-based practice expense RVUs. For subsequent years, the RVUs will be based totally on resource-based practice expense RVUs. 2. Adjustment for Practice Expense Relative Value Units for 1998 Section 4505 of the BBA 1997 specifies the manner in which practice expense RVUs in 1998 are adjusted. Section 4505 of the BBA 1997 enacted a provision that would in 1998 redistribute practice expense RVUs in the direction of the resource- based RVUs that are to be implemented in 1999. The 1998 practice expense RVUs for certain services are reduced to 110 percent of their work RVUs for the service, and the monies are used to raise the practice expense RVUs for office visit procedures. (Section 4505 of the BBA 1997 also gives us the authority to adjust this percentage if the aggregate amount of reductions exceeds $390 million. Since the application of the 110 percent results in reductions of approximately $330 million, no further adjustment is necessary.) A detailed discussion of this provisions is discussed in section III, ``Implementation of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.'' 3. Additional Provisions Several additional provisions relating to the development of resource-based practice expense RVUs will be published in the Federal Register in the spring of 1998. These provisions will be discussed in a notice of intent to regulate that is being published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. We are not adopting the resource-based practice expense system proposal published in the June 1997 proposed rule. However, we will publish a new proposed rule in the spring of 1998 with a new set of resource-based practice expense RVUs. B. Geographic Practice Cost Index Changes The Act requires that payments vary among fee schedule areas to the extent that resource costs vary as measured by the GPCIs. As stated earlier, section 1848(e)(1)(C) of the Act requires us to review and, if necessary, adjust the GPCIs at least every 3 years. This section of the Act also requires us to phase in the adjustment over 2 years and implement only one-half of any adjustment in the first year if more than 1 year has elapsed since the last GPCI revision. The GPCIs were first implemented in 1992, and the first review and revision was implemented in 1995. (A detailed discussion of the development of the GPCIs and references to obtaining studies on the development of the GPCIs can be found in the June 1997 proposed rule (62 FR 33172.) The 1998 through 2000 GPCIs represent the second GPCI update. The 1999 GPCIs (Addendum D) are the fully revised GPCIs. The 1998 GPCIs (Addendum E) represent the one-half transition GPCIs. Addendum F shows the estimated effects on area payments of the fully revised 1999 GPCIs. The payment effects in 1998 will be about one-half of these amounts. The same data sources and methodology used for the 1995 through 1997 GPCIs were used for the 1998 through 2000 GPCIs with a few very minor modifications. No acceptable additional data sources were found. 1. Work Geographic Practice Cost Indices The work GPCIs are based on the decennial census. The 1992 through 1994 work GPCIs were based on 1980 census data, because 1990 census data were not yet available. The work GPCIs were revised in 1995 with new data from the 1990 census. New census data will not be available again until after the 2000 census. We searched for other data that would enable us to update the work GPCIs between the decennial census. No acceptable data sources were found. Therefore, we are making no changes in the work GPCIs, other than the generally negligible changes resulting from using 1994, rather than 1992, RVUs in mapping counties to localities for this GPCI update. We believe it is preferable to make no changes rather than making inaccurate changes based on unacceptable data. We believe that this is a particularly reasonable position given the generally small magnitude of the changes in payments resulting from the changes in the work GPCIs from the 1980 to the 1990 census data. 2. Practice Expense Geographic Practice Cost Indices a. Employee Wage Indices. As with the work GPCIs, the employee wage portion of the practice expense GPCIs is based on decennial census data. Like the work GPCIs, the employee wage indices are not being changed during this GPCI update. b. Rent Indices. The office rental indices are again based on HUD residential rent data. The revised rental indices are based on 1996 HUD data as opposed to 1994 HUD data used in the 1995 through 1997 GPCIs. c. Medical Equipment, Supplies, and Miscellaneous Expenses. As with the 1992 through 1994 and 1995 through 1997 GPCIs, this component was given a national value of 1.000, indicating no measurable difference among areas in costs. (For previously published Federal Register documents that discuss these issues, see section I.B. of this final rule, ``Published Changes to the Fee Schedule.'') 3. Malpractice Geographic Practice Cost Indices Again, malpractice premium data were collected for a mature ``claims made'' policy with $1 million to $3 million limits of coverage, with adjustments made for mandatory patient compensation funds. The proposed malpractice indices were based on 1992 [[Page 59053]] through 1994 premium data, the latest years available when this study was being conducted in 1995 through 1996, compared to the 1990 through 1992 data used in the current 1995 through 1997 indices. Fee schedule areas are described by carrier and locality number with a short geographic description such as ``Atlanta.'' We received numerous inquiries about the geographic areas that comprise our fee schedule areas. Addendum G lists alphabetically by State and fee schedule area the counties included in each fee schedule area. Comment: The majority of commenters expressed concern about the continued use of proxy data, especially the HUD residential rent data, rather than commercial rent data, in the GPCIs. They suggested we collect actual data on physician earnings and expenses. Response: In both the 1995 and this GPCI revision we conducted an extensive search for alternative data sources as well as for more recent data. The search led us to conclude that the current GPCI proxies are still the best available data to measure practice cost differences among areas. As stated in all previous proposed and final rules on the GPCIs, the actual earnings of physicians were not used to adjust geographical differences in fees because these fees are, in large part, the determinants of the earnings. That is, the use of actual physician earnings would be ``circular.'' As also discussed in all previous proposed and final rules on the GPCIs, no acceptable sources of commercial rent data were found. We believe the current GPCI data sources are an accurate reflection of area practice cost differences. We believe physician earnings will vary among areas as do the earnings of other highly educated professionals, and commercial rents will vary among areas as do residential rents. The employee wage portion of the GPCIs is based on census data on the actual earnings of the type of employees found in physicians' offices. The malpractice index is based on actual malpractice premiums. The current GPCI data sources reflect costs across the country and are updated on a regular basis. Any data collection of actual physician costs of sufficient breadth to cover all counties and be updated on a regular basis would be massive and extremely costly. We are unconvinced that such an effort would produce a result so significantly at variance with the present GPCIs as to justify the resources required to collect the data. Comment: Commenters stated that there should be no geographic payment differences under the physician fee schedule. They believe that in a national program with the same Medicare Part B premium everywhere, that equivalent services should have equivalent payment regardless of geographic area. Response: Section 1848(e)(1)(A) of the Act requires that payments vary among areas as resource costs vary as reflected by the GPCIs. Comment: One commenter stated that the GPCIs did not accurately reflect area cost differences because uniform GPCI component cost share weights were used. The commenter stated that use of the same cost shares everywhere fails to recognize that component weights might vary among areas, specialties, and services depending upon factors such as case mix, availability of other health care resources, and individual practice styles. Response: We agree that different specialties and individual practitioners utilize resources differently and may have expenses in different proportions from the component weights used in the GPCIs as discussed in the June 1997 proposed rule at 62 FR 33172. The physician fee schedule was established in 1992 specifically to eliminate the large unjustifiable payment differences that existed among services, specialties, and geographic areas by establishing a uniform national payment system. Payments under the physician fee schedule are based on uniform national RVUs for a service and a national dollar conversion factor and can vary only as area resource costs vary as demonstrated by the GPCIs. The law prohibits any specialty payment differential. The RVUs for a service represent the typical service. The GPCI component weights represent the average practice expense component weights across all physician specialties and are intended to reflect average costs across all services and specialties in an area and not to reflect exactly the costs of each individual practitioner. Thus, physician fee schedule payments are designed by law to reflect the resources involved with provision of the typical service across all specialties and physicians in an area. It would not be in keeping with the intent of the law nor would it be practical or desirable in a national program to attempt to recognize individual practice patterns. Comment: One commenter stated that contrary to the GPCIs, which show that costs tend to be higher in urban areas, rural physicians may actually have higher costs than urban or suburban physicians. The commenter attributed this to such factors as higher shipping costs, higher equipment maintenance costs, higher continuing education costs, and less efficient use of medical equipment. Response: While we have heard this argument since the inception of the physician fee schedule, we have no data demonstrating that physicians in rural areas have higher costs of practice than physicians in urban or suburban areas. Physician work, rents, employee wages, and malpractice insurance represent about 86 percent of physician costs as reflected in the GPCIs. Our data show that wages, both physician wages as reflected by wages of other highly educated professionals and the wages of medical and clerical personnel in physicians' offices, and rents are higher in urban and suburban areas than in rural areas. While malpractice premiums are the same statewide in many States, in those States where premiums do vary geographically they are higher in urban areas. The types of expenses mentioned as higher in rural areas, continuing education, higher shipping costs, higher equipment maintenance costs, and less efficient use of equipment, represent only a very small portion of physician practice costs. Comment: One commenter recommended that changes in malpractice GPCIs reflect actual changes in costs from year to year. Response: We interpret this comment to mean that the malpractice GPCIs should reflect actual changes in malpractice premiums from the prior year. That is, the 1998 malpractice GPCIs should reflect actual changes in malpractice premiums from 1997 to 1998, and the malpractice GPCIs should be changed each year to reflect annual premium changes. The law requires that we review and revise the GPCIs at least every 3 years. This revision involves substantial data collection and analysis and must be published in a proposed rule. For example, the last GPCI revision was in 1995, meaning that the next revision is required in 1998. This requires publication of the proposed changes in the Federal Register in early 1997 to allow for public comment. To meet this timeframe, data collection begins in 1995 to allow time for data analysis and drafting of the proposed rule. Therefore, given the time frame for the process to utilize updated data, this is the most current data that could be used. Thus, the revised malpractice GPCIs are based on 1992 through 1994 malpractice premium data, the most recent data available at the time the revision process was begun in 1995. As discussed in the proposed rule, we use a 3-year average rather than the most recent single year of malpractice data to smooth the annual volatility of [[Page 59054]] malpractice premiums and present a more accurate indication of malpractice premium trends over time. We do not plan to revise the GPCIs more frequently than every 3 years as required by law. Result of evaluation of comments: The GPCIs proposed on June 18, 1997 will be effective beginning in 1998. C. Fee Schedule for Clinical Psychologist Services 1. Background Until 1997, the fee schedule for clinical psychologist services was a locality-based fee schedule developed by the individual Medicare carriers. The Medicare carriers established the locality-based fee schedule in 1988 after section 4077(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (OBRA 1987) (Public Law 100-203), enacted on December 22, 1987, first provided for direct payment for clinical psychologist services furnished in a community mental health center. Section 4077(b)(3)(D) of OBRA 1987 amended section 1833(a)(1) of the Act by providing that payment for clinical psychologist services be based at 80 percent of the lower of the actual charge or a fee schedule. The Act provides that the Secretary determine the fee schedule. As a result, we furnished guidance to all Medicare Part B carriers to establish the initial, that is, baseline, clinical psychologist fee schedule as follows: Set the fee schedule for therapeutic services at 80 percent of the adjusted prevailing charge for participating psychiatrists in a locality; and Set the fee schedule for diagnostic services at 90 percent of the adjusted prevailing charge for participating psychologists in a locality. We also advised the Medicare Part B carriers to update the clinical psychologist fee schedule in subsequent years by the annual change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). We adopted the CPI-U to update the clinical psychologist fee schedule because it was the economic index used for updating most other nonphysician practitioner charges at that time. Since that time, there have been two significant changes to the fee schedule for clinical psychologist services. First, effective January 1, 1992, we implemented the policy to base payment for psychological testing services furnished by clinical psychologists on the amounts in the physician fee schedule. Second, effective January 1, 1997, we linked the fee schedule for clinical psychologist services to the physician fee schedule in the same manner as for most other health care practitioner services. We describe these changes in more detail in the sections that follow. 2. Legislative Changes Although section 4077(b) of OBRA 1987 provided for clinical psychologist services as separately payable under Medicare Part B under a fee schedule, direct payment was limited to services furnished in community mental health centers. Subsequent amendments to the law expanded the scope of the benefit. These amendments were discussed in a related Federal Register document described in section II.C.4. below. 3. Physician Payment Reform As noted in section I.A., since January 1, 1992, Medicare Part B has paid for physician services based on a fee schedule. Until 1992, physician services had been paid on the basis of a reasonable charge system. This system led to significant payment variations among types of services, physician specialties, and localities. Section 6102 of OBRA 1989 added a new section 1848 to the Act, ``Payment for Physicians'' Services,'' which replaced the reasonable charge system with a fee schedule that reflected the resources required to perform a given service. Although this legislation linked the payment methodology for most practitioner services to the physician fee schedule, it did not address payment for clinical psychologist services. Nevertheless, because amounts established under the physician fee schedule for psychological testing were heavily based on combined charge data for psychiatrists and psychologists, we wished to ensure that clinical psychologists would receive 100 percent of the physician fee schedule amount for those services. Therefore, effective January 1, 1992, fee schedule amounts for psychological testing services furnished by clinical psychologists are set at 100 percent of the physician fee schedule. However, before 1997, no change was made to the clinical psychologist fee schedule for therapeutic and other diagnostic services. 4. Related Federal Register Document We discussed several aspects of payment for clinical psychologist services in a proposed rule published in the Federal Register on December 29, 1993 (Medicare Coverage and Payment for Clinical Psychologist, Other Psychologist, and Clinical Social Worker Services (BPD-706-P)) (58 FR 68829). That document addressed issues such as coinsurance, the outpatient mental health treatment limitation in section 1833(c) of the Act, and assignment of claims. In the December 1993 proposed rule, we indicated that we would address the calculation of the clinical psychologist fee schedule amounts set forth under section 1833(a)(1)(L) of the Act in a separate proposed rule (58 FR 68837). Below, we discuss establishing the fee schedule for clinical psychologist services as referred to in the December 1993 proposed rule. 5. Policy Pertaining to Clinical Psychologist Services There are two types of services billed directly to Medicare Part B by clinical psychologists: diagnostic services and therapeutic services. Medicare direct payment for services furnished by clinical psychologists became effective July 1, 1988. From 1988 through 1996, Medicare Part B payment to clinical psychologists for therapeutic services was subject to a locality-based fee schedule calculated by each Medicare carrier. In 1988, the Medicare carriers developed the clinical psychologist fee schedule on the basis of a HCFA analysis of charging practices of psychologists and psychiatrists. Because no Medicare charge data for therapeutic services furnished by clinical psychologists existed at that time, we compared psychologist and psychiatrist charges from other payor sources as a gap-filling measure for Medicare pricing purposes. The resulting clinical psychologist fee schedule amounts for therapeutic services, as shown in section II.C.1. above, were set at 80 percent of the adjusted prevailing charge for similar services of Medicare-participating psychiatrists in the locality. (The ``adjusted prevailing charge'' for physicians means the locality prevailing charge that is calculated by applying the Medicare Economic Index (MEI) to the base year prevailing charge. In this way, Medicare reasonable charges for physician services are increased above the base year rates only to the extent determined to be justified by appropriate economic data.) Initially, the fee schedule amounts for diagnostic services furnished by clinical psychologists were set at 90 percent of the Medicare prevailing charge for independently practicing psychologists in a locality. In contrast to therapeutic services, Medicare charge data had existed for diagnostic testing because psychological testing furnished by independent psychologists under a physician's order had been covered as ``other diagnostic tests'' under section 1861(s)(3) of the Act. [[Page 59055]] The amounts established under the physician fee schedule for diagnostic psychological testing were largely based on blended charge data for both psychologists and physicians. Furthermore, because psychologists are the predominant suppliers of psychological testing services, the physician fee schedule amounts for those services were based in large part on psychologist charge data. In the November 25, 1991 final rule that established the physician fee schedule, we stated (56 FR 59507) that diagnostic tests furnished by clinical psychologists would be paid under the physician fee schedule. Since January 1, 1992, amounts for diagnostic psychological testing services furnished by psychologists are equivalent to the amounts established under the physician fee schedule authorized by section 1848 of the Act. (Diagnostic psychological testing services are listed in the Physicians' Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) '97 as CPT codes 96100 through 96117.) A variety of health care practitioners under Medicare have payment levels that are tied, by law, to the physician fee schedule. These practitioners include nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, and physician assistants. We believe that it is also appropriate to establish a clinical psychologist fee schedule that is linked to the physician fee schedule. The implementation of 24 new billing codes for psychotherapy services effective January 1, 1997 required us to establish relative values under the physician fee schedule for each code. We established the clinical psychologist fee schedule value for all services at 100 percent of the physician fee schedule amount for the corresponding service. Consequently, this rule sets forth the fee schedule for covered clinical psychologist services at 100 percent of the physician fee schedule amount for the corresponding service. The rationale for this payment level appears in section II.C.6. below. Although this payment policy was implemented January 1, 1997, we are including it in this final rule in order to codify in regulations the methodology for the clinical psychologist fee schedule. 6. Rationale and Alternatives Considered As noted in section II.C.1., we recommended in 1988 that Medicare carriers set clinical psychologist fee schedule amounts for therapeutic services at 80 percent of the MEI-adjusted prevailing charge for psychiatrists. That level had been primarily based on the fee differential found in a review of psychologist and psychiatrist fees from 1985 through 1988. Effective January 1, 1992, physicians' services are paid under a resource-based fee schedule rather than a reasonable charge methodology. The physician fee schedule establishes payment amounts for all physician services as defined in section 1848(j)(3) of the Act. One effect of the physician fee schedule is that payment for physician services is now standardized. We believe that the clinical psychologist fee schedule amounts for therapeutic services should be tied to the physician fee schedule. As noted earlier, effective for services furnished on or after January 1, 1992, payment for diagnostic psychological tests furnished by clinical psychologists is based on the physician fee schedule. The clinical psychologist fee schedule for therapeutic services, which was in use until January 1, 1997, was not resource-based but was derived from the initial linkage between psychologist and psychiatrist prevailing charges. However, with the implementation of the physician fee schedule, prevailing charges no longer apply for physician services. Furthermore, because the prevailing charge was based on actual charging patterns, it frequently resulted in large differences in charges from one area to another. With implementation of the physician fee schedule, the GAF used to adjust the RVUs for physician services has changed the geographic distribution of fees. The purpose of the GAF is to recognize only justifiable differences in the cost of operating a medical practice in different areas. Finally, once the clinical psychologist fee schedule is linked directly to the physician fee schedule, the annual physician update factor used to update fees for clinical psychologist services will be the same as the index used to update fees for physicians and other health care practitioners. The following table illustrates that, for the years between 1989 through 1991 (during which the prevailing charge system applied), the CPI-U update factor exceeded the congressionally imposed limits on the MEI that was used to adjust Medicare prevailing charges for nonprimary care physician services: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1989 1990 1991 Annual increase (percent) (percent) (percent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CPI-U.................................. 4.0 5.2 4.7 MEI (for other than primary care)...... 1.0 2.0 0.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Using a hypothetical prevailing charge of $100 for psychiatrists in 1988, we illustrate the relationship of the clinical psychologist fee schedule to psychiatrist prevailing charges in 1991 in the following table: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1989 1990 1991 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Psychiatrists (1988 prevailing charge = $100): MEI update factor............ 1.01 1.02 1.00 Updated prevailing charge.... $101.01 $103.02 $103.02 Clinical Psychologists (1988 fee = $80): CPI-U update factor.......... 1.04 1.052 1.047 Updated fee.................. $83.20 $87.53 $91.64 Psychologist/Psychiatrist (1988 = 80%)............................ 82.4% 85.0% 89.0% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ By 1991, the combined effect of using the CPI-U to update the clinical psychologist fee schedule and the MEI to update psychiatrist prevailing charges resulted in a clinical psychologist fee schedule that was equivalent to 89 percent of the psychiatrist prevailing charge. Additionally, implementation of the physician fee schedule resulted in slight payment decreases for psychiatrist services in 1992. In 1993 and 1994, moreover, the physician fee schedule amounts for nonsurgical services other than primary care services were increased by 0.8 percent and 5.3 percent, respectively. By comparison, during the first 3 years that the physician fee schedule was in effect, clinical psychologist fee schedule amounts increased by 4.7 percent, 3.1 percent, and 3.0 percent, respectively, for 1992, 1993, and 1994, because clinical psychologist fee schedule amounts were adjusted by a different economic index, the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Consequently, through 1994, clinical psychologist fee schedule increases outpaced those for physicians furnishing nonsurgical services other than primary care as well as those for [[Page 59056]] other nonphysician practitioners whose payments are tied to the physician fee schedule. The combined effect of all these factors is that the clinical psychologist fee schedule no longer reflected the original fee differentials between psychologists and psychiatrists that had been found in the health care marketplace and factored into the initial clinical psychologist fee schedule. As a result, the clinical psychologist fee schedule was marked by disparities with the physician fee schedule for similar services as well as by wide geographic variations that reflected historical charging patterns in different areas. We had previously considered setting the clinical psychologist fee schedule at the level established under the physician fee schedule for similar services. However, at that time, the CPT descriptors for individual psychotherapy services (CPT codes 90841 through 90844) included the term ``* * * [with] continuing medical diagnostic evaluation, and drug management, when indicated.'' These are medical aspects of a psychotherapeutic service that are outside the scope of clinical psychologist licensure. Therefore, we were concerned that it would be inappropriate to set the clinical psychologist fee schedule amounts at the same level as the physician fee schedule when clinical psychologists were unable to perform the full service described in the codes. During 1996, as part of the statutorily mandated 5-year refinement of the RVUs for the physician fee schedule, the American Medical Association's (AMA's) Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) recommended increases for a number of psychotherapy codes. (The RUC, which is comprised of representatives of various medical specialty societies, the AMA, the American Osteopathic Association, and the CPT Editorial Panel, makes recommendations to us concerning the assignment of RVUs to new and revised CPT codes.) As a prelude to accepting the RUC recommendations, we examined the coding of psychiatry services. We concluded that the CPT code descriptors for individual psychotherapy needed to be changed to define the service more clearly, recognize the variations in work associated with different types of psychotherapy as well as the settings in which the types of psychotherapy are furnished, and assign face-to-face time values for the service. As a result, effective January 1, 1997, CPT codes 90842, 90843, 90844, and 90855 for individual psychotherapy are no longer recognized for Medicare purposes. These codes have been replaced by 24 alphanumeric codes that include 12 codes for therapy furnished in the office and other outpatient settings and 12 codes for therapy furnished in inpatient hospital, partial hospital, or residential care settings. These two categories were further broken down into the types of psychotherapy services. A full listing and discussion of these codes was included in the final rule (Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies and Five-Year Review of and Adjustments to the Relative Value Units Under the Physician Fee Schedule for Calendar Year 1997 (BPD-852-FC)), published November 22, 1996. (See 61 FR 59521 through 59523.) One of the effects of the coding system changes for psychiatric services is that now there are codes for reporting psychotherapy both with and without medical evaluation and management services. Under Medicare, clinical psychologists may bill for individual psychotherapy without medical evaluation and management services. Consequently, when clinical psychologists bill for individual psychotherapy without medical evaluation and management, those services are equivalent to individual psychotherapy without medical evaluation and management services when furnished by a physician. As a result, we believe that it is both reasonable and equitable to pay clinical psychologists the same amount as physicians for equivalent services. Alternatively, we considered retaining the previous clinical psychologist fee schedule for therapeutic services. We also considered setting the clinical psychologist fee schedule at a level other than 100 percent of the physician fee schedule. However, we rejected these options because the resulting fee schedule amounts would have essentially continued to be derived from physician prevailing charges, which are no longer relevant under the physician fee schedule and would only serve to perpetuate geographic variations in charges that are a residual effect of the reasonable charge payment system. We received a few comments on the clinical psychologist fee schedule from five separate major professional associations and federations at the national and State level. Comment: One commenter urged us to develop an equitable payment methodology for clinical social workers that takes into account the practitioner's investment in education and training, office expenses, and malpractice costs instead of a methodology that is based on a percentage of what is paid to another nonphysician provider. The commenter noted that payment for clinical social worker services seems to be the only instance under the Medicare statute when one G48 nonphysician's payment rate is tied to that of another nonphysician provider. Response: The Medicare statute requires that payment be made to clinical social workers at 80 percent of the lesser of the actual charge for the services or 75 percent of the amount determined for payment for clinical psychologist services. Under the circumstances, it would be inappropriate to develop an alternative payment amount for clinical social worker services. Comment: Several commenters stated that they are pleased that we have addressed the problem of the clinical psychologist fee schedule and the inequitable situation that in some areas of the country fees for psychology services were higher than the fees for the same services provided by a psychiatrist. Accordingly, these commenters are supportive of our requirement that psychologists may bill only for psychotherapy without medical evaluation and management. However, two of the commenters suggested that we consider our policy of a fee schedule for psychologists' services set at 100 percent of the physician fee schedule amount to be an interim policy, pending completion of ongoing survey work and the RUC's deliberations. Completion of the RUC's review of the work involved in the new codes will help inform decision makers about whether the coding changes and RVUs have adequately captured the resource cost differences between psychotherapy provided by psychiatrists and that provided by psychologists. Additionally, one of these commenters stated that it is illogical to permit psychologists to be paid at 100 percent of the physician fee schedule for comparable services using the same malpractice expense RVUs assigned to physician codes. Malpractice insurance premiums for psychologists are as low as 10 percent of the premiums charged to leading psychiatrists. Even when psychiatrists provide psychotherapy without evaluation and management, their professional standard of care exceeds the standard of care applicable to psychologists. Psychologists do not have the same responsibility as psychiatrists in terms of being accountable for failure to furnish medications or recognize a non- psychiatric medical condition when providing psychotherapy without medical evaluation and management. [[Page 59057]] Accordingly, this commenter believes that the malpractice expense and practice expense associated with the significantly higher standard of care required of psychiatrists requires that we set payment for psychologists' services at less than 100 percent of the physician fee schedule amount. Response: The temporary psychotherapy ``G'' HCFA Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes (G0071 through G0094) were implemented as interim codes, and the RUC-recommended RVUs for these services were also considered as interim. Although these temporary ``G'' codes will be crosswalked directly to permanent numeric HCPCS codes effective January 1, 1998, the codes and the assigned RVUs will continue to be considered interim. We believe that, for the most part, we have addressed the situation when malpractice insurance premiums for psychiatrists are higher than the cost of malpractice insurance for psychologists by establishing an entire set of psychotherapy codes that are exclusive to physicians that psychologists are precluded from billing under the Medicare program. We established this set of codes because the services that both physicians and psychologists can furnish are probably not the services that are contributing to the psychiatrist's higher malpractice costs. The services that are reserved to physicians alone are those involving medications and complexities that would contribute to the higher malpractice costs. Comment: One commenter expressed that it has a major concern about our continued exclusion of psychologists from the use of CPT evaluation and management codes as well as the ``G'' HCPCS codes that encompass an evaluation and management component. The commenter believes that we should remove our longstanding restriction on the use of these codes by psychologists and, instead, incorporate into our coding system a realistic reflection of the present day practice of psychology. Moreover, the commenter believes that since psychologists play an important evaluative role, we should seriously reconsider our longstanding exclusionary policy and permit payment to psychologists for evaluation and management codes that represent services that psychologists are already providing under the Medicare program. Response: We believe that the CPT diagnostic psychological testing CPT codes 96100 through 96117 and the CPT psychotherapy codes 90801 through 90899 capture the range of mental health services, including nonmedical evaluation services, that clinical psychologists are expected to provide for purposes of the Medicare clinical psychologist benefit and that clinical psychologists are authorized by law to furnish. The evaluation and management services included in the codes that psychologists cannot bill Medicare are services involving medical evaluation and management. Psychologists are not licensed to perform these types of services. Result of evaluation of comments: We are finalizing our proposal to maintain the clinical psychologist fee schedule at 100 percent of the physician fee schedule amount for comparable services. The RVUs for individual psychotherapy services remain in effect on an interim basis. D. Diagnostic Tests 1. Ordering of Diagnostic Tests In our November 22, 1996 final rule for the 1997 physician fee schedule (61 FR 59490), we revised Sec. 410.32 (Diagnostic x-ray tests, diagnostic laboratory tests, and other diagnostic tests: Conditions) to state that, to be covered, diagnostic tests had to be ordered by the physician who treats the patient. Section 410.32 contained exceptions for x-rays used by chiropractors to demonstrate the subluxation of the spine and for certain nonphysician practitioners operating within the scope of their statutory benefit and State licenses. We are adding an additional exception to Sec. 410.32 to indicate that a physician who meets the qualification requirements for an interpreting physician under section 354 of the Public Health Service Act as provided in Sec. 410.34 (Mammography services: Conditions for and limitations on coverage), paragraph (a)(7), may order a diagnostic mammogram based on the findings of a screening mammogram even though the physician does not treat the beneficiary. We believe this is appropriate because the Food and Drug Administration, rather than HCFA, is responsible for the conditions under which mammograms are covered. It would also facilitate additional and necessary diagnostic testing to investigate suspicious findings at the time the beneficiary is present at the testing site rather than requiring the beneficiary to return at a later date for follow-up testing. In addition, commenters have asked about the statutory basis for denial of claims under the ordering rule adopted in the 1996 physician fee schedule final rule. We have determined that tests are not demonstrably reasonable and medically necessary unless they are ordered by the patient's physician who will employ the tests to manage the patient's care. Thus, we are clarifying in Sec. 410.32(a) that the denials are based on the exclusion in section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act, and contained in Sec. 411.15(k)(1), that is, the services ``are not reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis and treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member.'' Beneficiaries may be protected from liability for claims denied on this basis by the limitation on liability provision of section 1879 of the Act. All commenters addressing the proposal to permit certain physicians to order a diagnostic mammogram based on the findings of a screening mammogram even though the physician does not treat the beneficiary enthusiastically supported the proposal. We received no comments on the proposal to clarify that denial of claims by carriers because the tests were not ordered by a physician who uses the findings in the management of the beneficiary's care are based on the reasonable and necessary exclusion in section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act and in Sec. 411.15(k)(1). Below is a discussion of the public comments we received on our proposal relating to ordering of diagnostic tests and our responses: Comment: Several commenters requested clarification of the applicability of the diagnostic test ordering provision, adopted in the final rule of November 22, 1996, to diagnostic procedures performed in hospital settings: the responses to comments seemed to indicate that, although the intent of the new policy was primarily directed at nonhospital testing, the requirement applied in all settings. Response: The policy was set forth in Sec. 410.32, which generally addresses diagnostic tests covered under section 1861(s)(3) of the Act and payable by Part B carriers rather than fiscal intermediaries. Regulations other than Sec. 410.32 govern the coverage of diagnostic tests furnished to hospital patients, which are payable through fiscal intermediary payment mechanisms. Specifically, the coverage of diagnostic tests furnished to hospital outpatients is addressed in Sec. 410.28, and the coverage of diagnostic tests furnished to hospital inpatients is addressed in Sec. 409.16. Therefore, the test ordering policy adopted in the final rule of November 22, 1996, effective for procedures furnished beginning January 1, 1997, does not apply to diagnostic tests furnished in hospitals. Comment: A few commenters expressed concern that manual sections [[Page 59058]] implementing the ordering rule have not been issued. One commenter indicated that interpreting physicians are in the untenable position of having to choose between performing additional tests they know the patient needs based on the findings of the initial procedure or postponing procedures to ensure that they do not violate HCFA rules. Another indicated that there are times that the referring physician cannot be reached and delaying a procedure would not be in the best interests of the patient. Response: In adopting the test-ordering proposal, we intended to establish the general principle that, to be covered under Medicare, a diagnostic test must be ordered by a physician who will use the findings in the medical management of the patient. The policy did not require that the order be in writing or instruct carriers to investigate claims prior to payment to ensure the existence of such an order. It was intended for use by carriers in situations in which a problem has been identified, or is strongly suspected, as a basis for recovery of payments for tests that did not meet the reasonable and necessary criteria of section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act. In the situations cited by the commenters, we do not think it would be unreasonable to ask for the testing physician to receive authorization from the ordering physician's office (either by phone or FAX) for the additional tests he or she believes to be necessary. Certainly, provision could be made for an emergency situation. We are trying to address situations in which there is a pattern of the testing entity's adding procedures to those ordered by the patient's personal physician. Comment: Commenters representing the interests of entities that furnish nuclear medicine procedures indicated a continuing problem with the ordering requirement and stated that nuclear medicine physicians, by State and Federal regulations, are the only physicians who can actually order nuclear medicine tests. Response: We see no conflict between our proposal and State and Federal regulations. However, in order to address these concerns more fully we would need more specific information as to the State and Federal regulations in question. Comment: A national organization representing psychologists indicated that Sec. 410.32 addresses the ordering and supervision of diagnostic tests and objected to some of the wording relating to nonphysician practitioners, such as clinical psychologists. The commenter pointed out that Sec. 410.32(a)(3) indicates that certain nonphysician practitioners who furnish services that would be physician services if furnished by a physician, and who are operating within the scope of their authority under State law and within the scope of their Medicare statutory benefit, ``may be treated the same as physicians treating beneficiaries for the purpose of this section.'' The commenter suggested that the wording be changed to ``shall be treated the same . . .'' because, as written, the wording does not require that these individuals always be treated as physicians for purposes of this section. Response: The commenter raises an interesting point that we agree needs further clarification. The purpose of Sec. 410.32(a)(3) is to ensure that the nonphysician practitioners in question may order tests for the beneficiaries they are treating. (We are adding the same wording to the section on independent diagnostic testing facilities (IDTFs) to clarify that the nonphysician practitioners in question may order diagnostic testing by IDTFs.) However, we did not intend to permit these same nonphysician practitioners to supervise diagnostic testing performed by others. Under the rule we are adopting, all diagnostic tests payable under the physician fee schedule must be performed under the supervision of a physician (as defined in section 1861(r) of the Act) with certain exceptions set forth in Sec. 410.32(b). Therefore, we are modifying the wording of Sec. 410.32(a)(3) to change the last word from ``section'' to ``paragraph.'' In other words, the nonphysician practitioners are treated as physicians as far as the ordering of tests for the patients they are treating is concerned but not for the other subject of Sec. 410.32, that is, the supervision of the performance of tests. (However, certain nonphysician practitioners may personally perform certain diagnostic tests without physician supervision. This subject is addressed in the discussion of the comments on both the physician supervision and IDTF proposals.) Result of evaluation of comments: We are adopting the proposals (with the wording clarification indicated above) to (1) permit certain physicians to order a diagnostic mammogram based on the findings of a screening mammogram even though the physician does not treat the beneficiary and (2) clarify that carrier denial of claims because the tests were not ordered by a physician who uses the findings in the management of the beneficiary's care are based on the reasonable and necessary exclusion in section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act and in Sec. 411.15(k)(1). 2. Supervision of Diagnostic Tests We are clarifying in Sec. 410.32 the policy on physician supervision of diagnostic x-ray and other diagnostic tests that are payable under the physician fee schedule. (Diagnostic procedures may be split into professional components (PCs) and technical components (TCs) or be TC-only.) The clarification is applicable to the TCs of diagnostic procedures covered under section 1861(s)(3) of the Act (whether billed separately or as part of a ``global'' charge with the PC) that are furnished in settings in which the Part B carrier pays for the TCs under the physician fee schedule. The coverage of diagnostic procedures furnished to hospital patients is addressed in other regulations and is not affected by this clarification. In addition, diagnostic laboratory tests as described in paragraph (d) of Sec. 410.32 are not affected by this clarification. This final rule represents our judgment that diagnostic procedures are safe and effective only when they are furnished with appropriate physician supervision. Therefore, denials of claims for failure to meet the required level of physician supervision would be based on the exclusion in section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act and in Sec. 411.15(k)(1), that is, they ``are not reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis and treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member.'' This means that the beneficiary may be protected under the limitation on liability provisions in section 1879 of the Act. We believe that the requirements of Sec. 410.32 should be revised because, except for the reference to ``other diagnostic tests'' in the heading of Sec. 410.32, x-rays are the only diagnostic tests payable under the physician fee schedule that are discussed in the current Sec. 410.32. We are clarifying that some degree of physician supervision is required for every diagnostic test payable under the physician fee schedule with a few exceptions. Our specific revisions to the regulations are: The definition and discussion of the term ``general supervision'' currently appears only in Sec. 410.32(a)(2) (concerning portable x-ray services). We are clarifying that this level of supervision is the minimal level required for all diagnostic tests payable under the physician fee schedule unless specific exception is made by regulation. The definition and discussion of the term ``direct supervision'' is set forth in revised Sec. 410.32(b)(3)(ii), concerning [[Page 59059]] diagnostic x-ray and other diagnostic tests. We are clarifying that this level of supervision is required for some types of diagnostic procedures that are not x-rays. We are incorporating into regulations at Sec. 410.32(b)(3)(iii) the existing policy that there are some diagnostic procedures that require a physician's presence with the patient at the time of performance of the procedure for the procedure to be covered. We are setting forth a general rule that diagnostic tests payable under the physician fee schedule require at least general supervision (and in some cases either direct or personal supervision, as defined in this final rule) by a physician (as defined in section 1861(r) of the Act). Because of the restrictive definitions in section 1861(r), we believe that nearly all tests will be supervised by doctors of medicine or osteopathy, or, in the case of procedures related to the eyes and consistent with State licensure, doctors of optometry. We do not perceive a significant impact on doctors of dentistry and chiropractic in this regard since Medicare covers limited services for these specialties and we believe diagnostic test supervision will not be an issue for these specialties. We are excluding three types of diagnostic tests from the physician supervision requirements: Diagnostic mammography procedures, which are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. Diagnostic tests personally furnished by a ``qualified audiologist'' as defined in section 1861(ll)(3) of the Act. These include ``audiology services'' as defined in section 1861(ll)(2) of the Act that are payable by Medicare carriers under the physician fee schedule. We are excluding these diagnostic tests from the physician supervision requirement because the Congress has defined these services without requiring physician supervision of their performance. Diagnostic psychological testing services personally performed by a qualified psychologist practicing independently of an institution, agency, or physician's office as currently defined in section 2070.2 of the Medicare Carriers Manual (HCFA Pub. 14-3). These services are distinguished from services of clinical psychologists, which are covered under section 1861(ii) of the Act, rather than section 1861(s)(3). We are excluding these tests from the physician supervision requirement because we do not believe that these services require physician supervision of their performance. We are setting forth the policy that the minimal level of physician supervision, which is applicable to all diagnostic procedures payable under the physician fee schedule, with the exceptions cited above, is general supervision. ``General supervision'' means the procedure is furnished under the physician's overall direction and control, but physician presence is not required during the performance of the procedure. Under general supervision, the training of the nonphysician personnel who actually perform the diagnostic procedure and the maintenance of the necessary equipment and supplies are the continuing responsibility of the physician. Examples of procedures requiring only general physician supervision include the following: Plain films (x-rays) involving the extremities, pelvis, vertebral column, or skull. Plain films of the chest and abdomen that do not involve the use of contrast media. Electrocardiograms except when the code description specifies physician supervision such as with a cardiovascular stress test. Ultrasound diagnostic procedures except when the code description specifies a physician's service such as the placement of a probe in the case of transesophageal echocardiography. Electroencephalograms, polysomnography, and sleep studies. We are setting forth the policy that the existing definition of ``direct supervision'' in Sec. 410.32 be applied to types of services other than diagnostic x-rays. ``Direct supervision'' in the office setting does not mean that the physician must be present in the room when the procedure is performed; however, the physician must be present in the office suite and immediately available to furnish assistance and direction throughout the performance of the procedure. Examples of diagnostic procedures requiring both general and direct supervision include the following: Magnetic resonance imaging, computerized axial tomography, and nuclear medicine procedures. Procedures in which contrast materials are used. X-rays other than skeletal, abdominal, and chest x-rays cited in the discussion of ``general supervision.'' We are defining ``personal supervision'' as follows: ``Personal supervision'' means a physician must be in attendance in the room during the performance of the procedure. Examples of procedures requiring both general and personal supervision include the following: Cardiovascular stress tests including those furnished with nuclear medicine and echocardiography procedures. Cardiac catheterization. Radiological supervision and interpretation procedures. Under the changes made to section 1861(s)(3) of the Act by section 145(b) of Public Law 103-432, the Congress has added diagnostic mammography as part of the portable x-ray benefit. Therefore, we are adding diagnostic mammograms (but not screening mammograms) to the list of services a portable x-ray supplier may furnish in Sec. 410.32(c). However, the supplier must meet the certification requirements of section 354 of the Public Health Service Act, as implemented by 21 CFR part 900, subpart B. These supervision requirements are applicable only for diagnostic tests under section 1861(s)(3) of the Act. Other statutory provisions such as CLIA, the physician self-referral rules, etc., which contain supervisory standards for physicians, are not affected by this rule, and continue to be required, if applicable. Several commenters who objected to various aspects of the physician supervision proposal were obviously addressing procedures performed in hospitals, and we would like to clarify this situation for them. As pointed out in the first paragraph of the preamble discussion of this proposal in the June 18, 1997 proposed rule (62 FR 33179), we proposed to modify and clarify the policy in Sec. 410.32 on physician supervision of diagnostic procedures that are covered under section 1861(s)(3) of the Act and payable under the physician fee schedule. Regulations other than Sec. 410.32 govern the coverage of diagnostic tests furnished to hospital patients. Specifically, the coverage of diagnostic tests furnished to hospital outpatients is addressed in Sec. 410.28, and the coverage of diagnostic tests furnished to hospital inpatients is addressed in Sec. 409.16. Further, this proposal addressed the coverage of the technical component (TC) (including TCs billed with the professional component (PC) of the procedure in a global bill) and other diagnostic procedures that are not split into PC or TC components and that do not have RVUs reflecting physician work. Diagnostic services that have physician work RVUs are not ``other diagnostic tests'' covered under section 1861(s)(3) of the Act but physician services and services incident to a physician's services covered under sections 1861(s)(1) and 1861(s)(2)(A) of the Act. These services are either personally [[Page 59060]] furnished by the physician or furnished as an ``incident to'' service. In both cases, the policy has been established and is unaffected by this rule. Either the physician is present because he or she is personally furnishing the service or, in the case of ``incident to'' services, the physician is in the suite (the same standard as proposed for direct supervision under the proposal) during the time the diagnostic service is performed. To summarize, neither the technical services associated with diagnostic tests furnished in hospitals nor diagnostic service codes containing physician work RVUs (other than global billings) are affected by this proposal. Comment: Many physician commenters disagreed with our proposal to place diagnostic ultrasound procedures in the category of tests requiring general supervision. We received the following comments: Most ultrasound diagnostic procedures should be placed in the direct or personal supervision categories. The requirement for general supervision is not sufficient to achieve the needed degree of physician input in the final product of the ultrasound examination. Good ultrasound can only be performed through a working partnership between the technologist and the supervising physician. Commenters pointed out that radiologists frequently will examine the patient in real time to clarify uncertain findings or to further characterize pathology detected during the technologist's examination. If the physician does not go back to scan these patients himself, critical diagnoses would be missed. The common and correct practice of ultrasound is for a technologist to perform the examination and for a physician to check the study before the patient leaves the examining area. The performance of ultrasound procedures requires more physician supervision than magnetic resonance imaging (MRIs), computerized axial tomography (CTs), or nuclear medicine procedures. One commenter referred to unregulated ultrasound procedures in the U.S. as a ``cesspool of poor medical practice.'' One commenter suggested that Medicare should prohibit payments for self-referred sonographic procedures performed by physicians who purchase this equipment for their offices and find reasons to use the equipment on their patients even though they are poorly-trained in the interpretations of the findings. Several physicians commented that they often performed these tests personally without a technologist present. Response: In developing our proposal on levels of physician supervision for out-of-hospital diagnostic testing, we placed ultrasound procedures in the general category on the basis that it was safe to perform these procedures without the presence, either in the room or in the suite, of a physician. However, in determining whether services and procedures are reasonable and necessary, we also consider whether a service or procedure is effective. Based on the comments we received on the proposal, primarily from physicians who utilize ultrasound procedures in diagnosing patients, we have become convinced that the effectiveness of ultrasound procedures is enhanced when the performance of these tests is supervised by a physician who is not only on-site when the procedure is performed, but who also monitors the performance of the procedure. Therefore, we are modifying our proposal and are placing ultrasound diagnostic procedures in the direct category that requires the presence of the physician in the office suite when an individual procedure is performed. Comment: Some commenters objected to our proposal to place CTs, MRIs, and nuclear medicine procedures in the category of procedures requiring the direct supervision of a physician. Some commenters indicated that CTs and MRIs required direct supervision only when contrast media are used to perform the tests. Commenters suggested that such a requirement would cause a dramatic reduction in the availability of these services furnished through mobile entities in rural areas. It was alleged that the physician supervision requirements contradict those established by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission for nuclear medicine procedures. Some commenters indicated that some nuclear medicine procedures required direct supervision, some required only general supervision, and some required a mid-level of supervision in which the physician could monitor the performance of the test by telephone. Response: Based on the comments received, we have decided to move the required level of supervision for computerized axial tomography procedures (CTs) and magnetic resonance imagery procedures (MRIs) performed without the introduction of contrast media into the category of general supervision. We have become convinced that general supervision by a physician has become the established standard of practice for CTs and MRIs performed without contrast media. CT and MRI procedures in which contrast materials are utilized will remain in the direct category. We are adopting our proposal of direct supervision with regard to all nuclear medicine procedures. (Also, see comment below addressing supervision of nuclear cardiology procedures.) Comment: Several commenters objected to the assignment of cardiovascular stress tests, including those furnished with nuclear medicine and echocardiography procedures, to the category of tests requiring performance under the personal supervision of a physician. Their comments included the following: Cardiovascular stress tests performed by well-trained physician extenders, such as registered nurses and physician assistants, using established protocols and under the direct supervision of a physician have proved to be safe and effective. The use of exercise physiologists, B.S.N. degree nurses, or physician assistants was the ``standard of care'' in their hospital. In the absence of data to suggest that direct supervision is less safe than personal supervision, only direct supervision should be required. The requirement is contrary to the position of the American College of Physicians, the American College of Cardiology, and the American Heart Association, set forth in a 1990 task force statement that endorses the position that ``exercise testing in selected patients can be safely performed by properly trained nurses, exercise physiologists, physical therapists, or medical technicians working directly under the supervision of a physician who should be in the immediate vicinity and available for emergencies.'' The success of cardiac rehabilitation programs has demonstrated the success of nonsupervised exercise in the cardiac patient. One physician commenter agreed with our placing of stress tests in the personal supervision category and indicated that personal physician supervision was absolutely essential for the safety of the patient and for the test to be of maximal diagnostic utility. Response: We do not agree with the general tone of the comments. It is established policy under Medicare that cardiovascular stress tests must be performed under the direct supervision of a physician to be covered. (For example, the interim teaching physician instructions, issued June 28, 1996, [[Page 59061]] placed the procedures in the category of complex and dangerous procedures requiring the presence of a teaching physician (rather than a resident) during their performance.) In addition, we do not believe that the reference to ``exercise'' and cardiac rehabilitation programs is the same thing as a cardiovascular stress test. With regard to the 1990 task force statement by the three organizations cited above, we believe that the reference to ``selected patients'' being safely tested by nonphysicians is a telling one. It is not at all clear to us that the appropriate level for ``selected patients'' should be the general standard applicable to all patients, particularly patients in the age group of most Medicare beneficiaries. The circumstances surrounding cardiovascular stress tests are unusual because, although the issue at hand for Medicare coverage purposes is the supervision of the performance of the technical component of the test, this supervision is described by the AMA's CPT coding system with a specific code (CPT code 93016) for use in billing for physician supervision of cardiovascular stress tests when the physician who supervises the performance of the test differs from the physician who bills for the interpretation and report of the procedure. This means that the in-person supervision by a physician of this particular procedure has been determined to be so essential that it was necessary to establish a separate code for it. This code should be billed in connection with a stress test that will be interpreted and used in the diagnosis of the patient. It may not be used to bill for ``supervision'' of exercise in connection with a cardiac rehabilitation program. We firmly believe that there should be a physician in attendance during the performance of cardiovascular stress tests to provide-- Medical expertise required for the performance of the test; Medical treatment for complications and side effects of the test; Medical services required as part of the test, for example, injections or the administration of medications; and Medical expertise in the interpretation of the test (some of which may have to be provided while the test is actually being performed). We do not believe that nonphysician personnel, even well-trained personnel, possess the knowledge and skills to immediately address all complications that may occur. The reference to cardiovascular stress tests performed in hospitals indicates a misunderstanding of the physician supervision proposal. This proposal does not apply in hospitals; it only applies in settings in which the TC of the procedure is payable by the carrier. However, even in hospitals, if a physician wishes to bill the carrier for the supervision of the procedure using CPT code 93016 (a physician's service covered under section 1861(s)(1) of the Act rather than a diagnostic test covered under 1861(s)(3) of the Act), the physician must have been present for the performance of the test. It is our view that the physician's presence to deal with emergencies, as well as the other activities listed above, is the service that CPT code 93016 describes and the appropriate level of physician supervision for cardiovascular stress tests. Comment: Several commenters indicated that it was inappropriate to require direct supervision of nuclear cardiology imaging procedures. Commenters indicated that these procedures can be provided under the general supervision of a nuclear cardiologist who is close at hand (but not in the suite during the performance of the procedure) or through supervision of the procedure through telemedicine. This latter position was described as a mid-level of physician supervision between general and direct. One commenter indicated that ready availability (within minutes) was sufficient to address any procedural, clinical, or radiation safety concerns that arise. One commenter indicated that the proposal was not rational and that the requirement for the physician to be in the office during a nuclear cardiology imaging procedure would make excessive demands upon a physician's schedule flexibility. The commenters indicated that no data exist to show that nuclear cardiology imaging provided with direct supervision was in any way superior to this imaging provided under general supervision. Some commenters made a distinction between their comments on the direct level of supervision standard applicable to nuclear cardiology procedures generally (as well as all other nuclear medicine procedures) and the personal supervision standard applicable to nuclear cardiology procedures involving cardiovascular stress tests. The commenters cited the passage from the 1990 American College of Physicians/American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association Task Force quoted in the prior discussion on stress tests to justify their position that some level of physician supervision between general and direct was all that was required. Finally, some commenters suggested that the goal of improving quality while reducing costs to the Medicare program would be better served by tightening standards for physicians eligible to be paid for the procedures. Response: As stated earlier in these comments, we believe that direct supervision is the minimum level for all diagnostic tests involving the use of contrast materials including the radionuclides used in nuclear medicine procedures. We are not persuaded by the comments that there is something about nuclear cardiology procedures that should, instead, require only general physician supervision. With regard to the statement used to support only general and direct physician supervision for stress testing, we would point out that the July 1997 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines for Exercise Testing in its introduction states: For the purpose of this document, exercise testing is a cardiovascular stress test using treadmill or bicycle exercise and electrocardiographic and blood pressure monitoring. Pharmacological stress and the use of imaging modalities (radionuclide imaging, echocardiography) are beyond the scope of these guidelines. (Emphasis added.) This statement leads us to believe that the argument with respect to stress testing of ``selected patients'' by nonphysicians was being quoted out of context with respect to nuclear cardiology procedures. We are not persuaded that our proposal was wrong, and we are adopting the proposed standards of physician supervision for the procedures. When the nuclear cardiology procedure in question involves a stress test and separate nuclear medicine and cardiovascular codes are used, personal supervision is required for the portion of the procedure involving stress, and the direct supervision standard applies to the nuclear portions of the overall procedure. Comment: One commenter objected to the term ``other diagnostic tests'' in the title of Sec. 410.32, questioned why x-rays are listed, and suggested that the term ``ultrasound'' be specifically cited. The commenter argued that the level of supervision cannot be appropriately indicated unless ultrasound is specifically named and the tests requiring supervision indicated. Response: ``X-rays and other diagnostic tests'' is the term used in section 1861(s)(3) of the Act. We will indicate the appropriate level of supervision for a code in the data base, as indicated above. With regard to ultrasound procedures, direct supervision is required. [[Page 59062]] Comment: Several commenters suggested that direct supervision be defined to include the presence of a physician in a remote office suite to accommodate teleradiology. The physician would review the examination remotely, in real time, and arrange for a response team to handle patient care or contrast media emergencies at the site where the procedure is performed. Response: Medicare currently pays for the interpretation of diagnostic procedures using images or other data transmitted via teleradiology. We would have to have more information about the arrangement the commenters have in mind, but, under the policy we are adopting, a physician cannot appropriately provide direct or personal supervision of diagnostic tests through telemedicine. Comment: One commenter suggested that, for uroradiology procedures, the radiologist may not be present for the entire procedure; however, because of the use of contrast material, the appropriate level of supervision is direct. Response: We have placed some uroradiology procedures in the direct category and others in the personal category. This is consistent with our general policy of requiring the presence of the physician during the imaging portion of any procedure described with a supervision and interpretation code. Comment: One commenter suggested that the definition of ``personal supervision'' be clarified to provide for situations in which a radiologist must leave the procedure room for either clinical or safety reasons. The example was given of a radiologist leaving the procedure room during filming due to radiation exposure. Response: If it is the customary practice for radiologists to leave the room for a short period of time for safety reasons to avoid radiation exposure, we would, of course, have no problem with them continuing to do so. We would expect the supervising physician to be present for all portions of the procedure that do not present a safety problem. Comment: One commenter asked for clarification of whether the personal supervision standard applicable to cardiac stress tests should be required for pulmonary stress tests. The example of ambulating the patient to obtain oxygen saturation for oxygen recertification was given. Response: We are not exactly sure of the specific procedures about which the commenter is inquiring. If it is CPT code 94620 (Pulmonary stress testing, simple or complex), the level is personal. For CPT codes 94760 through 94762 for noninvasive oximetry, the level is general. Comment: A national organization representing psychologists questioned our decision not to provide an exception from the physician supervision requirement for procedures performed by clinical psychologists in the same way that we did for qualified independent psychologists (who are not clinical psychologists as defined in Medicare instructions). They requested that the rules be rewritten to clarify that both types of psychologists may perform services without physician supervision. Response: Under our proposal, we explained that we were regulating diagnostic procedures covered under section 1861(s)(3) of the Act and payable under the physician fee schedule. We provided an exception to the physician supervision requirement in the case of diagnostic psychological testing services personally performed by qualified independent psychologists because these tests are covered under section 1861(s)(3), and there had been longstanding specific national coverage policy in the Medicare Carriers Manual regarding these billings without any requirement for physician supervision. We pointed out in the proposal that diagnostic tests performed by clinical psychologists (the same range of tests as those that qualified independent psychologists are permitted to bill) were covered under section 1861(ii) of the Act, rather than section 1861(s)(3), and we meant to convey the point that diagnostic tests performed by clinical psychologists were unaffected by the proposal. That is, clinical psychologists could continue to perform these tests without physician supervision. We were concerned about the logical consistency of providing an exception to a requirement in the regulations for a class of services to which that regulation did not apply. However, to clarify the policy, we have decided to explicitly include diagnostic psychological testing personally performed by clinical psychologists in the exception to the physician supervision requirement. Comment: Several commenters indicated that physical therapists have performed electromyography procedures consistent with State laws for years without physician supervision. They pointed out that eliminating the availability of physical therapist-provided electromyography services would create a severe hardship for Medicare enrolles in rural areas. Response: We did not intend to limit access to care in rural areas, and therefore, we have modified our proposal to provide two additional exceptions to the requirement for physician supervision for diagnostic procedures in which physical therapists are involved. These exceptions apply to codes in the range of CPT codes 95860 through 95937. Under one exception with a physician fee schedule data base indicator of 6, that is, the procedure must be personally performed by a physician or a physical therapist who is certified by the American Board of Physical therapy Specialties as a qualified electrophysiologic clinical specialist and is permitted to provide the service under State law. Under the second exception with a data base indicator of 7, the procedure must be personally performed by a physical therapist who is certified by the American Board of Physical Therapy Specialties as a qualified electrophysiologic clinical specialist or performed under the direct supervision of a physician. We recognize that these categories were not contained in the proposed rule and specifically invite further comment on the appropriateness of these two exceptions to the CPT codes 95860 through 95937. Comment: Several commenters expressed support for the physician supervision proposal but pointed out that we should state by CPT code into which category each procedure falls. One commenter pointed to the lack of specific information about the category of physician supervision into which pulmonary and neurology testing procedures should be placed and suggested that the final rule address these procedures to promote consistency among carriers. Response: We are providing such a listing as a part of this preamble. It will become a part of the physician fee schedule data base and may be modified from time to time in the same way other data base indicators are changed; therefore, there should be consistency among carriers. Result of evaluation of comments: We are adopting our proposal to assign an appropriate level of physician supervision to every diagnostic test payable under the physician fee schedule with exceptions for certain procedures personally performed by qualified independent psychologists, clinical psychologists, qualified audiologists, and physical therapists who are certified as qualified electrophysiologic clinical specialists. With respect to several groupings of diagnostic codes, we have changed our proposed policy based on comments from the physician specialties most involved with particular groups of codes. In some cases, such as CTs and MRIs performed without the use of contrast materials, we have lowered the [[Page 59063]] level of required physician supervision. In others, such as ultrasound procedures, we have increased the level of required supervision. We are publishing a listing of diagnostic codes in this preamble with the level of physician supervision we have determined to be appropriate. In addition, we are adding a field to the physician fee schedule data base indicating the appropriate level of supervision. We anticipate that there will continue to be discussions among HCFA, physician specialty groups, and others about these levels of supervision, and we expect that the indicators applicable to individual procedures will be changed from time to time as is currently the case with other data base indicators. Physician Fee Schedule Data Base Indicator Physician Supervision of Diagnostic Procedures 0=Vacant 1=Procedure must be performed under the general supervision of a physician 2=Procedure must be performed under the direct supervision of a physician 3=Procedure must be performed under the personal supervision of a physician 4=Physician supervision policy does not apply when procedure personally furnished by a qualified, independent psychologist or a clinical psychologist; otherwise must be performed under the general supervision of a physician 5=Physician supervision policy does not apply when procedure personally furnished by a qualified audiologist; otherwise must be performed under the general supervision of a physician 6=Procedure must be personally performed by a physician OR a physical therapist who is certified by the American Board of Physical Therapy Specialties as a qualified electrophysiologic clinical specialist AND is permitted to provide the service under State law 7=Procedure must be personally performed by a physical therapist who is certified by the American Board of Physical Therapy Specialties as a qualified electrophysiologic clinical specialist AND is permitted to provide the service under State law OR performed under the direct supervision of a physician 9=Medicare physician diagnostic supervision policy does not apply P=Decision pending Level of Physician Supervision of Diagnostic Tests ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HCPCS Level HCPCS Level HCPCS Level ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DIAGNOSTIC RADIOLOGY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HEAD AND NECK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 70010 & TC...................... 3 70015 & TC......... 3 70030 & TC........ 1 70100 & TC...................... 1 70110 & TC......... 1 70120 & TC........ 1 70130 & TC...................... 1 70134 & TC......... 1 70140 & TC........ 1 70150 & TC...................... 1 70160 & TC......... 1 70170 & TC........ 3 70190 & TC...................... 1 70200 & TC......... 1 70210 & TC........ 1 70220 & TC...................... 1 70240 & TC......... 1 70250 & TC........ 1 70260 & TC...................... 1 70300 & TC......... 1 70310 & TC........ 1 70320 & TC...................... 1 70328 & TC......... 1 70330 & TC........ 1 70332 & TC...................... 3 70336 & TC......... 1 70350 & TC........ 1 70355 & TC...................... 1 70360 & TC......... 1 70370 & TC........ 3 70371 & TC...................... 3 70373 & TC......... 3 70380 & TC........ 1 70390 & TC...................... 3 70450 & TC......... 1 70460 & TC........ 2 70470 & TC...................... 2 70480 & TC......... 1 70481 & TC........ 2 70482 & TC...................... 2 70486 & TC......... 1 70487 & TC........ 2 70488 & TC...................... 2 70490 & TC......... 1 70491 & TC........ 2 70492 & TC...................... 2 70540 & TC......... 1 70541 & TC........ 2 70551 & TC...................... 1 70552 & TC......... 2 70553 & TC........ 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHEST ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 71010 & TC...................... 1 71015 & TC......... 1 71020 & TC........ 1 71021 & TC...................... 1 71022 & TC......... 1 71023 & TC........ 3 71030 & TC...................... 1 71034 & TC......... 3 71035 & TC........ 1 71036 & TC...................... 3 71038 & TC......... 3 71040 & TC........ 3 71060 & TC...................... 3 71090 & TC......... 3 71100 & TC........ 1 71101 & TC...................... 1 71110 & TC......... 1 71111 & TC........ 1 71120 & TC...................... 1 71130 & TC......... 1 71250 & TC........ 1 71260 & TC...................... 2 71270 & TC......... 2 71550 & TC........ 1 71555 & TC...................... 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SPINE AND PELVIS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 72010 & TC...................... 1 72020 & TC......... 1 72040 & TC........ 1 72050 & TC...................... 1 72052 & TC......... 1 72069 & TC........ 1 72070 & TC...................... 1 72072 & TC......... 1 72074 & TC........ 1 72080 & TC...................... 1 72090 & TC......... 1 72100 & TC........ 1 72110 & TC...................... 1 72114 & TC......... 1 72120 & TC........ 1 72125 & TC...................... 1 72126 & TC......... 2 72127 & TC........ 2 72128 & TC...................... 1 72129 & TC......... 2 72130 & TC........ 2 72131 & TC...................... 1 72132 & TC......... 2 72133 & TC........ 2 72141 & TC...................... 1 72142 & TC......... 2 72146 & TC........ 1 [[Page 59064]] 72147 & TC...................... 2 72148 & TC......... 1 72149 & TC........ 2 72156 & TC...................... 2 72157 & TC......... 2 72158 & TC........ 2 72159 & TC...................... 9 72170 & TC......... 1 72190 & TC........ 1 72192 & TC...................... 1 72193 & TC......... 2 72194 & TC........ 2 72196 & TC...................... 1 72198 & TC......... 9 72200 & TC........ 1 72202 & TC...................... 1 72220 & TC......... 1 72240 & TC........ 3 72255 & TC...................... 3 72265 & TC......... 3 72270 & TC........ 3 72285 & TC...................... 3 72295 & TC......... 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPPER EXTREMITIES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 73000 & TC...................... 1 73010 & TC......... 1 73020 & TC........ 1 73030 & TC...................... 1 73040 & TC......... 3 73050 & TC........ 1 73060 & TC...................... 1 73070 & TC......... 1 73080 & TC........ 1 73085 & TC...................... 3 73090 & TC......... 1 73092 & TC........ 1 73100 & TC...................... 1 73110 & TC......... 1 73115 & TC........ 3 73120 & TC...................... 1 73130 & TC......... 1 73140 & TC........ 1 73200 & TC...................... 1 73201 & TC......... 2 73202 & TC........ 2 73220 & TC...................... 1 73221 & TC......... 1 73225 & TC........ 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LOWER EXTREMITIES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 73500 & TC...................... 1 73510 & TC......... 1 73520 & TC........ 1 73525 & TC...................... 3 73530 & TC......... 3 73540 & TC........ 1 73550 & TC...................... 3 73560 & TC......... 1 73562 & TC........ 1 73564 & TC...................... 1 73565 & TC......... 1 73580 & TC........ 3 73590 & TC...................... 1 73592 & TC......... 1 73600 & TC........ 1 73610 & TC...................... 1 73615 & TC......... 3 73620 & TC........ 1 73630 & TC...................... 1 73650 & TC......... 1 73660 & TC........ 1 73700 & TC...................... 1 73701 & TC......... 2 73702 & TC........ 2 73720 & TC...................... 1 73721 & TC......... 1 73725 & TC........ 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ABDOMEN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 74000 & TC...................... 1 74010 & TC......... 1 74020 & TC........ 1 74022 & TC...................... 1 74150 & TC......... 1 74160 & TC........ 2 74170 & TC...................... 2 74181 & TC......... 1 74185 & TC........ 9 74190 & TC...................... 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GASTROINTESTINAL TRACT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 74210 & TC...................... 3 74220 & TC......... 3 74230 & TC........ 3 74235 & TC...................... 3 74240 & TC......... 3 74241 & TC........ 3 74245 & TC...................... 3 74246 & TC......... 3 74247 & TC........ 3 74249 & TC...................... 3 74250 & TC......... 2 74251 & TC........ 3 74260 & TC...................... 3 74270 & TC......... 3 74280 & TC........ 3 74283 & TC...................... 3 74290 & TC......... 2 74291 & TC........ 2 74300 & TC...................... 3 74301 & TC......... 3 74305 & TC........ 3 74320 & TC...................... 3 74327 & TC......... 3 74328 & TC........ 3 74329 & TC...................... 3 74330 & TC......... 3 74340 & TC........ 3 74350 & TC...................... 3 74355 & TC......... 3 74360 & TC........ 3 74363 & TC...................... 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- URINARY TRACT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 74400 & TC...................... 2 74405 & TC......... 2 74410 & TC........ 2 74415 & TC...................... 2 74420 & TC......... 3 74425 & TC........ 3 74430 & TC...................... 3 74440 & TC......... 3 74445 & TC........ 3 74450 & TC...................... 3 74455 & TC......... 3 74470 & TC........ 3 74475 & TC...................... 3 74480 & TC......... 3 74485 & TC........ 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GYNECOLOGICAL AND OBSTETRICAL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 74710 & TC...................... 1 74740 & TC......... 3 74742 & TC........ 3 74775 & TC...................... 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HEART ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 75552 & TC...................... 1 75553 & TC......... 2 75554 & TC........ 1 75555 & TC...................... 1 75556.............. 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 59065]] AORTA AND ARTERIES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 75600 & TC...................... 3 75605 & TC......... 3 75625 & TC........ 3 75630 & TC...................... 3 75650 & TC......... 3 75658 & TC........ 3 75660 & TC...................... 3 75662 & TC......... 3 75665 & TC........ 3 75671 & TC...................... 3 75676 & TC......... 3 75680 & TC........ 3 75685 & TC...................... 3 75705 & TC......... 3 75710 & TC........ 3 75716 & TC...................... 3 75722 & TC......... 3 75724 & TC........ 3 75726 & TC...................... 3 75731 & TC......... 3 75733 & TC........ 3 75736 & TC...................... 3 75741 & TC......... 3 75743 & TC........ 3 75746 & TC...................... 3 75756 & TC......... 3 75774 & TC........ 3 75790 & TC...................... 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VEINS AND LYMPHATICS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 75801 & TC...................... 3 75803 & TC......... 3 75805 & TC........ 3 75807 & TC...................... 3 75809 & TC......... 3 75810 & TC........ 3 75820 & TC...................... 3 75822 & TC......... 3 75825 & TC........ 3 75827 & TC...................... 3 75831 & TC......... 3 75833 & TC........ 3 75840 & TC...................... 3 75842 & TC......... 3 75860 & TC........ 3 75870 & TC...................... 3 75872 & TC......... 3 75880 & TC........ 3 75885 & TC...................... 3 75887 & TC......... 3 75889 & TC........ 3 75891 & TC...................... 3 75893 & TC......... 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRANSCATHETER PROCEDURES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 75894 & TC...................... 3 75896 & TC......... 3 75898 & TC........ 3 75900 & TC...................... 3 75940 & TC......... 3 75945 & TC........ 3 75946 & TC...................... 3 75960 & TC......... 3 75961 & TC........ 3 75962 & TC...................... 3 75964 & TC......... 3 75966 & TC........ 3 75968 & TC...................... 3 75970 & TC......... 3 75978 & TC........ 3 75980 & TC...................... 3 75982 & TC......... 3 75984 & TC........ 3 75989 & TC...................... 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRANSLUMINAL ATHERECTOMY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 75992 & TC...................... 3 75993 & TC......... 3 75994 & TC........ 3 75995 & TC...................... 3 75996 & TC......... 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OTHER PROCEDURES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 76000 & TC...................... 3 76001 & TC......... 3 76003 & TC........ 3 76010 & TC...................... 1 76020 & TC......... 1 76040 & TC........ 1 76061 & TC...................... 1 76062 & TC......... 1 76065 & TC........ 1 76066 & TC...................... 1 76070 & TC......... 1 76075 & TC...................... 1 76076 & TC......... 1 76078 & TC........ 1 76080 & TC...................... 3 76086 & TC......... 3 76088 & TC........ 3 76090 & TC...................... 9 76091 & TC......... 9 76092............. 9 76093 & TC...................... 1 76094 & TC......... 1 76095 & TC........ 3 76096 & TC...................... 3 76098 & TC......... 1 76100 & TC........ 2 76101 & TC...................... 2 76102 & TC......... 2 76120 & TC........ 2 76125 & TC...................... 2 76140.............. 9 76150............. 1 76350........................... 2 76355 & TC......... 3 76360 & TC........ 3 76365 & TC...................... 3 76370 & TC......... 2 76375 & TC........ 1 76380 & TC...................... 1 76400 & TC......... 1 76499 & TC........ 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DIAGNOSTIC ULTRASOUND ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HEAD AND NECK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 76506 & TC...................... 2 76511 & TC......... 2 76512 & TC........ 2 76513 & TC...................... 2 76516 & TC......... 2 76519 & TC........ 2 76529 & TC...................... 2 76536 & TC......... 2 ................ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHEST ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 76604 & TC...................... 2 76645 & TC......... 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ABDOMEN AND RETROPERITONEUM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 76700 & TC...................... 2 76705 & TC......... 2 76770 & TC........ 2 76775 & TC...................... 2 76778 & TC......... 2 ................ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 59066]] SPINAL CANAL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 76800 & TC...................... 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PELVIS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 76805 & TC...................... 2 76810 & TC......... 2 76815 & TC........ 2 76816 & TC...................... 2 76818 & TC......... 2 76825 & TC........ 2 76826 & TC...................... 2 76827 & TC......... 2 76828 & TC........ 2 76830 & TC...................... 3 76856 & TC......... 2 76857 & TC........ 2 76870 & TC...................... 2 76872 & TC......... 3 ................ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXTREMITIES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 76880 & TC...................... 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VASCULAR STUDIES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ULTRASONIC GUIDANCE PROCEDURES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 76930 & TC...................... 3 76932 & TC......... 3 76934 & TC........ 3 76936 & TC...................... 3 76938 & TC......... 3 76941 & TC........ 3 76942 & TC...................... 3 76945 & TC......... 3 76946 & TC........ 3 76948 & TC...................... 3 76950 & TC......... 2 76960 & TC........ 2 76965 & TC...................... 3 ................. ................ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OTHER PROCEDURES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 76970 & TC...................... 9 76975 & TC......... 3 76986 & TC........ 3 76999 & TC...................... 9 ................. ................ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RADIATION ONCOLOGY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 77417........................... 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DIAGNOSTIC NUCLEAR MEDICINE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ENDOCRINE SYSTEM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 78000 & TC...................... 2 78001 & TC......... 2 78003 & TC........ 2 78006 & TC...................... 2 78007 & TC......... 2 78010 & TC........ 2 78011 & TC...................... 2 78015 & TC......... 2 78016 & TC........ 2 78017 & TC...................... 2 78018 & TC......... 2 78070 & TC........ 2 78075 & TC...................... 2 78099 & TC......... 9 ................ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HEMATOPOIETIC, RETICULOENDOTHELIAL, AND LYMPHATIC SYSTEM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 78102 & TC...................... 2 78103 & TC......... 2 78104 & TC........ 2 78110 & TC...................... 2 78111 & TC......... 2 78120 & TC........ 2 78121 & TC...................... 2 78122 & TC......... 2 78130 & TC........ 2 78135 & TC...................... 2 78140 & TC......... 2 78160 & TC........ 2 78162 & TC...................... 2 78170 & TC......... 2 78172 & TC........ 2 78185 & TC...................... 2 78190 & TC......... 2 78191 & TC........ 2 78195 & TC...................... 2 78199 & TC......... 9 ................ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GASTROINTESTINAL SYSTEM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 78201 & TC...................... 2 78202 & TC......... 2 78205 & TC........ 2 78215 & TC...................... 2 78216 & TC......... 2 78220 & TC........ 2 78223 & TC...................... 2 78230 & TC......... 2 78231 & TC........ 2 78232 & TC...................... 2 78258 & TC......... 2 78261 & TC........ 2 78262 & TC...................... 2 78264 & TC......... 2 78270 & TC........ 2 78271 & TC...................... 2 78272 & TC......... 2 78278 & TC........ 2 78282 & TC...................... 2 78290 & TC......... 2 78291 & TC........ 2 78299 & TC...................... 9 ................. ................ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 78300 & TC...................... 2 78305 & TC......... 2 78306 & TC........ 2 78315 & TC...................... 2 78320 & TC......... 2 78350 & TC........ 2 78351........................... 9 78399 & TC......... 9 ................ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 59067]] CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 78414 & TC...................... 2 78428 & TC......... 2 78445 & TC........ 2 78455 & TC...................... 2 78457 & TC......... 2 78458 & TC........ 2 78459 & TC...................... 9 78460 & TC......... 2 78461 & TC........ 2 78464 & TC...................... 2 78465 & TC......... 2 78466 & TC........ 2 78468 & TC...................... 2 78469 & TC......... 2 78472 & TC........ 2 78473 & TC...................... 2 78478 & TC......... 2 78480 & TC........ 2 78481 & TC...................... 2 78483 & TC......... 2 78499 & TC........ 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RESPIRATORY SYSTEM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 78580 & TC...................... 2 78584 & TC......... 2 78585 & TC........ 2 78586 & TC...................... 2 78587 & TC......... 2 78591 & TC........ 2 78593 & TC...................... 2 78594 & TC......... 2 78596 & TC........ 2 78599 & TC...................... 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NERVOUS SYSTEM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 78600 & TC...................... 2 78601 & TC......... 2 78605 & TC........ 2 78606 & TC...................... 2 78607 & TC......... 2 78608............. 9 78609........................... 9 78610 & TC......... 2 78615 & TC........ 2 78630 & TC...................... 2 78635 & TC......... 2 78645 & TC........ 2 78647 & TC...................... 2 78650 & TC......... 2 78660 & TC........ 2 78699 & TC...................... 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GENITOURINARY SYSTEM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 78700 & TC...................... 2 78701 & TC......... 2 78704 & TC........ 2 78707 & TC...................... 2 78710 & TC......... 2 78715 & TC........ 2 78725 & TC...................... 2 78726 & TC......... 2 78727 & TC........ 2 78730 & TC...................... 2 78740 & TC......... 2 78760 & TC........ 2 78761 & TC...................... 2 78799 & TC......... 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OTHER DIAGNOSTIC NUCLEAR MEDICINE PROCEDURES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 78800 & TC...................... 2 78801 & TC......... 2 78802 & TC........ 2 78803 & TC...................... 2` 78805 & TC......... 2 78806 & TC........ 2 78807 & TC...................... 2 78810 & TC......... 9 78891 & TC........ 9 78990........................... 9 78999 & TC......... 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PATHOLOGY AND LABORATORY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 85060........................... 9 85095.............. 9 85102............. 9 86485........................... 1 86490.............. 1 86510............. 1 86580........................... 1 86585.............. 1 86586............. 9 88104 & TC...................... 9 88106 & TC......... 9 88107 & TC........ 9 88108 & TC...................... 9 88125 & TC......... 1 88160 & TC........ 9 88161 & TC...................... 9 88162 & TC......... 9 88170 & TC........ 1 88171 & TC...................... 1 88172 & TC......... 9 88173 & TC........ 9 88180 & TC...................... 9 88182 & TC......... 9 88300 & TC........ 9 88302 & TC...................... 9 88304 & TC......... 9 88305 & TC........ 9 88307 & TC...................... 9 88309 & TC......... 9 88311 & TC........ 1 88312 & TC...................... 9 88313 & TC......... 9 88314 & TC........ 9 88318 & TC...................... 9 88319 & TC......... 9 88323 & TC........ 9 88331 & TC...................... 9 88332 & TC......... 9 88342 & TC........ 9 88346 & TC...................... 9 88347 & TC......... 9 88348 & TC........ 9 88349 & TC...................... 9 88355 & TC......... 9 88356 & TC........ 9 88358 & TC...................... 9 88362 & TC......... 9 88365 & TC........ 9 89350........................... 1 89360.............. 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEDICINE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GASTROINTESTINAL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 91000 & TC...................... 3 91010 & TC......... 3 91011 & TC........ 3 91012 & TC...................... 3 91020 & TC......... 3 91030 & TC........ 3 91032 & TC...................... 3 91033 & TC......... 3 91052 & TC........ 3 91055 & TC...................... 3 91060 & TC......... 3 91065 & TC........ 1 91100........................... 9 91105.............. 9 91122 & TC........ 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 59068]] SPECIAL OPHTHALMOLOGICAL SERVICES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 92015........................... 9 92081 & TC......... 1 92082 & TC........ 1 92083 & TC...................... 1 92100.............. 9 92120............. 9 92130........................... 9 92140.............. 9 92230............. 9 92235 & TC...................... 2 92240 & TC......... 2 92250 & TC........ 2 92260........................... 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OTHER SPECIALIZED SERVICES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 92265 & TC...................... 3 92270 & TC......... 3 92275 & TC........ 3 92283 & TC...................... 1 92284 & TC......... 3 92285 & TC........ 2 92286 & TC...................... 3 92287.............. 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SPECIAL OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGIC SERVICES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 92506........................... 9 92507.............. 9 92508............. 9 92511........................... 9 92512.............. 9 92516............. 9 92520........................... 9 92525.............. 9 92526............. 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VESTIBULAR FUNCTION TESTS WITH OBSERVATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 92531........................... 9 92532.............. 9 92533............. 9 92534........................... 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VESTIBULAR FUNCTION TESTS WITH OBSERVATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 92531........................... 9 92532.............. 9 92533............. 9 92534........................... 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VESTIBULAR FUNCTION TESTS WITH RECORDING ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 92541 & TC...................... 2 92542 & TC......... 2 92543 & TC........ 2 92544 & TC...................... 2 92545 & TC......... 2 92546 & TC........ 2 92547........................... 2 92548 & TC......... 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AUDIOLOGIC FUNCTION TESTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 92551........................... 9 92552.............. 5 92553............. 5 92555........................... 5 92556.............. 5 92557............. 5 92559........................... 9 92560.............. 9 92561............. 5 92562........................... 5 92563.............. 5 92564............. 5 92565........................... 5 92567.............. 5 92568............. 5 92569........................... 5 92571.............. 5 92572............. 5 92573........................... 5 92575.............. 5 92576............. 5 92577........................... 5 92579.............. 5 92582............. 5 92583........................... 5 92584.............. 5 92585 & TC........ 5 92587 & TC...................... 5 92588 & TC......... 5 92589............. 5 92590........................... 9 92591.............. 9 92592............. 9 92593........................... 9 92594.............. 9 92595............. 9 92596........................... 5 92597.............. 9 92598............. 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CARDIOGRAPHY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 93000........................... 1 93005.............. 1 93010............. 9 93012........................... 1 93014.............. 9 93015............. 3 93016........................... 3 93017.............. 3 93018............. 9 93024 & TC...................... 3 93040.............. 1 93041............. 1 93042........................... 9 93224.............. 1 93225............. 1 93226........................... 1 93227.............. 9 93230............. 1 93231........................... 1 93232.............. 9 93233............. 9 93235........................... 1 93236.............. 1 93237............. 9 93268........................... 1 93270.............. 1 93271............. 1 93272........................... 9 93278 & TC......... 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 93303 & TC...................... 2 93304 & TC......... 2 93307............. 2 93308 & TC...................... 2 93312 & TC......... 3 93313............. 9 93314........................... 9 93315 & TC......... 3 93316............. 9 93317........................... 9 93320 & TC......... 2 93321 & TC........ 2 93325 & TC...................... 2 93350 & TC......... 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 59069]] CARDIAC CATHETERIZATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 93501 & TC...................... 3 93503.............. 9 93505 & TC........ 3 93510 & TC...................... 3 93511 & TC......... 3 93514 & TC........ 3 93524 & TC...................... 3 93526 & TC......... 3 93527 & TC........ 3 93528 & TC...................... 3 93529 & TC......... 3 93536............. 9 93539........................... 9 93540.............. 9 93541............. 9 93542........................... 9 93543.............. 9 93544............. 9 93545........................... 9 93555 & TC......... 3 93556 & TC........ 3 93561 & TC...................... 3 93562 & TC......... 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTRACARDIAC ELECTROPHYSIOLOGICAL PROCEDURES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 93600 & TC...................... 3 93602 & TC......... 3 93603 & TC........ 3 93607 & TC...................... 3 93609 & TC......... 3 93610 & TC........ 3 93612 & TC...................... 3 93615 & TC......... 3 93616 & TC........ 3 93618 & TC...................... 3 93619 & TC......... 3 93620 & TC........ 3 93621 & TC...................... 3 93622 & TC......... 3 93623 & TC........ 3 93624 & TC...................... 3 93631 & TC......... 3 93640 & TC........ 3 93641 & TC...................... 3 93642 & TC......... 3 93650............. 9 93651........................... 9 93652.............. 9 93660 & TC........ 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OTHER VASCULAR STUDIES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 93720........................... 1 93721.............. 1 93722............. 9 93724 & TC...................... 3 93731.............. 2 93732............. 3 93733 & TC...................... 2 93734 & TC......... 2 93735 & TC........ 3 93736 & TC...................... 2 93737 & TC......... 3 93738 & TC........ 3 93740 & TC...................... 2 93760.............. 9 93762............. 9 93770 & TC...................... 3 93784.............. 9 93786............. 9 93788........................... 9 93790.............. 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CEREBROVASCULAR ARTERIAL STUDIES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 93875 & TC...................... 2 93880 & TC......... 2 93882 & TC........ 2 93886 & TC...................... 2 93888 & TC......... 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXTREMITY ARTERIAL STUDIES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 93922 & TC...................... 2 93923 & TC......... 2 93924 & TC........ 2 93925 & TC...................... 2 93926 & TC......... 2 93930 & TC........ 2 93931 & TC...................... 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXTREMITY VENOUS STUDIES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 93965 & TC...................... 2 93970 & TC......... 2 93971 & TC........ 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VISCERAL AND PENILE VASCULAR STUDIES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 93975 & TC...................... 2 93976 & TC......... 2 93978 & TC........ 2 93979 & TC...................... 2 93980 & TC......... 2 93981 & TC........ 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PULMONARY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 94010 & TC...................... 1 ................... ........... 94070 & TC........ 3 94150 & TC...................... 9 94200 & TC......... 1 94240 & TC........ 1 94250 & TC...................... 1 94260 & TC......... 1 94350 & TC........ 1 94360 & TC...................... 1 94370 & TC......... 1 94375 & TC........ 1 94400 & TC...................... 2 94450 & TC......... 2 94620 & TC........ 3 94640........................... 9 94642.............. 9 94650............. 9 94651........................... 9 94652.............. 9 94656............. 9 94657........................... 9 94660.............. 9 94662............. 9 94664........................... 2 94665.............. 2 94667............. 9 94668........................... 9 94680 & TC......... 2 94681 & TC........ 2 94690 & TC...................... 1 94720 & TC......... 1 94725 & TC........ 1 94750 & TC...................... 1 94760.............. 1 94761............. 1 94762........................... 1 94770 & TC......... 1 94772 & TC........ 1 94799 & TC...................... 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALLERGY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 95004........................... 2 95010.............. 9 95015............. 9 [[Page 59070]] 95024........................... 2 95027.............. 2 95028............. 2 95044........................... 2 95052.............. 2 95056............. 2 95060........................... 3 95065.............. 3 95070............. 3 95071........................... 3 95075.............. 9 95078............. 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEUROLOGY AND NEUROMUSCULAR PROCEDURES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SLEEP TESTING ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 95805 & TC...................... 1 95807 & TC......... 1 95808 & TC........ 1 95810 & TC...................... 1 95812 & TC......... 1 95813 & TC........ 1 95816 & TC...................... 2 95819 & TC......... 2 95822 & TC........ 1 95824 & TC...................... 1 95827 & TC......... 1 95829 & TC........ 1 95830........................... 9 95831.............. 9 95832............. 9 95833........................... 9 95834.............. 9 95851............. 9 95852........................... 9 95857.............. 9 95858 & TC........ 3 95860 & TC...................... 6 95861 & TC......... 6 95863 & TC........ 6 95864 & TC...................... 6 95867 & TC......... 6 95868 & TC........ 6 95869 & TC...................... 6 95870 & TC......... 6 95872 & TC........ 3 95875 & TC...................... 3 95900 & TC...................... 7 95903 & TC......... 7 95904 & TC........ 7 95920 & TC...................... 2 95921 & TC......... 2 95922 & TC........ 3 95923 & TC...................... 3 95925 & TC......... 2 95926 & TC........ 2 95927 & TC...................... 2 95930 & TC......... 2 95933 & TC........ 7 95934 & TC...................... 7 95936 & TC......... 7 95937 & TC........ 7 95950 & TC...................... 1 95951 & TC......... 1 95953 & TC........ 1 95954 & TC...................... 3 95955 & TC......... 2 95956 & TC........ 1 95957 & TC...................... 1 95958 & TC......... 3 95961 & TC........ 3 95962 & TC...................... 3 95999.............. 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM ASSESSMENTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 96100........................... 4 96105.............. 4 96110............. 4 96111........................... 4 96115.............. 4 96117............. 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALPHA-NUMERICS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- G0001........................... 9 G0002.............. 9 G0004............. 1 G0005........................... 1 G0006.............. 1 G0007............. 9 G0015........................... 1 G0016.............. 9 G0026............. 9 G0027........................... 9 G0030 & TC......... 2 G0031 & TC........ 2 G0032 & TC...................... 2 G0033 & TC......... 2 G0034 & TC........ 2 G0035 & TC...................... 2 G0036 & TC......... 2 G0037 & TC........ 2 G0038 & TC...................... 2 G0039 & TC......... 2 G0040 & TC........ 2 G0041 & TC...................... 2 G0042 & TC......... 2 G0043 & TC........ 2 G0044 & TC...................... 2 G0045 & TC......... 2 G0046 & TC........ 2 G0047 & TC...................... 2 G0050.............. 1 M0302............. 9 P2028........................... 9 P2029.............. 9 P2031............. 9 P2033........................... 9 P2038.............. 9 P3000............. 9 P3001........................... 9 P7001.............. 9 P9610............. 9 P9615........................... 9 Q0035 & TC......... 1 Q0091............. 1 Q0092........................... 9 Q0111.............. 9 Q0112............. 9 Q0113........................... 9 Q0114.............. 9 Q0115............. 9 R0070........................... 9 R0075.............. 9 R0076............. 9 V5008........................... 9 V5010.............. 9 V5011............. 9 V5014........................... 9 V5020.............. 9 V5362............. 9 V5363........................... 2 V5364.............. 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Independent Diagnostic Testing Facility Section 2070.5 of the Medicare Carriers Manual (HCFA Pub. 14-3) is the current policy basis for the coverage of Independent Physiological Laboratory (IPL) services. The section does not define the term ``physiological'' and specifically mentions only electrocardiograms and electroencephalograms as types of services the entity that has come to be known as an IPL may furnish. The section says little about the nature of IPLs other than that they operate independently of a hospital, physician's office, or rural health clinic and meet applicable State and local licensure laws. Few States regulate diagnostic services, other than x-rays, and the requirement for State and local licensure has had little meaning in practice. The other requirements for the coverage of IPL services are that the services be ordered by a ``referring'' physician and that the services be determined by the carrier to be reasonable and necessary. The requirement that the diagnostic services must be ordered by a referring physician has been addressed by the policy we adopted in the final rule for the 1997 [[Page 59071]] physician fee schedule published in the Federal Register November 22, 1996 (61 FR 59497 through 59498), under which the physician who orders a diagnostic service must be a physician who is treating the patient. We are setting aside the term ``IPL'' and are defining a new entity independent of a hospital or physician's office in which diagnostic tests are performed by licensed, certified nonphysician personnel under appropriate physician supervision. We are calling this entity an Independent Diagnostic Testing Facility (IDTF). The new entity will replace the IPL. The regulations are intended to resolve confusion surrounding the structure of entities Medicare previously classified as IPLs, as well as the services they furnish and to address the potential for abuse and the quality and safety concerns raised by the lack of Federal and State IPL licensure and certification requirements. The regulations will not apply to approved portable x-ray suppliers or to procedures furnished in physicians' offices including group practices or multispecialty clinics. We are defining an IDTF as a fixed location, a mobile entity, or an individual nonphysician practitioner. The following diagnostic tests, which are payable under the physician fee schedule, are not required to be furnished in accordance with the IDTF criteria when furnished by a nonhospital entity: Diagnostic mammograms, the coverage of which is required by law to be regulated by the Food and Drug Administration rather than by HCFA. Diagnostic tests personally furnished by a ``qualified audiologist'' as defined in section 1861(ll)(3) of the Act. These include ``audiology services'' as defined in section 1861(ll)(2) of the Act that are payable by Medicare carriers under the physician fee schedule. We are excluding these diagnostic tests from the physician supervision requirement because the Congress has defined these services without requiring physician supervision of their performance. Diagnostic psychological testing services personally furnished by a qualified psychologist practicing independently of an institution, agency, or physician's office as currently defined in section 2070.2 of the Medicare Carriers Manual (HCFA Pub. 14-3). The services are distinguished from services of clinical psychologists, which are covered under section 1861(ii) of the Act rather than 1861(s)(3). We are excluding these tests from the physician supervision requirement because we do not believe that these services require physician supervision of their performance. IDTFs must meet the following requirements: An IDTF must have one or more supervising physicians who are responsible for the direct and ongoing oversight of the quality of the testing performed, the proper operation and calibration of the equipment used to perform tests, and the qualification of nonphysician personnel who use the equipment. This level of supervision equates to general supervision as discussed in this section II.D. and Sec. 410.32(b)(3)(i). The supervising physician must evidence proficiency in the performance and interpretation of each type of diagnostic procedure performed by the IDTF; however, there is no requirement that the IDTF's supervising physician actually furnish the interpretation. (For example, a physician might purchase tests from the IDTF that he or she will interpret.) Proficiency may be documented by certification in specific medical specialties or subspecialties or by criteria established by the carrier for the service area in which the IDTF is located. In the case of a procedure which would require the direct or personal supervision of a physician pursuant to II.D. in this section and Sec. 410.32(b)(3)(ii) and (b)(3)(iii), respectively, the IDTF's supervising physician must personally furnish this level of supervision whether the procedure is performed in the IDTF or, in the case of mobile services, at a remote location. The IDTF must maintain documentation to demonstrate sufficient physician attendance during all hours of operation to assure that the required physician supervision is furnished. In the case of procedures requiring direct supervision, the supervising physician may oversee concurrent procedures. Any nonphysician personnel used by the IDTF to perform tests must demonstrate the basic qualifications to perform the tests in question and have appropriate training and proficiency as evidenced by licensure or certification by the appropriate State health or education department. In the absence of a State licensing board, the technician must be certified by the appropriate national credentialing body. The IDTF must maintain documentation available for review that these requirements are met. All procedures performed by the IDTF must be specifically ordered in writing by a physician who treats the beneficiary, that is, the physician who is furnishing a consultation or treating a beneficiary for a specific medical problem and who uses the results in the management of the beneficiary's specific medical problem. This requirement would be met when a beneficiary's primary care physician orders testing the results of which may determine whether or not the physician refers the beneficiary to a specialist. In other words, that physician is managing the patient's care. The order must specify the diagnosis or other basis for the testing. The supervising physician for the IDTF may not order tests performed by the IDTF, and the IDTF may not add any procedures based on internal protocols without written order from the treating physician. An IDTF that operates across State boundaries must maintain documentation that its supervising physicians and technicians are licensed and certified in each of the States in which it is furnishing services. Below is a discussion of the public comments we received on this proposal and our responses: Comment: We received many favorable comments (with reservations) from representatives of existing IPLs who indicated their preference for national standards rather than different standards in each carrier service area. Many expressed frustration with the current situation in which there is no national policy on the procedures an IPL may perform, and carriers have differing local medical review policies on these procedures. One commenter indicated that limiting the types of diagnostic tests an IPL or IDTF can furnish is a better way to prevent unneeded and medically unnecessary testing than our proposal. He stated that adoption of the IDTF proposal will produce a rise in expenditures for diagnostic testing without a concomitant decrease in expenditures from other entities that currently bill Medicare for diagnostic tests. Response: We believe that the time has come to change the current situation under which there are different local medical review policies on the services an IPL may perform in different carrier service areas. If a facility meets the standards established for IDTFs, including the appropriate level of physician supervision, it should be able to furnish the same range of procedures as other entities in the service area. Carriers should be denying claims for procedures that are not reasonable and necessary for individual patients. Comment: A supplier of mobile bone density procedures commented that it had been erroneously classified as a portable x-ray supplier and supported the proposal as a clarification of its [[Page 59072]] mobile status under Medicare as an IDTF. The commenter supported the proposal. Response: Under the IDTF policy, a mobile diagnostic facility may furnish the same procedures as a stationary facility unless there is a national policy indicating otherwise. Comment: With regard to the credentialing criteria for IDTF personnel, several commenters questioned the need for the IDTF proposal and pointed out that there already were voluntary certification organizations in existence that possessed greater expertise than we did in these matters. Commenters cited organizations that have been granted membership by the National Commission for Certifying Agencies, such as The American Registry of Diagnostic Medical Sonographers for ultrasonography physician and nonphysician personnel, the Intersocietal Commission for the Accreditation of Vascular Laboratories, which deals with noninvasive vascular procedures, and the Intersocietal Commission for the Accreditation of Echocardiographic Laboratories for echocardiographic procedures. The commenters indicated that criteria established by these organizations are more specific than the vague criteria we proposed. Response: We have no desire to interfere with these private accreditation activities. The IDTF should maintain documentation of recognition by these organizations for verification by the carrier as necessary. However, we do not believe that the standards for accreditation by these agencies are equivalent to ours. For example, in commenting on our proposal, one of the listed organizations indicated that it required records of the source of the order for the test in the accredited laboratories. However, this requirement is not the same as assuring that all tests are ordered by a physician who is treating the patient. Comment: One commenter indicated that the proposal that the supervising physician in an IDTF cannot order tests performed by the IDTF is unrealistic. The commenter stated that if the IDTF is appropriately accredited and the supervising physician's income is fixed (rather than related to volume of testing), the supervising physician should be able to order any necessary test for his or her patients. Response: We have decided to modify the prohibition in Sec. 410.33(d) against the supervising physician's ordering of tests to be performed by the IDTF although we continue to believe there are potential problems in permitting such a practice. However, we acknowledge that there could be situations in which the IDTF's supervising physician is, in fact, the beneficiary's treating physician. The modified wording of the requirement indicates that, in these situations, the physician in question would have had a relationship with the beneficiary prior to the testing and would be treating the beneficiary for a specific medical problem. Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that the policy requires State-credentialed nonphysician personnel to perform tests; commenters point out the varying State standards that may be applied. Some believed that credentialing by a national standardized body was preferable. Response: We believe that credentialing of nonphysician technologists by either a State government or a recognized national organization should be sufficient. Comment: Several commenters stated that the requirement that all procedures performed by IDTFs must be specifically ordered in writing by the treating physician would be very burdensome for the referring physician, patient, and the examiner if it is found that the patient needs additional tests and has to come back another day with written orders for them. Some indicated that the generally-applicable ordering provisions of Sec. 410.32(a) were sufficient. One commenter indicated that the requirement for written orders was redundant, time-consuming, and costly, and requested the rationale for the additional requirement applicable only to IDTFs. Response: We believe that the physician responsible for the management of the patient's care (or some aspect of the patient's care) should be aware of the testing being performed. For that reason, we adopted a modification to Sec. 410.32 to that effect in the physician fee schedule final rule of November 22, 1996. That rule did not explicitly require written orders but served to establish the link between test ordering and the treating physician as a matter of national Medicare law. If the testing entity chose not to maintain a file of written orders from physicians for the tests it performed, the entity might not be able to demonstrate the medical necessity of the tests to a reviewer from a Medicare carrier or another government agency. Some commenters have requested the rationale for requiring specific written orders for tests performed by IDTFs while not imposing the same requirement on testing in physicians' offices. The rationale for requiring testing by IDTFs to be ordered in writing by the treating physician is based in our (and, more specifically, HCFA's contractors') experience with IPLs. There have been instances in which IPLs have offered ``free'' screening to Medicare beneficiaries in shopping malls and senior citizen centers, which meant that the IPL accepted the carrier payment for the procedure and waived billing the beneficiary for the coinsurance. There have been instances of mass testing in nursing facilities with questionable orders for the tests performed and little regard for the medical necessity of the tests. There have been numerous instances of IPLs performing tests in addition to those ordered by referring physicians. The manual (Medicare Carriers Manual section 2070.5) has always required that the diagnostic services be ordered by a referring physician. Therefore, we believe there is little in this requirement that is new other than the explicit provision that the orders be in writing. While we are certain that many IPLs did not engage in the practices referred to above, we anticipate that the new rules will give the carriers tools to use to address abusive situations, when they do occur, through post-payment reviews. We believe that our experiences with waste and abuse in IPLs justify these requirements, including requiring the treating physician's order for a procedure. In response to the absence of regulation of IPLs, we are creating the IDTF designation to establish a degree of national regulation of a diagnostic facility that is distinct from a physician's office and does not directly use the test results to treat a beneficiary. The facility's sole purpose is to furnish a test. We believe that any distinctions in treatment between IDTFs and physicians' offices or hospitals are justified by our experiences with the entities and the different degrees of regulation to which the entities have been subject. We do not agree that the requirement for written orders is an unnecessarily burdensome requirement, or that there is any necessity for a beneficiary to return with written orders on another day. If an IDTF determines that a patient needs further testing, the IDTF may contact the ordering physician's office and receive a FAX order for the additional testing. Comment: One commenter indicated that the term ``referring physician'' must be broadened to include appropriate ``licensed medical practitioners,'' including podiatrists, chiropractors, [[Page 59073]] optometrists and other similar allied-health care professionals. The commenter further stated that IDTF testing procedures should be ordered only by an appropriately licensed medical professional. Response: The term ``referring physician'' was used in the proposal only in the description of the existing IPL policy. The current proposals refer to ``ordering physician'' and ``supervising physician.'' Podiatrists and optometrists (when operating within the scope of their State licensure) are included in the Medicare definition of a ``physician'' set forth in section 1861(r) of the Act and do not need to be singled out as appropriate persons to order tests. Chiropractors may not order tests for Medicare beneficiaries under any circumstances. The changes made to Sec. 410.32 by the physician fee schedule final rule of November 22, 1996 (61 FR 59490) provided for the ordering of diagnostic tests by nonphysician practitioners under certain conditions. We have modified proposed Sec. 410.33(d) in this final rule to make it clear that nonphysician practitioners who are working within the scope of the laws of their States may order testing from IDTFs. Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the exemption of physicians' offices, group practices, and multispecialty groups from the rules governing IDTFs. One commenter indicated that such an exemption would lead to the potential for abuse and quality and safety concerns. Others said that the proposed rules would put IDTFs at a competitive disadvantage with entities such as hospitals and physicians' offices in the furnishing of diagnostic tests and that the same rules should apply in all settings. Response: In several responses immediately preceding this one, we have given our reasoning regarding the application of specific requirements to IDTFs that do not apply to physicians' offices. Our reasoning is that hospitals are currently regulated, and physicians must have State licensure to perform the services they furnish. (We would like to reiterate here, however, that the physician supervision requirements for specific tests discussed elsewhere in this rule apply to all diagnostic tests payable under the physician fee schedule whether they are performed in an IDTF, physicians' office, or other setting.) On the other hand, IPLs do not exist because of a specific statutory provision but because of unique circumstances. HCFA has, for a number of years, permitted payment for diagnostic tests to entities that were not created by law. The implementing manual instruction for IPLs (section 2070.5 of the Medicare Carriers Manual) clearly presumes the existence of ``applicable State and local licensure laws'' for these facilities although very little regulation actually exists. Comment: A commenter objected to the requirement in Sec. 410.33(b)(2) that the supervising physician must have demonstrated proficiency in the performance and interpretation of each type of diagnostic test performed by the IDTF when there is no such requirement for hospital outpatient departments or physician groups. The commenter indicated that, for radiology procedures, State Board Certification in Radiology should be deemed sufficient for supervision of procedures requiring direct or general supervision. Response: As we have pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, hospitals are regulated through the accreditation process. For example, Sec. 482.26(c) of the Medicare Conditions of Participation for Hospitals establishes standards for a qualified supervisory radiologist in a hospital. Further, all States have licensure requirements that apply to physicians' offices, and we are not aware of significant problems with physicians and physician groups performing tests they are not qualified to perform. On the other hand, the performance of diagnostic tests in IPLs (including the physician supervision of this testing) is generally not regulated by State or local laws. Our regional offices and carriers cite many problems with the way diagnostic procedures have been furnished in IPLs, such as IPLs entering into arrangements with physicians to serve as pro forma supervisors when these physicians had little expertise in the area of diagnostic testing involved. Because of systemic problems in IPLs, we believe that it is reasonable for Medicare to require physicians who supervise the performance of tests in IDTFs to demonstrate proficiency in the type of testing being performed while not imposing the same requirement on physicians' offices, which operate under the authority of the physician's State licensure. Comment: A commenter indicated that the nonphysician credentialing requirements would impose significant additional costs and requirements on IDTFs that would not be borne by medical groups or hospitals. Response: Most commenters from existing IPLs, many of whom indicated that their employees had already met these standards, did not raise this issue, and, therefore, we believe that any burden on IPLs will not be widespread. We believe it to be entirely appropriate to require the technologists who perform tests in IDTFs to possess appropriate credentialing while not imposing the same requirements on hospitals that must meet accreditation standards imposed by governmental and other bodies or on physicians' offices that operate under the authority of the physician's State licensure. Comment: One commenter objected to the proposed requirement for documentation of physician supervision in IDTFs not being required of other entities. Response: We believe that this requirement is justified by the past performance of IPLS. Moreover, when carriers identify a problem with lack of supervision of diagnostic testing in physicians' offices, they may request this information from the physician in the same way they currently request additional information on the medical necessity of a service or procedure. Comment: One commenter indicated that record retention for CLIA laboratories was determined to be 2 years and that the same requirement should apply to IDTFs. Response: We will review our record retention guidelines and will provide further advice through program instructions. Comment: One commenter indicated that an IDTF should be allowed to bill globally for radiological procedures when it contracts with a medical group for interpretations and the medical group reassigns benefits to the IDTF. Response: These billings are permitted under the policy in section 3060.5 of the Medicare Carriers Manual. In these situations, the IDTF would bill the carrier in such a way as to identify itself as an IDTF. Comment: One commenter objected to the proposed requirement that an IDTF that operates across State boundaries maintain documentation that its supervising physicians are licensed in each of the States in which it is furnishing services. The commenter indicated that this requirement would be unnecessarily burdensome and cost prohibitive if the facility must engage physicians licensed in every State the facility serves. Response: We believe it appropriate for a physician who is supervising the performance of tests performed in State to be licensed in that State. Comment: One commenter indicated that we are creating a new regulatory scheme without Congressional authorization. The commenter stated that if a problem exists with respect to independent diagnostic facilities, the problem should be explored and [[Page 59074]] debated in public before rules are established. Response: The commenter is correct in recognizing that IPLs are not created in the Medicare statute. Nonetheless, we have paid for services they furnish for a number of years. Over the years, however, a number of problems have become manifest in the operation of these entities. We believe that our general rulemaking authority is sufficient to permit us to deal with these problems and that the facts require our exercise of that authority. In addition, the publication of a proposed rule has provided the opportunity for public comment and debate. Comment: Several commenters indicated that the regulation should address the competency of physicians to perform interpretations of, rather than supervision of, diagnostic tests. Some suggested that the responsibilities of the supervising physician in an IDTF include interpretation of the results of the procedures. One commenter supported the proposal that technologists in IDTFs be certified and recommended a requirement that radiologic procedures performed in IDTFs be interpreted by physicians who are qualified through: (1) Completing an approved residency program, (2) postresidency training, or (3) sufficient clinical experience. Response: The performance of the interpretation (the physician's service covered under section 1861(s)(1) of the Act, as opposed to the diagnostic test covered under section 1861(s)(3) of the Act) is beyond the scope of this proposal except for the requirement that an IDTF's supervising physician evidence proficiency in the interpretation of each type of diagnostic procedure performed by the facility. In developing the IDTF proposal, we considered requiring IDTFs to furnish the interpretation as well as the test, but we decided not to include such a requirement because of the likelihood it would lead to unintended problems. For example, the physician who provides the general supervision for an IDTF may not be available to furnish an interpretation for a period of time and that could unnecessarily delay making a diagnosis in an urgent situation. In another situation, a beneficiary might want his or her test interpreted by a particular physician he or she has dealt with in the past. Comment: One commenter pointed out that the proposal indicated that the IDTF policy did not apply to procedures furnished in physicians' offices and suggested that we clarify the status of procedures performed by IDTFs in physicians' offices. Response: The IDTF requirements would apply to any procedures furnished by the IDTF either in its own facility or in a physician's office, clinic, or other nonprovider setting. For example, if a procedure requires direct supervision, it would be necessary for the IDTF's supervising physician to be present in the suite during performance. We have modified Sec. 410.33(a)(1) to state that the IDTF policy applies to procedures performed by IDTFs in physicians' offices. Comment: One commenter indicated that the IDTF proposal should apply to any noninvasive vascular procedure performed by portable x-ray suppliers. Response: Noninvasive vascular procedures (or any test other than certain x-rays, diagnostic mammography, and EKGs) are not included in the portable x-ray benefit. If an approved portable x-ray supplier wishes to furnish these procedures, it would have to become an IDTF. No transportation payment would be made in connection with these types of procedures. Comment: A national organization representing psychologists pointed out that, as written, the IDTF proposal would apply to individual nonphysician practitioners, including clinical psychologists and asked us to clarify that clinical psychologists do not have to become IDTFs and perform diagnostic psychological testing under physician supervision. Response: We did not intend the IDTF proposal to apply to diagnostic psychological testing personally performed by clinical psychologists because these services are not covered under section 1861(s)(3) of the Act. However, in order to promote understanding of the policy by all concerned, we are explicitly excluding diagnostic psychological testing personally performed by clinical psychologists from the requirement that out-of-hospital, out-of-physician-office tests that must be performed under the supervision of a physician in an IDTF. In other words, a clinical psychologist does not have to become an IDTF to be paid by the carrier for the performance of diagnostic psychological testing. Comment: A State Department of Health cited several aspects of the IDTF proposal that would conflict with the laws of its State. The commenter also indicated that the proposed rule did not define the types of diagnostic tests that could be covered by Medicare when performed by an IDTF, whether IDTFs can furnish radiologic services, or who will receive the Medicare payments for services performed by an IDTF. Response: In making the IDTF proposal, we were recognizing the problems with the existing situation of largely unregulated entities that performed diagnostic tests. Neither IDTFs nor IPLs were established because of statutory mandate from the Congress. In making this proposal, it is not our intention to preempt any State licensing requirements; however, it is not clear to us how IPLs could have operated in a State and IDTFs cannot. However, in order to address these concerns, we have added an additional requirement in paragraph (f) of Sec. 410.33 (Independent Diagnostic Testing Facility). Under this requirement, an IDTF must comply with the applicable laws of any State in which it operates. In IDTFs, Medicare would cover all tests payable under the Medicare physician fee schedule, including radiologic procedures, other than clinical laboratory tests. In many cases, the carrier will pay the IDTF for the technical component of the procedures. In some cases, an IDTF may purchase the interpretation of the test from a physician and bill for both professional and technical components, while in other cases, an interpreting physician may purchase the test from the IDTF and bill for both professional and technical components. Comment: Some commenters expressed concern about the January 1, 1998 effective date of the IDTF proposal. They suggested transition periods of up to 1 year. Response: We are addressing these comments in the discussion below. Result of evaluation of comments: We are adopting the proposal to have IDTFs replace IPLs with the modifications or clarifications discussed above. In addition, we are providing that the replacement occur on a phased-in basis scheduled to be completed on July 1, 1998. Entities wishing to be recognized as IDTFs must send a letter to the Part B carrier for their service areas attesting that they meet all IDTF criteria. As soon as a carrier accepts the entity as an IDTF, the carrier notifies the entity of its new status and billing number. Once an entity becomes an IDTF, it is no longer subject to local medical review policies that currently preclude IPLs from furnishing procedures or groups of procedures while allowing other entities to perform them. An IDTF must comply with the applicable laws of any State in which it operates. [[Page 59075]] E. Reasonable Compensation Equivalent Limit Update Factor 1. Background Section 1887(a)(2)(B) of the Act provided for the reasonable compensation equivalent limits used to determine the reasonableness of costs incurred by providers for professional services furnished by physicians for the benefit of provider patients in a hospital or skilled nursing facility. Regulations set forth at Sec. 415.70 (Limits on compensation for physician services in providers), paragraph (b), concerning the methodology for establishing limits, established a methodology for determining reasonable annual compensation equivalents, considering average physician incomes by specialty and type of location, to the extent possible using the best available data. The regulations also expanded the application of the reasonable compensation equivalent limits to include comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facilities. The initial and still current methodology for establishing reasonable compensation equivalent limits is based on an internal working paper (``A Methodology for Determination of Reasonable FTE Compensation for Hospital-Based Physicians'' by James R. Cantwell and William J. Sobaski (Working Paper No. OR-32, revised December 1982)) developed by HCFA's Office of Strategic Planning, (formerly the Office of Research and Demonstrations). Copies of this paper are available on request from: OSP Publications, Office of Strategic Planning, Health Care Financing Administration, Room C3-20- 11, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, (410) 786-6588. The inflation factor employed in the methodology used to develop the initial limits and, subsequently, to update those limits to reflect increases in net physician compensation was the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). 2. Change in the Methodology Used to Develop Reasonable Compensation Equivalent Limits The methodology currently employed to update the physician fee schedule uses an inflation factor distinct from the CPI-U, which is used to update the reasonable compensation equivalent limits. To achieve a measure of consistency in the methodologies employed to determine reasonable payments to physicians for physicians' direct medical and surgical services furnished to individual patients and reasonable compensation levels for physicians' services that benefit provider patients generally, we are revising the methodology used to update the reasonable compensation equivalent limits that would entail the adoption of the physician fee schedule's inflation factor (the MEI) to update the reasonable compensation equivalent limits. For cost reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 1998, updates to the reasonable compensation equivalent limits would be calculated using the MEI. Comment: One association favored the adoption of the MEI in place of the CPI-U as the update factor for the reasonable compensation equivalent limits. Another medical association stated that, while it did not object to the adoption of the MEI, it recommended that the reasonable compensation equivalent limits methodology be replaced with a relative value based methodology. Response: We will consider the development of a relative value based reasonable compensation equivalent limits methodology in the immediate future, but we are proceeding with the adoption of the MEI as the reasonable compensation equivalent limits update factor at the present time. Result of evaluation of comments: As proposed, we are revising the reasonable compensation equivalent limits update methodology by replacing the CPI-U with the MEI as the update factor. F. Payment to Participating and Nonparticipating Suppliers Section 1848(a)(1) of the Act requires that payment for physician services (as defined in 1848(j)(3)) be based on the lesser of the actual charge for the service or the fee schedule amount. We proposed to revise the regulations at Sec. 414.21 (Medicare payment basis) to ensure that they contain this statutory provision. (Our proposed definition of ``actual charges'' was discussed separately in section II.J. of our June 18, 1997 proposed rule (62 FR 33192).) Section 1848(a)(3) of the Act provides incentives for participating physicians and suppliers by setting the fee schedule amount for those who participate at 100 percent of the amount calculated under the fee schedule for the service as provided in the formula at section 1848(b)(1) of the Act. It also provides that the fee schedule amount for nonparticipating physicians and suppliers be set at 95 percent of the amount for participating physicians and suppliers. Since regulations at Sec. 400.202 (Definitions specific to Medicare) define the term ``supplier'' as including physicians and all other persons who provide services for which payment may be made under Part B except for ``providers of services'' as defined in 1861(u) of the Act, we proposed to define nonparticipating suppliers in Sec. 400.202 as being suppliers who do not have a Part B participation agreement in effect on the date of the service. We also proposed to define participating suppliers as being suppliers who have an agreement to participate in Part B in effect on the date of the service. These definitions mirror the definitions of participating and nonparticipating physicians, suppliers, and other persons that are in section 1842(h) of the Act. Section 1848(g)(2)(C) of the Act states that the Medicare limiting charge is to be set at 115 percent of the ``* * * payment amount for nonparticipating physicians or nonparticipating suppliers or other persons.'' Hence, we proposed to reflect this requirement in regulations in proposed Sec. 414.48(b) (concerning specific limits on actual charges of nonparticipating suppliers). We received two comments related to these proposed changes. Comment: Some physicians objected to being considered ``suppliers,'' and some physicians did not recognize that, under current regulations, the term ``supplier'' includes physicians. These commenters wanted us to revise the terminology in the regulations to consider physicians not to be ``suppliers.'' Response: We did not accept this comment because the term ``supplier'' is used to include physicians for all other Medicare regulations (except where otherwise specified), all of which would have to be revised if we were to remove physicians from the definition of ``supplier'' for general Medicare regulations. Doing this would be impractical and would risk removing rules that apply to physicians in the same manner in which they apply to other persons who bill and are paid for services covered under Part B of Medicare. Comment: Some commenters objected to the requirement that Medicare fee schedule payment be based on the lower of the actual charge or the fee schedule amount. They argued that the fee schedule amount should be the only basis for payment. Response: We did not accept this comment because the law requires that the payment be based on the lesser of the actual charge or the fee schedule amount. Including it should have no practical effect on payment since carriers are already instructed to compare the submitted charge to the fee schedule amount and to base payment on the lesser of the two amounts. Moreover, we believe that some of these commenters may have confused this [[Page 59076]] general requirement with our proposed definition of ``actual charges'' (which is discussed in section II. J. of this preamble). Result of evaluation of comments: We are making final the technical change to the regulations to conform them to statutory provisions and operating instructions (Medicare Carriers Manual). G. Increase in Work Relative Value Units for Global Surgical Services to Account for the 1997 Increases for Work Relative Value Units in Evaluation and Management Services In our November 22, 1996 final rule with comment period, as part of the 5-year review of all physician work RVUs, we increased most of the work RVUs for evaluation and management services for hospital and office or other outpatient visits. We revised the work RVUs for evaluation and management services partly in recognition of the increase in preservice and postservice work. At that time, we made no adjustments to the work RVUs assigned to global surgical services, which, in addition to the surgical procedure, include the related preservice and postservice evaluation and management visits a surgeon provides within a defined period of time. Upon further examination of this issue, we are increasing the work RVUs for global surgical services to be consistent with the 1997 increases in the work RVUs for evaluation and management services. Because the increases in the work RVUs for global surgical services will cause an increase in payments for those services, we must reduce all work payments by 0.7 percent to maintain budget neutrality. We received the following public comments on this proposal: Comment: Several commenters, ranging from individual physicians to physician specialty societies, expressed support for our proposal because it makes the increased work associated with the preservice and postservice work of global surgical services consistent with the increases that were made to evaluation and management services for the 1997 physician fee schedule. Response: We agree that our proposal will make payment amounts for the increased evaluation and management services present in the preservice and postservice work of global surgical services more consistent with the increases in work that were made to evaluation and management services. Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns that our proposal did not include all global surgical services. Commenters requested that we review our list of global surgical services to be affected by these work RVU increases. Response: We agree with commenters that we inadvertently omitted certain global surgical services from our proposal. We addressed this oversight by reviewing the list of global surgical services, identifying those services which were omitted. After this residual list of services was compiled, we contacted the specialty societies most closely identified with the omitted CPT codes in order to attach the appropriate number of office visits associated with each individual CPT code. Result of evaluation of comments: We are adopting our proposal to increase the work RVUs associated with global surgical services to reflect the increased evaluation and management present in the preservice and postservice portions of these services. We have added the services referred to above. This will assure that the evaluation and management portions of global surgical services are consistent with our 1997 increases to evaluation and management services. Those codes that have been changed due to the increase of work RVUs of global surgical services are identified in Addendum B. H. Caloric Vestibular Testing We proposed to reduce the RVUs for caloric vestibular testing, CPT code 92543, to 25 percent of what the values would have otherwise been. We made this proposal in order to permit physicians and suppliers to bill four units of service instead of the one unit now permitted. The use of four units is consistent with the AMA's interpretation of the code. Addendum C in the June 18, 1997 proposed rule contained an error. The reduction to 25 percent of the RVUs otherwise applicable was reflected for the practice expense RVUs, but we incorrectly published unreduced RVUs for work and malpractice. On August 18, 1997, we published a correction notice (62 FR 43962) to reflect the correct values. The new values for work and malpractice were 25 percent of the numbers previously published. The reduction to the direct practice expense RVUs had been correctly noted in the proposed rule. However, because the indirect practice expense RVUs are partially based on the work RVUs, the reduction to the work RVUs caused a reduction to the indirect practice expense RVUs. The new total practice expense RVUs published in the correction notice reflect the reduced indirect practice expense RVUs. Because resource-based practice expense RVUs will not be implemented effective January 1998, the practice expense RVUs published in this final rule differ from those published in the proposed rule and the correction notice. The final practice expense RVUs continue to be based on charge-based data and are simply 25 percent of the charge- based RVUs currently in effect. The final work and malpractice RVUs are those published in the correction notice. They too are 25 percent of the values currently in effect. Two physician organizations expressed support for this change. Other comments are discussed below. Comment: One commenter suggested that Medicare should recognize four units of service when four irrigations are performed but that we should not make a reduction in RVU amounts. Response: This change is not intended to reflect a decision that our relative payment amounts are too low for caloric vestibular testing. Medicare has not made such a decision. Instead, we are simply reconciling our interpretation of the code with the AMA's interpretation and, in order to do this in a budget neutral fashion, we are reducing the RVUs to 25 percent of the amount otherwise applicable. Comment: Another commenter did not oppose this proposal but opposed the proposed resource-based practice expense RVUs for the service. Response: Since we are no longer proceeding with resource-based practice expense RVUs for 1998, the merits of these comments will not be addressed in this final rule. Result of evaluation of comments: Beginning in 1998, when a physician performs and interprets four irrigations, the physician will bill Medicare for four units of CPT code 92543 (that is, the global service). When a physician interprets four irrigations, the physician will bill four units of CPT code 92543-26. When a physician or supplier performs four irrigations, the physician or supplier will bill four units of CPT code 92543-TC. I. Clinical Consultations There are two CPT codes for clinical consultations, CPT codes 80500 (Clinical pathology consultation; limited, without review of patient's history and medical records) and 80502 (Clinical pathology consultation; comprehensive, for a complex diagnostic problem, with review of patient's history and medical records), which were added to the CPT in 1985. The regulations set forth at Sec. 415.130 (Conditions for payment: Physician pathology services), paragraph (b) [[Page 59077]] (Clinical consultation services), require that a clinical consultation meet four criteria before it can be paid. One of these criteria is that the clinical consultation must be requested by the patient's attending physician. As we indicated in the preamble to the proposed rule, we have allowed a standing order policy to be used as a substitute for the individual request by the patient's attending physician since a 1984 law suit. However, we believe that this policy is no longer appropriate. Because the policy was not embodied in the court's judgment or otherwise required by law and because we view it as creating opportunities for abuse and waste, effective January 1, 1998, we are not accepting a standing order as a substitute for the individual request by the attending physician. We are instructing the Medicare carriers to enforce Sec. 415.130(b) as it is presently written. Comment: We received comments from two organizations and many individual pathologists from Florida. These commenters argue that standing orders are an efficient mechanism of providing interpretive reports of specific clinical laboratory tests to attending physicians without prolonging care or the length of a hospital stay. Therefore, the proposed elimination of standing orders would create unnecessary delays and could adversely affect patient care and increase the cost of care. Response: As we explained in the June 1997 proposed rule, pathologists could use a standing order policy to generate unnecessary consultations. These consultations may occur even though the attending physician can properly interpret the test results and does not need the assistance of the pathologist. We readily admit that standing orders can offer efficiencies over individual requests by attending physicians when attending physicians need interpretations from pathologists. However, we must balance this concern with the risk that the Medicare program may be inappropriately paying for medically unnecessary services under a standing order policy. Comment: Individual commenters stated that there are several tests when prompt interpretation of tests is needed and the tests require interpretation by pathologists. Examples of these tests include cardiac enzymes, serum protein electrophoresis, and immunoelectrophoresis. Response: These commenters appear to be confusing our policy on clinical laboratory interpretation services with clinical consultations. Before the implementation of the physician fee schedule in 1992, we worked with the College of American Pathologists and our carrier medical directors to identify those clinical laboratory tests for which the attending physician would ordinarily need the pathologist's interpretation. The clinical laboratory tests, which the commenters mentioned, were on the original list of tests which our carrier medical directors reviewed. Working with the carrier medical directors, we identified a list of 15 clinical laboratory tests for which we would recognize a clinical laboratory interpretation service. These tests were listed in the November 1991 final rule (56 FR 59565) and can be found at section 15020 E of the Medicare Carriers Manual. The list includes CPT codes 86320, 86325 and 86327, which describe immunoelectrophoresis services, and CPT code 84165, which describes serum protein electrophoresis. Since these tests are ordinarily interpreted by a pathologist, we allow a standing order policy to be used in place of an individual request by an attending physician. Result of evaluation of comments: Except for the clinical laboratory tests mentioned above, we will not accept a standing order as a substitute for the individual request by the attending physician. We will instruct the Medicare carriers to enforce Sec. 415.130(b) as it is presently written. J. Actual Charges In the June 18, 1997 proposed rule (62 FR 33184), we defined the term ``actual charge'' to be the lesser of the amount the physician, supplier, or other person charges for the service to a particular beneficiary or the amount they have voluntarily agreed to accept as payment in full under a private plan contract that also covers the beneficiary when Medicare is primary and the private plan is secondary. We proposed this policy to protect Medicare beneficiaries from incurring greater deductible and coinsurance expenses as a result of enrollment in Part B of Medicare if the private plan's payment amount is less than the Medicare payment, and the Medicare coinsurance is more than the private plan's copayment. For example, a retiree age 64, enrolled in a managed care plan, has a cataract removed by a physician who participates in Medicare and in the managed care plan. The managed care plan pays $800 of the physician's $1,500 actual charge. The retiree pays a $5 copayment. The physician cannot bill the retiree for the remaining amount under the terms of the contract with the managed care plan. The retiree reaches age 65 and enrolls in Medicare Part B, which is usually required by the employer or the plan in order for the beneficiary to stay in the managed care plan. The beneficiary pays the Medicare premium each month and has the second cataract removed. Medicare is now the primary payer and the managed care plan is a secondary payer. The physician takes assignment on the Medicare claim and Medicare allows $1,000 of the physician's $1,500 charge. Medicare pays $800, its share of the payment. The physician bills the managed care plan for the $200 coinsurance but the plan may refuse to pay because the physician has already received the $800 that the plan considers to be payment in full. The physician may attempt to collect the coinsurance from the beneficiary. When this occurs, the beneficiary may have more out-of-pocket expense after age 65 than before. The potential for higher out-of-pocket expenses occurs also with the services of other practitioners and suppliers, especially suppliers of durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies, who often deeply discount the price they charge managed care organizations in exchange for exclusivity and guaranteed business. We received numerous comments from individual physicians and suppliers and the organizations that represent them in opposition of this proposal. In general, the comments have the following common themes: Physicians and suppliers do not know what the plans will pay for their services, either because the plans change the payment amounts without notice or, in the case of physicians, because of withholds and bonuses that do not permit establishing actual payment for the service until after the end of the year--certainly not in time for the actual payment to be placed on the claim for Medicare payment. The proposal would increase physicians' and suppliers' administrative cost and burden to bill Medicare. There is no statutory basis for interpreting the term ``actual charges'' in any manner other than the plain meaning of the words, for example, whatever the physician or supplier chooses to charge. There is no standard coding and/or bundling among payers, hence, there is no standard description of services on which to base a comparison of Medicare and managed care payments. The proposal constitutes a breach of faith with the physician community that supports the physician fee schedule because of the participatory nature of its development. As a result of our review of the comments, we have decided that the [[Page 59078]] actual charge issue, including the implications for beneficiary out-of- pocket expense, requires further study. Although we are not issuing a final rule requiring physicians and suppliers to show the lower negotiated payment as their submitted charge for the service, we continue to believe that the lower negotiated rate should be the submitted charge in this situation. III. Implementation of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 In addition to the physician fee schedule provisions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the new legislation expands the previously enacted Medicare screening mammography benefit and adds several new screening benefits to the law--the colorectal cancer screening benefit and the screening pelvic examination benefit effective January 1, 1998. For many years physicians have understood the value of prevention and early detection measures in dealing with medical problems. Preventive services for the early detection of disease have also been associated with substantial reductions in morbidity. For example, dramatic reductions in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer and in cervical cancer mortality have occurred following the implementation of screening programs using Papanicolaou testing to detect cervical dysplasia. Although sound clinical reasons exist for emphasizing prevention in medicine, studies have shown that clinicians often fail to provide recommended clinical preventive services. This is due to a variety of factors, including inadequate reimbursement for preventive services, fragmentation of health care delivery, and insufficient time with patients to deliver the range of preventive services that are recommended. It is our expectation that implementation of the recently enacted new Medicare benefit provisions should help to overcome at least some of the barriers to the use of preventive services, and may lead to substantial reductions in morbidity and mortality. A. Changes in Practice Expense Relative Value Units for 1998 Section 4505 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 delays the implementation of the resource-based practice expense RVU system until January 1, 1999 and specifies the manner in which practice expense RVUs in 1998 are adjusted. The 1998 practice expense RVUs for certain services are reduced to 110 percent of their work RVUs for the service. The reductions are used to increase practice expense RVUs for office visits. (Section 4505 of the BBA 1997 also provides the Secretary with the authority to adjust the 110 percent figure if the aggregate amount of reductions exceeds $390 million. Since the application of the 110 percent results in reductions of about $330 million, we did not need to make an additional adjustment.) There are two categories of services that are excluded from this limitation: (1) The service provided more than 75 percent of the time in an office setting; and (2) the service had a proposed resource-based practice expense RVU (that is, the practice expense RVU for the service published in the June 18, 1997 proposed rule (62 FR 33158 et seq.)) that was an increase from its 1997 practice expense RVU. In addition, there are services whose work RVU is zero and therefore are not affected by this provision. These services include technical component (TC) services (such as the TC of radiology services, surgical pathology services, and other services that have a corresponding PC service) and diagnostic tests, such as psychological tests, that are not TC services (because there is no corresponding PC service). The exclusion for services because they have a value that increased in the June 1997 proposed rule (62 FR 33160) is applied separately by site-of-service with the distinction made between in-office and out-of- office services. For most codes, the June 1997 proposed rule provided a practice expense RVU for both the in-office and the out-of-office setting. Thus, if the proposed 1998 resource-based practice expense RVU for a code for the in-office setting increased in relation to its 1997 practice expense RVU even though the proposed value exceeded 110 percent of the work RVU, this code, for this service and this site, was excluded from the practice expense RVU reduction. Similarly, if the proposed 1998 resource-based practice expense RVU for the same code for the out-of-office setting decreased in relation to its 1997 practice expense RVU and the proposed value exceeded 110 percent of the work RVU, then this code, for this service and this site, was subject to the practice expense RVU reduction. For 1998, the carriers will apply the same site-of-service differential policy they applied in 1997. Under the site-of-service differential, the practice expense RVUs for a procedure code that is furnished outside the office are reduced by 50 percent. There are approximately 700 codes affected by this policy. To coordinate this policy with the site-of-service distinctions in the June 1997 proposed rule and the interaction of the provisions of section 4505 of the BBA 1997, we are listing in Addendum B the practice expense RVUs for the two sites for the 700 procedure codes instead of allowing the carrier to calculate the 50 percent reduction. The practice expense RVUs for office visit procedure codes are increased by a uniform percentage. This uniform percentage (13 percent) is calculated so that the aggregate increase in practice expense RVUs for office visit procedures is equal to the decrease in Practice expense RVUs for services whose practice expense RVUs are reduced. This results in an increase in total payments of between 3 percent and 5 percent for the office visit codes. B. Coverage of Screening Mammography and Related Payment Changes Before the enactment of the BBA 1997, section 1834(c)(2) of the Act prescribed certain limitations on the frequency of coverage of mammography screenings for women over 39 years of age with no waiver of the yearly Part B deductible requirement. Specifically, for a woman over age 39 but under 50 years of age, the law provided for coverage of screening mammography either once a year or twice a year depending upon whether the woman was considered to be at high risk of developing breast cancer, as determined pursuant to factors identified by the Secretary and specified in regulations. In the case of a woman over 49 years of age but under 65 years of age, the law specified that payment could be made for a screening mammography once a year (that is, if at least 11 months had passed following the month in which the last screening mammography was performed). Finally, in the case of a woman over 64 years of age, the law provided that payment could be made for a screening mammography once every 2 years following the month in which the last screening mammography was performed. Section 4101(a) of the BBA 1997 amends section 1834(c)(2)(A) of the Act effective January 1, 1998 to simply provide that in the case of any woman over 39 years of age, payment may be made for a screening mammography if at least 11 months have passed following the month in which the last screening mammography was performed. Section 4101(b) of the BBA 1997 amends sections 1833(b) and 1834(c)(1)(C) of the Act to waive the Part B deductible requirement. In view of the statutory changes in the (1) limitations on the frequency of coverage of screening mammographies for all women over 39 years of age and (2) the Part B deductible requirement as [[Page 59079]] it relates to all screening mammography services, we are amending Sec. 410.34(d) (relating to limitations on coverage of screening mammography) and are adding a new exception as paragraph (5) in Sec. 410.160(b) (relating to exceptions to the Part B annual deductible) to reflect these changes in the regulations. C. Colorectal Cancer Screening Section 4104 of the BBA 1997 provides for Medicare coverage of colorectal cancer screening tests effective for services provided on or after January 1, 1998. The law provides for coverage for screening fecal-occult blood tests, screening flexible sigmoidoscopy, screening colonoscopy, and other tests we determined to be appropriate, subject to certain frequency and payment limits. Present Medicare coverage policy allows payment for diagnostic tests to diagnose colorectal cancer and related medically necessary services that are furnished to beneficiaries. Under this policy, diagnostic colorectal cancer tests are covered if they are medically necessary to evaluate a specific complaint from or monitor an existing medical condition of an individual who has had a history of colon cancer or inflammatory bowel disease. This coverage is based, in part, on section 1861(s)(3) of the Act, which provides general Medicare coverage for diagnostic x-ray, clinical laboratory, and other diagnostic tests. However, prior to the enactment of the BBA 1997, screening colorectal cancer tests have been excluded from coverage based on section 1862(a)(7) of the Act, which states that routine physical checkups are excluded services. This exclusion is described in Medicare regulations in Sec. 411.15(a). 1. Coverage Determination in Screening Barium Enemas Section 4104(a)(2) of the BBA 1997 requires us to publish a notice in the Federal Register related to the coverage of screening barium enema as a colorectal cancer screening test. As provided by section 4104(a)(2) of the BBA 1997, this notice is to be published in the Federal Register by November 3, 1997, within 90 days after the date of enactment. To the three colorectal cancer screening tests specifically designated as covered under sections 1861(pp)(1)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act, section 4104(a)(2) of the BBA 1997 added a new section 1861(pp)(1)(D) to the Act to provide that colorectal cancer screening tests may also include coverage of other tests or procedures the Secretary determines to be appropriate based on consultation with appropriate organizations. As required by section 1861(pp)(1)(D) of the Act, we, acting on behalf of the Secretary, consulted with appropriate Federal government organizations and other organizations regarding the efficacy of a barium enema examination for detecting colorectal cancer. We also inquired about how this coverage should be included under Medicare. We contacted representatives of various Federal agencies, including the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Cancer Institute, knowledgeable about using a barium enema as a screening test to detect colorectal cancer. We also consulted with staff from the American Cancer Society. In addition, the American Medical Association convened a preventive medicine expert panel that included representatives from the United States Preventive Services Task Force and various medical specialty organizations, such as the American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs, the American Medical Association Council on Medical Services, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Physicians, the American College of Preventive Medicine, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. Based on our review of this information and our evaluation of other data, we concluded that while there is not a consensus in the medical community regarding the specific role of a barium enema examination under the Medicare colorectal cancer screening benefit when compared to the use of the flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy examinations, there is a sufficient basis for us to include the use of barium enema as part of the new national Medicare coverage for colorectal screening. In its Executive Summary, (AHCPR Publication Number 97-0302) Evidence Report No. 1: Colorectal Cancer Screening, the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research concluded that there is indirect evidence that supports the use of double contrast barium enema in screening for colorectal cancer. They also noted that the double contrast barium enema can image the entire colon and detect cancers and large polyps. (Medicare policy already allows payment for diagnostic barium enemas that are performed to evaluate a beneficiary's specific complaint or to monitor an existing medical condition for an individual with a history of colon cancer.) Additionally, the role of the barium enema examination as a colorectal cancer screening examination has recently been studied by several multi-disciplinary expert panels and, as a result of those studies, it appears that the usefulness of the examination is becoming widely accepted in the United States. First, the American Gastroenterological Association initially in conjunction with the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, completed their report earlier this year. The double contrast barium enema was recommended as a screening option for all average risk patients (those with no predisposing factors) and selected groups of high risk patients (those with a history of prior polyps, or those with a first degree relative with colorectal cancer). Only in the case of the subset of patients at high risk with a family history of familial adenomatous polyposis, hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer, and inflammatory bowel disease was a colonoscopy recommended as the only screening modality. (This subset of patients represents a minority of the high risk population as defined by statute.) Second, earlier this year the American Cancer Society recently revised their guidelines to include the double contrast barium enema as an option for patients at average and moderate risk (nearly identical to the above described American Gastroenterological Association guidelines). The American Gastroenterological Association and the National Cancer Institute studies have indicated that one of the major advantages of the barium enema examination is that it permits the imaging of the entire colorectum and it appears to have the ability to detect precursor adenomas as well as colorectal cancers. Anatomic visualization of the entire colorectum is believed to be highly desirable and is widely considered optimum for evaluating the colon. (It is generally acknowledged that one limitation of the flexible sigmoidoscopy examination is that it only allows for direct examination of the lower third to one-half of the colorectum.) There is also some evidence that racial differences exist in the distribution of colorectal cancers, with African-Americans having a higher proportion of cancers in the right side of the colon than Caucasians. Thus, tests that allow full structural coverage of the entire colorectum are needed as a choice for certain segments of the population. Furthermore, on the basis of the information we have reviewed, the barium enema screening examination appears to have a superior safety profile [[Page 59080]] when compared to the screening flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy examinations, and it does not require sedation as is the case with colonoscopy examinations. Our information indicates that patients are typically exposed to 300 to 500 mrad of radiation during a barium enema examination, which is about equivalent to the dose of radiation that results from a single screening mammography examination. Considering the age and frequency at which screening is recommended for a barium enema examination, it is estimated by the American College of Radiology that a screening strategy using a barium enema x-ray every 2 or 4 years would deliver a lifetime dose of radiation that is lower than the radiation that would result from use of the annual Medicare screening mammography benefit. Specifically, in view of the information summarized above, we have determined that a barium enema is a reasonable and necessary screening test for colorectal cancer, and have decided to cover screening barium enema examinations in the following manner: First, such a screening examination may be covered as an alternative to a flexible sigmoidoscopy examination (that is, as a substitute for, and not as an added optional benefit) for an individual attaining age 50 and not at high risk for colorectal cancer, if the individual's attending physician orders the test in writing after a determination that the test is the appropriate screening test. That is, the attending physician must determine that, in the case of a particular individual, the estimated screening potential for the barium enema is equal to or greater than the screening potential that has been estimated for a flexible sigmoidoscopy for that same individual. For example, in the case of an individual who is taking anti-coagulant medications, the individual's attending physician may decide to order a barium enema instead of a flexible sigmoidoscopy because it is less likely to produce bleeding and typically allows for a total inspection of the colon, while the flexible sigmoidoscopy does not. Second, we are establishing a frequency limitation for the coverage of the screening barium enema for an individual age 50 and over who is not at high risk for colorectal cancer at the same time interval that is specified in the statute for screening flexible sigmoidoscopy examination (that is, once every 48 months for the same individual.) Third, we are providing that a screening barium enema may be covered as an alternative to a screening colonoscopy (that is, as a substitute and not as an added optional benefit) for individuals at high risk for colorectal cancer, if the individual's attending physician orders the test in writing following a determination that the screening barium enema is the appropriate test for that particular individual. This means that the attending physician must determine, in the case of a particular individual, that the estimated screening potential for the barium enema examination is equal to or greater than the screening potential that has been estimated for the colonoscopy examination. For instance, in the case of an individual at high risk for colorectal cancer who may not be able to receive a complete colonoscopy due to a markedly long and twisting loop(s) of colon, the individual's attending physician may decide to order a barium enema in lieu of a screening colonoscopy because it is more likely to permit a complete view of the entire colon. Fourth, we are establishing the frequency limitation for coverage of the screening barium enema for an individual who is at high risk for colorectal cancer at the same time interval that is specified in the statute for screening colorectal examinations (that is, once every 24 months for the same individual.) Fifth, we are establishing the double contrast barium enema as the standard type of screening barium enema that will be covered under the Medicare program because, based on information obtained from the American College of Radiology, we understand that it is regarded as the most sensitive for small colonic lesions in patients who are adequately prepared and optimally imaged. In the case of some patients who are infirm, immobile, or debilitated, however, a technically optimal double contrast examination may not be possible. In these patients a single contrast barium examination may be performed with high quality results despite the limitations of the patient's condition. In these situations, we are covering the single contrast method if it would satisfy the test described above for allowing coverage of the barium enema examination as an alternative to one of the other two colorectal cancer screening tests. That is, the individual's attending physician would have to determine that the estimated screening potential from the use of the single contrast barium enema is equal to or exceeds the estimated screening potential that would result from the use of the flexible sigmoidoscopy and the colonoscopy examinations. In summary, effective January 1, 1998, we will pay for screening barium enemas as an alternative to either a screening flexible sigmoidoscopy or a screening colonoscopy, in accordance with the same frequency parameters specified in the law for the other two colorectal screening services identified. 2. Provisions of the Final Rule We are specifying an exception to the list of examples of routine physical checkups excluded from coverage in Sec. 411.15(a)(1) (Particular services excluded from coverage). The exception is for colorectal cancer screening tests that meet the frequency limitations and the conditions for coverage that we are specifying under Sec. 410.37. Coverage of colorectal cancer screening tests is provided under Medicare Part B only. 3. Frequency Limits and Conditions of Coverage Section 4104 of the BBA 1997 adds new subparagraph (R) to section 1861(s)(2) of the Act authorizing Medicare coverage of certain colorectal screening services as defined in section 1861(pp) that are furnished on or after January 1, 1998. These statutorily mandated colorectal services include screening fecal-occult blood tests, screening flexible sigmoidoscopy examinations, and screening colonoscopy examinations. Section 4104(b) of the BBA 1997 also establishes frequency of coverage limitations for all three of these colorectal screening services. The frequency of coverage limitations specified for fecal-occult blood tests is that payment may be made only for an individual 50 years of age or over, if the test has not been performed within the 11 months that have passed following the month in which the last screening fecal-occult blood test was performed. The frequency of coverage limitation indicated for screening flexible sigmoidoscopy examinations is that payment may be made only for an individual age 50 years of age or over, if the procedure has not been performed within the 47 months that have passed following the month in which the last screening flexible sigmoidoscopy examination was performed. In the case of screening colonoscopy examinations, section 4104 of the BBA 1997 provides for coverage of screening colonoscopies for individuals at high risk for developing colorectal cancer (as now defined in section 1861(pp)(2) of the Act), if the screening examination has not been performed within the 23 months that have passed following the month in which the last screening colonoscopy was performed. [[Page 59081]] We have added Sec. 410.37 to provide for coverage of four types of colorectal cancer screening tests. First, we are specifying several definitions of terms that are included to implement the statutory provisions and to help the reader in understanding the regulation provisions. These include definitions of the terms (1) colorectal cancer screening tests, (2) fecal-occult blood test, (3) individual at high risk for colorectal cancer, (4) screening barium enema, and (5) attending physician. Second, we are establishing conditions of coverage for all four of the colorectal cancer screening tests that we will be paying for, effective January 1, 1998. Under our authority under the ``reasonable and necesary'' clause of the Act, section 1862(a)(1)(A), we are establishing conditions under which we would cover colorectal screening services. In Sec. 410.37(b) (Conditions for coverage of screening fecal-occult blood tests) and Sec. 410.37 (h) (Conditions for coverage of screening barium enemas) we are specifying that coverage is available for screening fecal-occult blood tests and screening barium enema examinations only if they are ordered in writing by the beneficiary's attending physician. We are including these coverage requirements to make certain that beneficiaries receive appropriate preventive counseling about the implications and possible results of having these examinations performed. In addition, in the case of the screening barium enema, which we will cover as an alternative to either the screening flexible sigmoidoscopy or the colonoscopy examination, we want to ensure that the beneficiary's attending physician has made a determination that the screening potential of that exam is at least equal to or greater than the screening potential for the alternative examination. Third, in order to ensure that the screening flexible sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy exams are performed as safely and accurately as possible, we are requiring in Sec. 410.37(d) (Conditions for coverage of screening flexible sigmoidoscopies) and Sec. 410.37(f) (Conditions for coverage of screening colonoscopies) that the examinations must be performed by a doctor of medicine or osteopathy (as defined in section 1861(r)(1) of the Act.) Additionally, in Secs. 410.37(c), 410.37(e), 410.37(g), and 410.37(i) (Limitations on coverage of screening fecal-occult blood tests, Limitations on coverage of screening flexible sigmoidoscopies, Limitations on coverage of screening colonoscopies, and limitations on coverage of screening barium enemas, respectively), we are setting forth the following frequency and payment restrictions for the four types of colorectal cancer screening test covered, which are mandated by sections 1834(d)(1)(B), 1834(d)(2)(E) and 1834(d)(3)(E) of the Act, except for those relating to screening barium enema examinations, which the law did not specifically address. Limits on Fecal-Occult Blood Tests Payment may not be made for a screening fecal-occult blood test performed for an individual under age 50. For an individual 50 years of age or over, payment may be made for a screening fecal-occult blood test performed after at least 11 months have passed following the month in which the last fecal- occult blood test was performed. Limits on Flexible Sigmoidoscopies Payment may not be made for a screening flexible sigmoidoscopy performed for an individual under age 50. For an individual 50 years of age or over, payment may be made for a screening flexible sigmoidoscopy performed after at least 47 months have passed following the month in which the last screening flexible sigmoidoscopy, or the last screening barium enema was performed. Limits on Colonoscopies Payment may not be made for a screening colonoscopy performed for an individual who is not at high risk for colorectal cancer. Payment may be made for a screening colonoscopy performed for an individual at high risk for colorectal cancer after at least 23 months have passed following the month in which the last screening colonoscopy or the last screening barium enema was performed. Limits for Barium Enemas In the case of an individual age 50 and over who is not at high risk for colorectal cancer, payment may be made for a screening barium enema after 47 months have passed following the month in which the last screening barium enema, or the last screening flexible sigmoidoscopy was performed. In the case of an individual who is at high risk for colorectal cancer, payment may be made for a screening barium enema after at least 23 months have passed following the month in which the last screening barium enema, or the last screening colonoscopy was performed. As indicated previously, in explaining our national coverage determination on screening barium enemas, we have decided to pay for this examination as an alternative to either the flexible sigmoidoscopy or the colonoscopy coverage provisions (that is, as a substitute for, and not as add-on coverage.) In reviewing the matter of the appropriate frequency limits for screening barium enemas, we did consider the possibility of providing for payment for these services as an add-on to the other two major screening coverage provisions. However, since the screening barium enema allows for a complete examination of the colon, we have not adopted this alternative because we believe it would be duplicative for us to permit coverage of both a screening barium enema and a screening flexible sigmoidoscopy (or a screening colonoscopy for an individual at high risk of colorectal cancer) during the same 2 or 4 year time period, respectively. In the case of a suspicious or equivocal examination, other tests would be necessary but would be considered diagnostic tests, not screening, and would be covered under Medicare. It is generally unnecessary to perform duplicate screening tests. 4. Payment Limits Payment amounts for screening fecal-occult blood tests, screening sigmoidoscopies, screening colonoscopies, and barium enemas as follows: Screening fecal occult blood tests are covered at a frequency of once every 12 months for beneficiaries who have attained age 50. Section 1834(d)(1) of the Act provides that screening fecal occult blood tests are paid at the same rate as diagnostic fecal-occult blood tests (CPT code 82270) are paid under the clinical laboratory fee schedule. We have created a new HCPCS code G0107, colorectal cancer screening; fecal-occult blood test, one to three simultaneous determinations, to be used for screening fecal-occult blood tests. This code will be carrier-priced at the payment amount that the Medicare carrier pays for CPT code 82270 under the clinical laboratory fee schedule. Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy is covered at a frequency of once every 48 months for beneficiaries who have attained age 50. Section 1861(pp)(2) of the Act provides that payment for screening flexible sigmoidoscopies be paid at rates consistent with payment for similar or related services under the physician fee schedule, not to exceed the rates for a diagnostic flexible sigmoidoscopy (CPT code 45330). [[Page 59082]] We have created a new HCPCS code G0104, colorectal cancer screening; flexible sigmoidoscopy, to be used for screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. We believe that the work is the same whether the procedure is a screening or a diagnostic sigmoidoscopy and are, therefore, assigning the same RVUs to HCPCS code G0104 as those assigned to CPT code 45330 in Addendum B. If during the course of the screening flexible sigmoidoscopy a lesion or a growth is detected that results in a biopsy or removal of the growth, section 1834(d)(2)(D) of the Act provides that the physician should bill for a flexible sigmoidoscopy with biopsy or removal, rather than using the screening HCPCS code G0104. Screening colonoscopy is covered at a frequency of once every 24 months for beneficiaries at high risk for colorectal cancer under section 1834(d)(3)(E) of the Act. Section 1861(pp)(2) of the Act defines high risk as a person who, because of family history, prior experience of cancer or precursor neoplastic polyps, a history of chronic digestive disease condition (including inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn's disease, or ulcerative colitis), the presence of any appropriate recognized gene markers for colorectal cancer, or other predisposing factors, faces a high risk for colorectal cancer. The law provides that payment for screening colonoscopies be paid at rates consistent with payment for similar or related services under the physician fee schedule, not to exceed the rates for a diagnostic colonoscopy (CPT code 45378). We have created a new HCPCS code G0105, colorectal cancer screening; colonoscopy for an individual at high risk, to be used for screening colonoscopy. We believe that the work is the same whether the procedure is a screening or a diagnostic colonoscopy, and we are, therefore, assigning the same RVUs to HCPCS code G0105 as those assigned to CPT code 45378 in Addendum B. If during the course of the screening colonoscopy a lesion or growth is detected that results in a biopsy or removal of the growth, section 1834(d)(3)(D) of the Act provides that the physician should bill for a colonoscopy with biopsy or removal, rather than using the screening HCPCS code G0105. The frequency of payment limitations for the screening barium exams will be exactly the same as the frequency of payment limitations that would apply if the barium examination were not being substituted for the other screening service (that is, once every 4 years for a flexible sigmoidoscopy examination for individuals age 50 or over and once every 2 years for colonoscopy screening for individuals at high risk for colorectal cancer). We have created the following new HCPCS codes: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ HCPCS code Descriptor ------------------------------------------------------------------------ G0106............................. Colorectal cancer screening; alternative to G0104, screening sigmoidoscopy, barium enema. G0120............................. Colorectal cancer screening; alternative to G0105, screening colonoscopy, barium enema. G0121............................. Colorectal cancer screening; colonoscopy on individual not meeting criteria for high risk (non- covered). G0122............................. Colorectal cancer screening; barium enema (non-covered). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The first two codes (G0106, and G0120) are to be used for the barium enema when the barium enema is being substituted for either the sigmoidoscopy or the colonoscopy, as indicated by the code nomenclature. The RVUs for these procedures will be the same as for the diagnostic barium enema procedure, CPT code 74280, and are shown in Addendum B. The second two codes are to be used when the high risk criteria are not met, or a barium enema is performed but not a substitute for either a sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy. These are non-covered services. 5. Screening Colonoscopy in an Ambulatory Surgical Center CPT code 45378, which is used to code a diagnostic colonoscopy, is on the list of procedures approved by Medicare for payment of an ambulatory surgical center (ASC) facility fee under section 1833(I) of the Act. CPT code 45378 is currently assigned to ASC payment group 2. We propose to add the new HCPCS code G0105, colorectal cancer screening; colonoscopy on individual at high risk, to the ASC list. We believe that the facility services are the same whether the procedure is a screening or a diagnostic colonoscopy and are, therefore, assigning HCPCS code G0105 to payment group 2, which is the same payment rate assigned to CPT code 45378. If during the course of the screening colonoscopy performed at an ASC a lesion or growth is detected which results in a biopsy or removal of the growth, the appropriate procedure classified as a colonoscopy with biopsy or removal should be billed and paid rather than HCPCS code G0105. D. Coverage of Screening Pelvic Examination (Including a Clinical Breast Examination) and Related Payment Changes Section 4102 of the BBA 1997 provides for coverage of screening pelvic examinations (including a clinical breast examination) for all female beneficiaries, effective January 1, 1998, subject to certain frequency and other limitations. A screening pelvic examination (including a clinical breast examination) should include at least seven of the following eleven elements: Inspection and palpation of breasts for masses or lumps, tenderness, symmetry, or nipple discharge. Digital rectal examination including sphincter tone, presence of hemorrhoids, and rectal masses. Pelvic examination (with or without specimen collection for smears and cultures) including: External genitalia (for example, general appearance, hair distribution, or lesions). Urethral meatus (for example, size, location, lesions, or prolapse). Urethra (for example, masses, tenderness, or scarring). Bladder (for example, fullness, masses, or tenderness). Vagina (for example, general appearance, estrogen effect, discharge, lesions, pelvic support, cystocele, or rectocele). Cervix (for example, general appearance, lesions, or discharge). Uterus (for example, size, contour, position, mobility, tenderness, consistency, descent, or support). Adnexa/parametria (for example, masses, tenderness, organomegaly, or nodularity). Anus and perineum. This description is from Documentation Guidelines for Evaluation and Management Services, published in May 1997, and was developed by the Health Care Financing Administration and the American Medical Association. Section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act provides that Medicare cover only services that are reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury. We believe that a pelvic screening procedure should examine [[Page 59083]] various anatomical structures to avoid missing detection of as many potential disorders as practical. We will be including this description in instructions in the Medicare Carriers Manual. This coverage allows payment for one pelvic examination for every female beneficiary every 3 years but includes the allowance of payment once every year for certain women of childbearing age as well as certain women at high risk for cervical or vaginal cancer. Specifically, section 4102(a) of the BBA 1997 provides for the following frequency of coverage limitations: As reflected in the law, payment may be made for a screening pelvic examination on an annual basis if one of the following occurs: The woman is of childbearing age and has had an examination indicating the presence of cervical or vaginal cancer or other abnormality during any of the preceding 3 years. The woman is considered by her physician or other practitioner to be at high risk of developing cervical or vaginal cancer as we have defined in these regulations. We are adding Sec. 410.56 (Screening pelvic examinations) to include this new coverage. In Sec. 410.56(a) (Conditions for screening pelvic examinations), we are requiring that to be covered by Medicare Part B the screening pelvic examination must be performed by a doctor of medicine or osteopathy (as defined in section 1861(r)(1) of the Act), or by a certified nurse midwife (as defined in section 1861(gg) of the Act), or a physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or clinical nurse specialist (as defined in section 1861(aa) of the Act) who is authorized under State law to perform the examination. We have included this requirement to ensure that the screening exam is performed as safely and accurately as possible. To implement the statutory mandate that requires us to identify in regulations the high risk factors for cervical and vaginal cancer, we are specifying in Sec. 410.56(b)(2) (More frequent screening based on high-risk factors), the following factors that have been recommended to us by the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control. While other factors may have been identified such as low socioeconomic status, the lack of precise and verifiable definitions does not make them amenable to regulation at this time. 1. High Risk Factors for Cervical Cancer Early onset of sexual activity (under 16 years of age). Multiple sexual partners (five or more in a lifetime). History of a sexually transmitted disease (including the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Absence of three negative Pap smears or any Pap smears within the previous 7 years. 2. High Risk Factors for Vaginal Cancer Prenatal exposure to diethylstilbestrol. Based on consultation with representatives of the American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians and others, we have defined a woman of childbearing age in Sec. 410.56(b)(3) (More frequent screening for women of childbearing age) to mean a woman who is premenopausal, and has been determined by her physician or other practitioner, as specified in Sec. 410.56(a), to be of childbearing age, based on her medical history or other findings. This new section also provides for a waiver of the Part B deductible requirement that would otherwise be applicable to these services. E. Reinstatement of the Payment for Transportation of EKG Equipment As set forth in section 4559 of the BBA 1997, effective for services furnished after December 31, 1997 and before January 1, 1999, carriers will make separate payments for HCPCS code R0076 (Transportation of portable EKG to facility or location, per patient) based upon payment methods in effect for these services as of December 31, 1996. EKG transportation payments are made at the carrier-priced level that was in effect on December 31, 1996. The procedure codes involved are CPT code 93000 (a 12-lead EKG with interpretation and report) or CPT code 93005 (a 12-lead EKG, tracing only, without interpretation and report). When multiple patients receive services at the same site, the transportation payment amount must be prorated among all patients seen. These payments may be made only under the following circumstances: The transportation service is furnished in connection with standard EKG procedures furnished by approved suppliers of portable x- ray services as set forth in section 2070.4.F. of the Medicare Carriers Manual. The transportation service is furnished in connection with standard EKG procedures by an independent diagnostic testing facility or an independent physiological laboratory under the conditions set forth in section 2070.1.G. of the Medicare Carriers Manual. F. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking for Provisions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and invite prior public comment on proposed rules. We have found good cause that a notice-and-comment procedure can be waived for the BBA 1997 provisions discussed above. A complete explanation of reasons is given in section VII. of this preamble. IV. Refinement of Relative Value Units for Calendar Year 1998 and Responses to Public Comments on Interim Relative Value Units for 1997 A. Summary of Issues Discussed Related to the Adjustment of Relative Value Units Section IV.B. of this final rule describes the methodology used to review the comments received on the RVUs for physician work and the process used to establish RVUs for new and revised CPT codes. Changes to codes on the physician fee schedule reflected in Addendum B are effective for services furnished beginning January 1, 1998. B. Process for Establishing Work Relative Value Units for the 1998 Fee Schedule Our November 22, 1996 final rule on the 1997 physician fee schedule (61 FR 59490) announced the final RVUs for Medicare payment for existing procedure codes under the physician fee schedule and interim RVUs for new and revised codes. The RVUs contained in the rule apply to physician services furnished beginning January 1, 1997. We announced that we considered the RVUs for the interim codes to be subject to public comment under the annual refinement process. In this section, we summarize the refinements to the interim work RVUs that have occurred since publication of the November 1996 final rule and our establishment of the work RVUs for new and revised codes for the 1998 fee schedule. 1. Work Relative Value Unit Refinements of Interim and Related Relative Value Units (Includes Table 1--Work Relative Value Unit Refinements of 1997 Interim and Related Relative Value Units) Although the RVUs in the November 1996 final rule were used to calculate 1997 payment amounts, we considered the RVUs for the new or revised codes to be interim. We accepted comments for a period of 60 days. We received substantive comments from [[Page 59084]] approximately five specialty societies on approximately nine CPT codes with interim RVUs. Only comments received on codes listed in Addendum C of the November 1996 final rule were considered this year. Due to the low volume of comments we received for 1997 CPT codes with interim RVUs, we adjusted the refinement process we have used in previous years. (See the November 22, 1996 final rule on the physician fee schedule (61 FR 59536) for a detailed explanation of the refinement of CPT codes with interim RVUs.) Instead, we invited one representative from each of the five specialty societies from which comments were received to attend a discussion of the codes commented on by their respective societies. In attendance at this meeting were the following representatives: A clinician representing each of the specialties most identified with the procedures in question. Each specialist was nominated by the specialty society that submitted the comments. Representatives from the AMA's RUC. Carrier medical directors. HCFA medical officers. HCFA staff. The group discussed the work involved in each procedure under review in comparison to the work associated with other services on the fee schedule. We had assembled a set of reference services and asked the group members to compare the clinical aspects of the work of services they believed were incorrectly valued to one or more of the reference services. In compiling the set, we attempted to include: (1) Services that are commonly performed whose work RVUs are not controversial; (2) services that span the entire spectrum from the easiest to the most difficult; and (3) at least three services performed by each of the major specialties so that each specialty would be represented. The set listed approximately 300 services. Group members were encouraged to make comparisons to reference services. The specialty society's recommendations were accepted for all nine of the CPT codes that were reviewed. We will continue with the regular refinement process for future years. Table 1--Work Relative Value Unit Refinements of 1997 Interim and Related Relative Value Units Table 1 lists the interim and related codes reviewed during the 1997 refinement process described in this section. This table includes the following information: CPT Code. This is the CPT code for a service. Description. This is an abbreviated version of the narrative description of the code. 1997 Work RVU. The work RVUs that appeared in the November 1996 rule are shown for each reviewed code. Requested Work RVU. This column identifies the work RVUs requested by commenters. 1998 Work RVU. This column contains the final RVUs for physician work. The new values emerged from analysis of the specialty representative's presentation. Table 1.--Work RVU Refinement of 1997 Interim and Related RVUs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1997 work Requested 1998 work CPT* MOD Description RVU work RVU RVU ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37250.. ......................... Intravascular us..................... 1.51 2.10 2.10 37251.. ......................... Intravascular us..................... 1.15 1.60 1.60 56300.. ......................... Pelvis laparoscopy, dx............... 3.65 5.00 5.00 56305.. ......................... Pelvic laparoscopy, biopsy........... 3.97 5.30 5.30 75945.. 26 Intravascular us..................... 0.29 0.40 0.40 75946.. 26 Intravascular us..................... 0.29 0.40 0.40 95921.. 26 Autonomic nerve function test........ 0.45 0.90 0.90 95922.. 26 Autonomic nerve function test........ 0.48 0.96 0.96 95923.. 26 Autonomic nerve function test........ 0.45 0.90 0.90 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * All CPT and descriptors copyright 1997 American Medical Association 2. Establishment of Interim Work Relative Value Units for New and Revised Physicians' Current Procedural Terminology Codes and New HCFA Common Procedure Coding System Codes for 1998 a. Methodology (Includes Table 2--American Medical Association Specialty Society Relative Value Update Committee and Health Care Professionals Advisory Committee Recommendations and HCFA's Decisions for New and Revised 1998 CPT Codes). One aspect of establishing work RVUs for 1998 was related to the assignment of interim work RVUs for all new and revised CPT codes. As described in our November 25, 1992 notice on the 1993 fee schedule (57 FR 55938) and in section III.B. of our November 26, 1996 final rule (61 FR 59505 through 59506), we established a process, based on recommendations received from the AMA's Specialty Society Relative Value Update Committee (RUC), for establishing interim RVUs for new and revised codes. We received work RVU recommendations for approximately 208 new and revised codes from the RUC. Physician panels consisting of carrier medical directors and our staff reviewed the RUC recommendations by comparing them to our reference set or to other comparable services on the fee schedule for which work RVUs had been established previously, or to both of these criteria. The panels also considered the relationships among the new and revised codes for which we received the RUC recommendations. We agreed with a majority of those relationships reflected in the RUC values. In some cases when we agreed with the RUC relationships, we revised the work RVUs recommended by the RUC in order to achieve work neutrality within families of codes. That is, the work RVUs have been adjusted so that the sum of the new or revised work RVUs (weighted by projected frequency of use) for a family of codes will be the same as the sum of the current work RVUs (weighted by their current frequency of use). For approximately 96 percent of the RUC recommendations, proposed work RVUs were accepted or increased, and, for approximately 4 percent, work RVUs were decreased. We received 11 recommendations from the Health Care Professionals Advisory Committee (HCPAC) for new or revised codes for which the RUC did not provide a recommendation. For 7 of the HCPAC's recommendations, the proposed work RVUs were accepted. [[Page 59085]] There were also 5 CPT codes for which HCFA did not receive a RUC recommendation. HCFA established interim work RVUs for 3 of these codes. Table 2 is a listing of those codes that will be new or revised in 1998 as well as their associated work RVUs. This table includes the following information: A ``#'' identifies a new code for 1998. CPT code. This is the CPT code for a service. Modifier. A ``26'' in this column indicates that the work RVUs are for the professional component of the code. Description. This is an abbreviated version of the narrative description of the code. RUC recommendations. This column identifies the work RVUs recommended by the RUC. HCPAC recommendations. This column identifies work RVUs recommended by the HCPAC. HCFA decision. This column indicates whether we agreed with the RUC recommendation (``agree''); we established work RVUs that are higher than the RUC recommendation (``increase''); or we established work RVUs that were less than the RUC recommendation (``decrease''). Codes for which we did not accept the RUC recommendation are discussed in greater detail following Table 2 in section IV.B.2.b. below. An ``(a)'' indicates that no RUC recommendation was provided. A discussion follows the table in section IV.B.2.b. HCFA work RVUs. This column contains the RVUs for physician work based on our reviews of the RUC recommendations. The RVUs shown for global surgical services have not been adjusted to account for the 1997 increases for work RVUs in evaluation and management services. 1998 work RVUs. This column contains the 1998 RVUs for physician work. The RVUs shown for global surgical services have been adjusted to account for the 1997 increases for work RVUs in evaluation and management. This table includes only those codes that were reviewed by the full RUC or for which we received a recommendation from the HCPAC. Table 2.--AMA RUC and HCPAC Recommendations and HCFA Decisions for New and Revised 1998 CPT Codes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RUC HCPAC CPT* code MOD Description recommendation recommendation HCFA decision HCFA work RVU 1998 work b RVU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11055#........... ............. Paring, Cutting, and ................ 0.43 Decrease................ 0.27 0.27 Trimming of Nails. 11056#........... ............. Paring, Cutting, and ................ 0.61 Decrease................ 0.39 0.39 Trimming of Nails. 11057#........... ............. Paring, Cutting, and ................ 0.79 Decrease................ 0.50 0.50 Trimming of Nails. 11719#........... ............. Paring, Cutting, and ................ 0.17 Decrease................ 0.06 0.06 Trimming of Nails. 11200............ ............. Destruction of 0.69 ................ Decrease................ 0.67 0.77 lesions. 11201............ ............. Destruction of 0.35 ................ Decrease................ 0.29 0.29 lesions. 15756............ ............. Free muscle flap.... 33.23 ................ Agree................... 33.23 35.23 17000............ ............. Destruction of 0.55 ................ Agree................... 0.55 0.60 lesions. 17003#........... ............. Destruction of 0.15 ................ Agree................... 0.15 0.15 lesions. 17004#........... ............. Destruction of 2.65 ................ Agree................... 2.65 2.79 lesions. 17110............ ............. Destruction of 0.55 ................ Agree................... 0.55 0.65 lesions. 17111#........... ............. Destruction of 0.82 ................ Agree................... 0.82 0.92 lesions. 17250............ ............. Destruction of 0.50 ................ Agree................... 0.50 0.50 lesions. 19120............ ............. Excision of cyst.... 5.35 ................ Agree................... 5.35 5.56 20664#........... ............. Application of halo. 7.00 ................ Agree................... 7.00 8.06 22818#........... ............. Kyphectomy.......... 30.00 ................ Agree................... 30.00 31.83 22819#........... ............. Kyphectomy.......... 34.50 ................ Agree................... 34.50 36.44 29860#........... ............. Arthroscopy of hip.. 7.75 ................ Agree................... 7.75 8.05 29861#........... ............. Arthroscopy of hip.. 9.00 ................ Agree................... 9.00 9.15 29862#........... ............. Arthroscopy of hip.. 9.50 ................ Agree................... 9.50 9.90 29863#........... ............. Arthroscopy of hip.. 9.50 ................ Agree................... 9.50 9.90 29891#........... ............. Arthroscopy of ankle 8.00 ................ Agree................... 8.00 8.40 29892#........... ............. Arthroscopy of ankle 8.60 ................ Agree................... 8.60 9.00 29893#........... ............. Arthroscopy of ankle ................ 4.92 Agree................... 4.92 5.22 32200............ ............. Percutaneous abscess 13.10 ................ Agree................... 13.10 15.29 drainage. 32201#........... ............. Percutaneous abscess 4.00 ................ Agree................... 4.00 4.00 drainage. 33496#........... ............. Repair of non- 25.64 ................ Agree................... 25.64 27.25 structural valve dysfunction. 33530............ ............. Repair of non- 5.86 ................ Agree................... 5.86 5.86 structural valve dysfunction. 35400#........... ............. Intraoperative 3.00 ................ Agree................... 3.00 3.00 Endovascular Angioscopy. 36215............ ............. Coronary Angiography 4.68 ................ Agree................... 4.68 4.68 37195#........... ............. Thrombolytic therapy 0.00 ................ Agree................... 0.00 0.00 for acute ischemic. 37250............ ............. Intravascular us.... 1.51 ................ Agree................... 1.51 2.10 37251............ ............. Intravascular us.... 1.15 ................ Agree................... 1.15 1.60 43116............ ............. Partial 29.67 ................ Agree................... 29.67 31.22 esophagectomy. 43496............ ............. Free jejunum carrier ................ Agree................... carrier carrier transfer. 43635............ ............. Vagotomy............ 2.06 ................ Agree................... 2.06 2.06 44625............ ............. Closure of colostomy 12.10 ................ Agree................... 12.10 13.41 44626#........... ............. Closure of colostomy 21.29 ................ Agree................... 21.29 22.59 44700#........... ............. Intestinal sling 13.00 ................ Agree................... 13.00 14.35 procedure. 44900............ ............. Percutaneous abscess 7.86 ................ Agree................... 7.86 8.82 drainage. 44901#........... ............. Percutaneous abscess 3.38 ................ Agree................... 3.38 3.38 drainage. 45112............ ............. Proctectomy with 24.02 ................ Agree................... 24.02 25.96 coloanal anastomosis. 45119#........... ............. Proctectomy with 23.50 ................ Increase................ 24.50 26.21 coloanal anastomosis. 47010............ ............. Percutaneous abscess 8.75 ................ Agree................... 8.75 10.28 drainage. 47011#........... ............. Percutaneous abscess 3.70 ................ Agree................... 3.70 3.70 drainage. 48510............ ............. Percutaneous abscess 11.22 ................ Agree................... 11.22 12.96 drainage. 48511#........... ............. Percutaneous abscess 4.00 ................ Agree................... 4.00 4.00 drainage. 49040............ ............. Percutaneous abscess 8.74 ................ Agree................... 8.74 9.94 drainage. 49041#........... ............. Percutaneous abscess 4.00 ................ Agree................... 4.00 4.00 drainage. 49060............ ............. Percutaneous abscess 10.55 ................ Agree................... 10.55 11.66 drainage. 49061#........... ............. Percutaneous abscess 3.70 ................ Agree................... 3.70 3.70 drainage. 49062#........... ............. Lymphocele drainage. 10.78 ................ Agree................... 10.78 11.36 49423#........... ............. Percutaneous abscess 1.46 ................ Agree................... 1.46 1.46 drainage. [[Page 59086]] 49424#........... ............. Percutaneous abscess 0.76 ................ Agree................... 0.76 0.76 drainage. 49560............ ............. Ventral 9.48 ................ Agree................... 9.48 9.88 herniorgraphy. 49565............ ............. Ventral 9.48 ................ Agree................... 9.48 9.88 herniorgraphy. 49568............ ............. Ventral 4.89 ................ Agree................... 4.89 4.89 herniorgraphy. 50020............ ............. Percutaneous abscess 12.41 ................ Agree................... 12.41 14.66 drainage. 50021#........... ............. Percutaneous abscess 3.38 ................ Agree................... 3.38 3.38 drainage. 51840............ ............. Burch procedure..... 9.78 ................ Agree................... 9.78 10.71 52281............ ............. Cystourethroscopy... 2.80 ................ Agree................... 2.80 2.80 52282#........... ............. Urethral 6.40 ................ Agree................... 6.40 6.40 endoprosthesis. 53850#........... ............. Transurethral 9.58 ................ Decrease................ 9.25 9.45 destruction of prostate. 53852#........... ............. Transurethral 9.58 ................ Agree................... 9.58 9.88 destruction of prostate. 56300............ ............. Laparoscopic surgery 5.00 ................ Agree................... 5.00 5.10 56301............ ............. Laparoscopic surgery 5.50 ................ Agree................... 5.50 5.60 56302............ ............. Laparoscopic surgery 5.50 ................ Agree................... 5.50 5.60 56303............ ............. Laparoscopic surgery 10.50 ................ Increase................ 10.95 11.79 56304............ ............. Laparoscopic surgery 10.00 ................ Increase................ 10.45 11.29 56305............ ............. Laparoscopic surgery 5.30 ................ Agree................... 5.30 5.40 56306............ ............. Laparoscopic surgery 5.60 ................ Agree................... 5.60 5.70 56309............ ............. Laparoscopic surgery 13.79 ................ Agree................... 13.79 14.21 56310#........... ............. Laparoscopic surgery 13.50 ................ Agree................... 13.50 14.44 56314#........... ............. Laparoscopic surgery 8.93 ................ Agree................... 8.93 9.48 56318#........... ............. Laparoscopic surgery 10.63 ................ Agree................... 10.63 10.96 56345#........... ............. Laparoscopic surgery ................ ................ (a)..................... carrier carrier 56346#........... ............. Laparoscopic surgery 7.18 ................ Agree................... 7.18 7.73 56347#........... ............. Laparoscopic surgery ................ ................ (a)..................... carrier carrier 56348#........... ............. Laparoscopy with 20.00 ................ Increase................ 21.00 22.04 intestinal resection. 56349#........... ............. Laparoscopic surgery 17.75 ................ Decrease................ 16.47 17.25 56350............ ............. Hysteroscopy........ 3.33 ................ Agree................... 3.33 3.33 56351............ ............. Hysteroscopy........ 4.75 ................ Agree................... 4.75 4.75 56352............ ............. Hysteroscopy........ 6.17 ................ Agree................... 6.17 6.17 56353............ ............. Hysteroscopy........ 7.00 ................ Agree................... 7.00 7.00 56354............ ............. Hysteroscopy........ 10.00 ................ Agree................... 10.00 10.00 56355............ ............. Hysteroscopy........ 5.21 ................ Agree................... 5.21 5.21 56356............ ............. Hysteroscopy........ 9.50 ................ Decrease................ 6.17 6.17 57308............ ............. Closure of 9.31 ................ Agree................... 9.31 9.94 rectovaginal fistula. 57531............ ............. Radical 28.00 ................ Agree................... 28.00 29.60 trachelectomy. 58152............ ............. Burch procedure..... 14.10 ................ Agree................... 14.10 15.09 58340............ ............. Hysterosonography... 0.88 ................ Agree................... 0.88 0.88 58820............ ............. Percutaneous abscess 3.96 ................ Agree................... 3.96 4.22 drainage. 58822............ ............. Percutaneous abscess 9.06 ................ Agree................... 9.06 10.13 drainage. 58823#........... ............. Percutaneous abscess 3.38 ................ Agree................... 3.38 3.38 drainage. 59050............ ............. Fetal monitoring.... 0.89 ................ Agree................... 0.89 0.89 59051............ ............. Fetal monitoring.... 0.74 ................ Agree................... 0.74 0.74 59160............ ............. Curettage, 2.66 ................ Agree................... 2.66 2.71 postpartum. 59871#........... ............. Removal of cerclage 2.13 ................ Agree................... 2.13 2.13 suture. 61793............ ............. Stereotactic 16.70 ................ Agree................... 16.70 17.24 radiosurgery. 67027#........... ............. Ganciclovir implant. 10.35 ................ Agree................... 10.35 10.85 70553............ 26 MI, brain........... 2.36 ................ Agree................... 2.36 2.36 74283............ 26 Therapeutic Enema... 2.02 ................ Agree................... 2.02 2.02 74740............ 26 Hysterosonography... 0.38 ................ Agree................... 0.38 0.38 75989............ 26 Percutaneous Abscess 1.19 ................ Agree................... 1.19 1.19 drainage. 76070............ 26 Bone density studies 0.25 ................ Agree................... 0.25 0.25 76075............ 26 Bone density studies 0.30 ................ Agree................... 0.30 0.30 76076#........... 26 Bone density studies 0.22 ................ Agree................... 0.22 0.22 76078#........... 26 Bone density studies 0.20 ................ Agree................... 0.20 0.20 76080............ 26 Percutaneous Abscess 0.54 ................ Agree................... 0.54 0.54 drainage. 76095............ 26 Stereotactic breast 1.59 ................ Agree................... 1.59 1.59 biopsy. 76375............ 26 Medical holography.. 0.16 ................ Agree................... 0.16 0.16 76390#........... 26 Magnetic resonance 1.40 ................ Agree................... 1.40 1.40 spectroscopy. 76815............ 26 Echography, pregant 0.65 ................ Agree................... 0.65 0.65 uterus. 76830............ 26 Hysterosonography... 0.69 ................ Agree................... 0.69 0.69 76831#........... 26 Hysterosonography... 0.72 ................ Agree................... 0.72 0.72 76885#........... 26 Echography of infant 0.74 ................ Agree................... 0.74 0.74 hip. 76886#........... 26 Echography of infant 0.62 ................ Agree................... 0.62 0.62 hip. 77295............ 26 Therapeutic 4.57 ................ Agree................... 4.57 4.57 radiology simulation-aided. 78350............ 26 Bone density studies 0.22 ................ Agree................... 0.22 0.22 78351............ ............. Bone density studies 0.30 ................ Agree................... 0.30 0.30 78459............ 26 PET myocardial 1.88 ................ Agree................... 1.88 1.88 perfusion imaging. 78491#........... 26 PET myocardial 1.50 ................ Agree................... 1.50 1.50 perfusion imaging. 78492#........... 26 PET myocardial 1.87 ................ Agree................... 1.87 1.87 perfusion imaging. 78707............ 26 Renal nuclear 0.96 ................ Agree................... 0.96 0.96 medicine. 78708#........... 26 Renal nuclear 1.21 ................ Agree................... 1.21 1.21 medicine. 78709#........... 26 Renal nuclear 1.41 ................ Agree................... 1.41 1.41 medicine. 78710............ 26 Kidney imaging...... 0.66 ................ Agree................... 0.66 0.66 88108............ 26 Cervical or vaginal 0.56 ................ Agree................... 0.56 0.56 cytopathology. 88141#........... ............. Cervical or vaginal 0.42 ................ Agree................... 0.42 0.42 cytopathology. 90801............ ............. Psychotherapy....... 2.80 ................ Agree................... 2.80 2.80 90802#........... ............. Psychotherapy....... 3.01 ................ Agree................... 3.01 3.01 90804#........... ............. Psychotherapy....... 1.11 ................ Agree................... 1.11 1.11 [[Page 59087]] 90805#........... ............. Psychotherapy....... 1.47 ................ Agree................... 1.47 1.47 90806#........... ............. Psychotherapy....... 1.72 ................ Agree................... 1.72 1.72 90807#........... ............. Psychotherapy....... 2.00 ................ Agree................... 2.00 2.00 90808#........... ............. Psychotherapy....... 2.76 ................ Agree................... 2.76 2.76 90809#........... ............. Psychotherapy....... 3.15 ................ Agree................... 3.15 3.15 90810#........... ............. Psychotherapy....... 1.19 ................ Agree................... 1.19 1.19 90811#........... ............. Psychotherapy....... 1.58 ................ Agree................... 1.58 1.58 90812#........... ............. Psychotherapy....... 1.86 ................ Agree................... 1.86 1.86 90813#........... ............. Psychotherapy....... 2.15 ................ Agree................... 2.15 2.15 90814#........... ............. Psychotherapy....... 2.97 ................ Agree................... 2.97 2.97 90815#........... ............. Psychotherapy....... 3.39 ................ Agree................... 3.39 3.39 90816#........... ............. Psychotherapy....... 1.24 ................ Agree................... 1.24 1.24 90817#........... ............. Psychotherapy....... 1.65 ................ Agree................... 1.65 1.65 90818#........... ............. Psychotherapy....... 1.94 ................ Agree................... 1.94 1.94 90819#........... ............. Psychotherapy....... 2.24 ................ Agree................... 2.24 2.24 90821#........... ............. Psychotherapy....... 3.09 ................ Agree................... 3.09 3.09 90822#........... ............. Psychotherapy....... 3.53 ................ Agree................... 3.53 3.53 90823#........... ............. Psychotherapy....... 1.33 ................ Agree................... 1.33 1.33 90824#........... ............. Psychotherapy....... 1.77 ................ Agree................... 1.77 1.77 90826#........... ............. Psychotherapy....... 2.08 ................ Agree................... 2.08 2.08 90827#........... ............. Psychotherapy....... 2.41 ................ Agree................... 2.41 2.41 90828#........... ............. Psychotherapy....... 3.32 ................ Agree................... 3.32 3.32 90829#........... ............. Psychotherapy....... 3.80 ................ Agree................... 3.80 3.80 90845............ ............. Psychotherapy....... 1.79 ................ Agree................... 1.79 1.79 90846............ ............. Psychotherapy....... 1.83 ................ Agree................... 1.83 1.83 90847............ ............. Psychotherapy....... 2.21 ................ Agree................... 2.21 2.21 90849............ ............. Psychotherapy....... 0.59 ................ Agree................... 0.59 0.59 90853............ ............. Psychotherapy....... 0.59 ................ Agree................... 0.59 0.59 90857............ ............. Psychotherapy....... 0.63 ................ Agree................... 0.63 0.63 90865#........... ............. Psychotherapy....... 2.84 ................ Agree................... 2.84 2.84 90875............ ............. Psychotherapy....... ................ 1.20 Agree................... 1.20 1.20 90876............ ............. Psychotherapy....... ................ 1.90 Agree................... 1.90 1.90 90880............ ............. Psychotherapy....... 2.19 ................ Agree................... 2.19 2.19 90885#........... ............. Psychotherapy....... 0.97 ................ Agree................... 0.97 0.97 90911............ ............. Biofeedback training 0.89 ................ Agree................... 0.89 0.89 91010............ ............. Esophageal motility 1.25 ................ Agree................... 1.25 1.25 studies. 91020............ ............. Esophageal motility 1.44 ................ Agree................... 1.44 1.44 studies. 92978............ 26 Intravascular us.... 1.80 ................ Agree................... 1.80 1.80 92979............ 26 Intravascular us.... 1.44 ................ Agree................... 1.44 1.44 92992............ ............. Atrial septectomy of carrier ................ Agree................... carrier carrier septostomy. 92997#........... ............. Pulmonary artery 12.00 ................ Agree................... 12.00 12.00 angioplasty. 92998#........... ............. Pulmonary artery 6.00 ................ Agree................... 6.00 6.00 angioplasty. 93320............ ............. Doppler echo........ 0.38 ................ Agree................... 0.38 0.38 93325............ ............. Doppler echo........ 0.07 ................ Agree................... 0.07 0.07 93508#........... 26 Coronary angiography 4.10 ................ Agree................... 4.10 4.10 93530#........... 26 Pediatric cardiac 4.23 ................ Agree................... 4.23 4.23 catheterization. 93531#........... 26 Pediatric cardiac 8.35 ................ Agree................... 8.35 8.35 catheterization. 93532#........... 26 Pediatric cardiac 10.00 ................ Agree................... 10.00 10.00 catheterization. 93533#........... 26 Pediatric cardiac 6.70 ................ Agree................... 6.70 6.70 catheterization. 94010............ 26 Spirometry.......... 0.17 ................ Agree................... 0.17 0.17 94070............ 26 Pulmonary procedures 0.60 ................ Agree................... 0.60 0.60 95805............ 26 Sleep studies....... 1.88 ................ Agree................... 1.88 1.88 95806............ 26 Sleep studies....... 1.85 ................ Decrease................ 1.66 1.66 95807............ 26 Sleep studies....... 1.66 ................ Agree................... 1.66 1.66 95811#........... 26 Sleep studies....... 3.80 ................ Agree................... 3.80 3.80 95860............ 26 Needle EMG.......... 0.96 ................ Agree................... 0.96 0.96 95861............ 26 Needle EMG.......... 1.54 ................ Agree................... 1.54 1.54 95863............ 26 Needle EMG.......... 1.87 ................ Agree................... 1.87 1.87 95864............ 26 Needle EMG.......... 1.99 ................ Agree................... 1.99 1.99 95869............ 26 Needle EMG.......... 0.37 ................ Agree................... 0.37 0.37 95870#........... 26 Needle EMG.......... ................ ................ (a)..................... 0.37 0.37 96902#........... ............. Trichogram.......... 0.41 ................ Agree................... 0.41 0.41 97001#........... ............. Occupational and ................ 1.20 Agree................... 1.20 1.20 Physical Therapy. 97002#........... ............. Occupational and ................ 0.60 Agree................... 0.60 0.60 Physical Therapy. 97003#........... ............. Occupational and ................ 1.20 Agree................... 1.20 1.20 Physical Therapy. 97004#........... ............. Occupational and ................ 0.60 Agree................... 0.60 0.60 Physical Therapy. 97780#........... ............. Acupuncture......... ................ ................ (a)..................... 0.00 0.00 97781#........... ............. Acupuncture......... ................ ................ (a)..................... 0.00 0.00 99141#........... ............. Conscious sedation.. 0.80 ................ Agree................... 0.80 0.80 99142#........... ............. Conscious sedation.. 0.60 ................ Agree................... 0.60 0.60 99217............ ............. Observation same day 1.28 ................ Agree................... 1.28 1.28 discharge. 99234#........... ............. Observation same day 2.56 ................ Agree................... 2.56 2.56 discharge. 99235#........... ............. Observation same day 3.42 ................ Agree................... 3.42 3.42 discharge. 99236#........... ............. Observation same day 4.27 ................ Agree................... 4.27 4.27 discharge. 99315#........... ............. Nursing facility 1.20 ................ Decrease................ 1.13 1.13 discharge. 99316#........... ............. Nursing facility 1.60 ................ Decrease................ 1.50 1.50 discharge. 99341............ ............. Home care visits.... 0.89 ................ Increase................ 1.01 1.01 99342............ ............. Home care visits.... 1.33 ................ Increase................ 1.52 1.52 99343............ ............. Home care visits.... 1.99 ................ Increase................ 2.27 2.27 [[Page 59088]] 99344#........... ............. Home care visits.... 2.66 ................ Increase................ 3.03 3.03 99345#........... ............. Home care visits.... 3.32 ................ Increase................ 3.79 3.79 99347............ ............. Home care visits.... 0.66 ................ Increase................ 0.76 0.76 99348............ ............. Home care visits.... 1.11 ................ Increase................ 1.26 1.26 99349............ ............. Home care visits.... 1.77 ................ Increase................ 2.02 2.02 99350#........... ............. Home care visits.... 2.66 ................ Increase................ 3.03 3.03 99374#........... ............. Care plan oversight. 1.10 ................ Agree................... 1.10 1.10 99375............ ............. Care plan oversight. 1.73 ................ Agree................... 1.73 1.73 99377#........... ............. Care plan oversight. 1.10 ................ Agree................... 1.10 1.10 99378#........... ............. Care plan oversight. 1.73 ................ Agree................... 1.73 1.73 99379#........... ............. Care plan oversight. 1.10 ................ Agree................... 1.10 1.10 99380#........... ............. Care plan oversight. 1.73 ................ Agree................... 1.73 1.73 99436#........... ............. Attendance at 1.50 ................ Agree................... 1.50 1.50 delivery. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- a No RUC recommendation provided b Work RVU changes due to global surgery evaluation and management increases. # New Codes * All numeric HCPCS CPT Copyright 1997 American Medical Association b. Discussion of Codes for Which the RUC Recommendations Were Not Accepted. The following is a summary of our rationale for not accepting particular recommendations. It is arranged by type of service in CPT code order. This summary refers only to work RVUs. CPT codes 11055 (Paring or cutting of benign hyperkeratotic lesion (eg, corn or callus), single lesion), 11056 (two to four lesions), 11057 (more than four lesions), and 11719 (Trimming of nails)). CPT 1998 will include three new codes for paring or cutting of benign hyperkeratotic lesion(s) and one new code for trimming of nails. These new CPT codes will replace CPT codes 11050 through 11052 (Paring or curettement of benign hyperkeratotic skin lesion(s)) and HCFA Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) code M0101 (Cutting or removal of corns, calluses and/or trimming of nails, application of skin creams and other hygienic and preventive maintenance care). We agreed with the work RVU relationship established by the RUC HCPAC Review Board for these four codes. However, we have not accepted the actual work RVUs recommended because the total number of RVUs associated with the new codes would exceed the total number of RVUs associated with code M0101. We believe the expectation of the RUC HCPAC Review Board was that the RVU recommendations would achieve work neutrality within the family of codes. However, some of the services previously reported with M0101 will now be reported with codes used to report the destruction of skin lesions. These codes, for example, CPT code 17000, have higher work RVUs than M0101. Thus, the result of the coding changes and the recommended work RVUs would be an increase in the total number of RVUs for these services. Consequently, we revised the work RVUs recommended by the RUC HCPC Review Board in order to achieve work neutrality within this family of codes. That is, the work RVUs have been adjusted so that the sum of the new work RVUs (weighted by projected frequency of use) for this family of codes will be the same as the sum of the current work RVUs (weighted by their current frequency of use). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Work CPT code Descriptor RVUs ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11055....................... Paring or cutting of benign 0.27 hyperkeratotic lesion (single). 11056....................... Two to four lesions................ 0.39 11057....................... More than four lesions............. 0.50 11719....................... Trimming of nails.................. 0.06 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CPT codes 11200 (Removal of skin tags, multiple fibrocutaneous tags, any area; up to and including 15 lesions) and 11201 (each additional ten lesions). The RUC recommended 0.69 work RVUs for CPT code 11200 and 0.35 work RVUs for CPT code 11201. These codes encompass services that were previously reported using CPT codes 11200, 11201, 17200, and 17201. When valuing new and revised codes that replace deleted codes, we typically have used Medicare frequency data and used the work RVUs of the deleted and revised codes in order to arrive at weighted average values for the revised codes in a budget neutral fashion. We have used this method to arrive at the work RVUs for revised CPT codes 11200 and 11201. We are establishing 0.67 work RVUs for CPT code 11200, which is a weighted average of CPT codes 17200 and 11200. We are establishing 0.29 work RVUs for CPT code 11201, which is the weighted average of CPT codes 17201 and 11201. CPT code 45119 (Proctectomy, combined abdominoperineal pull through procedure (eg, colo-anal anastomosis) with creation of colonic reservoir (eg, J-pouch), with or without proximal diverting ostomy). CPT 1998 will include a new code for proctectomy with colo-anal anastomosis. The RUC recommended 23.50 work RVUs for CPT code 45119. Upon review of these values, we concluded that CPT code 45119 was undervalued. CPT code 45119 is nearly an identical procedure to CPT code 45112 with the exception of the creation of the colonic reservoir included in CPT code 45119. We agree with the current work value for CPT code 45112 (24.02 work RVUs). CPT code 45119 is a more extensive procedure and should be valued higher than CPT code 45112. We believe CPT code 45119 is undervalued, and we are increasing the RUC- recommended work RVUs from 23.50 work RVUs to 24.50 work RVUs for the 1998 physician fee schedule. CPT code 53850 (Transurethral destruction of prostate tissue; by microwave therapy) and 53852 (Transurethral destruction of prostate tissue; by radiofrequency thermotherapy). CPT 1998 will include two new codes for the transurethral destruction of prostate tissue. We agree with the RUC value for CPT code 53852 (the RUC recommended 9.58 work RVUs) but not with the work value assigned to CPT code 53850. The RUC recommendations would make the work values for these two codes identical. While both procedures require skillful technique, we believe the actual physician work involved for microwave therapy (CPT code 53850) is less than that of radiofrequency thermotherapy (CPT [[Page 59089]] code 53852). Radiofrequency thermotherapy requires the physician to retract and reposition an electrode numerous times in order to destroy selected prostate tissue. Microwave therapy on the other hand does not require the repositioning of an electrode throughout the procedure. We are decreasing the RUC recommendation of 9.58 work RVUs to 9.25 interim work RVUs for CPT code 53850. CPT codes 56300 through 56349 (Laparoscopic surgery) and CPT code 56356 (Hysteroscopy). The RUC submitted recommendations to us during the 5-year review of the resource-based relative value scale for increases in the work RVUs for CPT code 56300 (Laparoscopy (peritoneoscopy), diagnostic; (separate procedure)) and CPT code 56305 (with biopsy (single or multiple)). At that time, we did not adopt those recommendations because we believed they would create rank order anomalies within the laparoscopy and hysteroscopy family of codes. Subsequently, at the request of HCFA, the entire family of codes was reviewed by the RUC. Following is a discussion of all of the codes that were affected by this review. The discussion is in order by CPT code. In some instances, global periods or work RVUs were changed in order to address inconsistencies within this family of codes. We believe additional review of the global period may be warranted and invite comment on this issue. CPT codes 56300 (Laparoscopy, diagnostic; (separate procedure)) and 56305 (with biopsy (single or multiple)). The RUC recommended 5.00 work RVUs for CPT code 56300 and 5.50 work RVUs for CPT code 56305. We agree with these work RVUs but will be changing the global period of both of these codes to 010 days. CPT code 56304 Laparoscopy, surgical; with fulguration of oviducts (with or without transection), with lysis of adhesions). The RUC recommended 10.00 work RVUs for this CPT code. We generally agree with the rank order of this recommendation but are increasing it to 10.45 work RVUs. We are increasing this recommendation because we added a level 2 office visit to the RUC recommendation (0.45 RVUs) to account for changing the global period from 010 to 090 days. Additionally, we will be discussing a change in the descriptor associated with CPT code 56304 with the CPT Editorial Panel. We will be asking the CPT Editorial Panel to revised the code descriptor to specify that it includes an extensive lysis of adhesions. A limited lysis of adhesions is included in CPT codes 56300 and 56305 and is not paid separately. CPT code 56304 should only be used for extensive lysis of adhesions. CPT code 56303 (Laparoscopy, surgical; with fulguration of oviducts (with or without transection); with fulguration or excision of lesions of the ovary, pelvic viscera, or peritoneal surface by any method). The RUC recommended 10.50 work RVUs to CPT code 56303. We changed this CPT code from a 010 day global period to a 090 day global period. Due to this increase in the global period, we are adding a level 2 office visit to the RUC recommendation. The resulting work RVUs for CPT code 56303 are 10.95. CPT code 56345 (Laparoscopy, surgical; splenectomy) and CPT code 56347 (Laparoscopy, surgical; jejunostomy (eg, for decompression or feeding)). We did not receive a RUC recommendation for CPT codes 56345 and 56347. We decided that we will make these as carrier-priced codes until we receive recommended RVUs from the RUC. Therefore, no RVUs are shown for these codes. CPT code 56348 (Laparoscopy with intestinal resection). The RUC recommended 20.00 work RVUs for CPT code 56348. We believe that the work involved with this procedure is comparable to that of CPT code 44145 (Partial removal of colon), which is valued at 21.29 work RVUs. We decided to value CPT code 56348 at the median value extracted from a RUC survey issued to colorectal surgeons. For the 1998 physician fee schedule, we are assigning 21.00 work RVUs to CPT code 56348. CPT code 56349 (Laparoscopy, surgical, esophagogastric fundoplasty (eg, Nissen, Belsey IV, Hill, Toupet procedures)). The RUC stated that the work represented by CPT code 56349 is more difficult than that in its corresponding open procedure (CPT code 43324 valued at 15.18 work RVUs). We do not agree that this procedure has more work involved than either a lobectomy (CPT code 32540 valued at 13.31 work RVUs) or colon resection (CPT code 44140 valued at 16.97 work RVUs). We are reducing the RUC recommendation of 17.75 work RVUs to 16.47 work RVUs for the 1998 physician fee schedule. CPT code 56356 (Hysteroscopy, ablation). The RUC recommended 9.50 work RVUs for CPT code 56356. Upon comparison of CPT code 56356 to other codes within this family, we decided to reduce the work RVUs to 6.17. This decision was based upon a comparison of CPT code 56356 to CPT code 56352 (Hysteroscopy, surgical; with sampling (biopsy) of endometrium and/or polypectomy, with or without D&C, with lysis of intrauterine adhesions (any method)) which is valued at 6.17 work RVUs. These codes had identical times and intensities identified in the survey of the clinical vignettes supplied to the RUC. Therefore, we decided to reduce the work RVU of CPT code 56356 to 6.17 work RVUs for the 1998 physician fee schedule. CPT codes 59150 (Laparoscopic treatment of ectopic pregnancy; without salpingectomy and/or oophorectomy) and 59151 (Laparoscopic treatment of ectopic pregnancy; with salpingectomy and/or oophorectomy). The RUC stated that the survey respondents substantially underestimated the number of post-procedure office visits associated with these procedures. We agree with the RUC and are increasing the work RVUs for both of these codes. We are assigning 11.20 work RVUs to CPT code 59150, and 11.10 work RVUs to CPT code 59151 for the 1998 physician fee schedule. CPT code 95806 (Sleep study, simultaneous recording of ventilation, respiratory effort, ECG or heart rate, and oxygen saturation, unattended by a technologist). CPT 1998 will include a new code for an unattended sleep study. Currently, CPT code 95807 (1.66 work RVUs) is used for a sleep study that is attended by a technologist. The RUC recommended 1.85 work RVUs for CPT code 95806. We do not agree that there is more work involved in an unattended sleep study as opposed to an attended sleep study. We are assigning 1.66 interim work RVUs to CPT code 95806, which will make the work RVUs identical to those of CPT code 95807. CPT codes 99315 (Nursing facility discharge day management; 30 minutes or less) and 99316 (Nursing facility discharge day management; more than 30 minutes). CPT 1998 will include two new codes for nursing facility discharge day management. The RUC recommended 1.20 work RVUs for CPT code 99315 and 1.60 work RVUs for CPT code 99316. Upon review of these values, we found that the projected utilization of these new nursing facility discharge codes causes a significant work neutrality problem within the family of nursing facility CPT codes. While the codes are new, the work is already reflected within the current codes. In order to maintain the same total pool of work RVUs within this family, we are [[Page 59090]] reducing the two new CPT codes (that is, CPT codes 99315 and 99316), as well as six existing codes within the nursing facility family of codes (CPT codes 99301, 99302, 99303, 99311, 99312, and 99313), by 6.0 percent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Work CPT code Descriptor RVUs ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 99301....................... Comprehensive nursing facility 1.20 assessment. 99302....................... Comprehensive nursing facility 1.61 assessment. 99303....................... Comprehensive nursing facility 2.01 assessment. 99311....................... Subsequent nursing facility care... 0.60 99312....................... Subsequent nursing facility care... 1.00 99313....................... Subsequent nursing facility care... 1.42 99315....................... Nursing facility discharge day 1.13 management; 30 minutes or less. 99316....................... Nursing facility discharge day 1.50 management; more than 30 minutes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CPT codes 99341 through 99345 (Home care visits; new patient) and 99347 through 99350 (Home care visits; established patient). The RUC-recommended RVUs for the home care visit codes were established through comparisons to CPT's current office visit codes. Although we agree with the use of the office visit codes as key reference services, we believe that the RUC underestimated the pre-, intra-, and post-service intensities associated with the home visit codes. We note that the intensity values of the survey respondents were higher for the home visit codes than the reference codes for office visits. We increased the RUC recommendations by applying a uniform intensity factor increase of 10 percent to the pre-, intra-, and post- service times of the office visits codes. These increased intensities were then multiplied by the typical times specified in the new and revised CPT codes for the home visits. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Work CPT code Descriptor RVUs ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 99341....................... Home services; new patient......... 1.01 99342....................... Home services; new patient......... 1.52 99343....................... Home services; new patient......... 2.27 99344....................... Home services; new patient......... 3.03 99345....................... Home services; new patient......... 3.79 99347....................... Home services; established patient. .76 99348....................... Home services; established patient. 1.26 99349....................... Home services; established patient. 2.02 99350....................... Home services; established patient. 3.03 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ C. Other Changes to the 1998 Physician Fee Schedule and Clarification of CPT Definitions For the 1998 physician fee schedule, we are establishing or revising several alpha-numeric HCPCS codes for the reporting of certain services that are not clearly described by existing CPT codes. We view these codes as temporary since we will be referring them to the CPT Editorial Panel for possible inclusion in future editions of the CPT. Additionally, included in this section are some clarifications of proper usages of some new or revised codes. HCPCS codes G0062 (peripheral bone mineral density) and G0063 (central bone density). Effective January 1, 1998, HCPCS codes G0062, G0062-26, G0062-TC, G0063, G0063-26, and G0063-TC have been deleted. Use the appropriate code from the 70000 section of the CPT to bill for bone mineral density studies. CPT code 35400 (Intraoperative endovascular angioscopy non- coronary vessels or grafts). Although we agree with the recommended RUC work RVUs for this CPT code, some clarification of proper usage is needed. When billing CPT code 35400, units can only equal 1.00 because the code descriptor specifies vessels or grafts. The RVUs assigned are based on an assumption that angioscopy may be performed on multiple vessels. CPT codes 44625 and 44626 (Closure of colostomy). CPT codes 44625 and 44626 should not be billed with CPT code 44139, which is used to report the immobilization (take down) of the splenic flexure. By CPT definition, code 44139 can be used only in conjunction with the partial colectomy codes 44140 through 44147. We will be establishing a national claims edit to ensure that neither of these two codes are billed with CPT code 44139. CPT codes 99217 and 99234 through 99236 (Observation same day discharge). We will be consulting with the CPT Editorial Panel to clarify that the use of these codes should be restricted to observation care services of at least 12 hours duration. CPT code 49021 (Percutaneous abscess drainage). Based on the recommendation of the RUC, we are changing the global period of CPT code 49021 from 010 days to 000 days. Post-operative care during the 90 day period following the procedure is not typically provided for this procedure. CPT codes 95860 through 95870 (Needle EMGs). Although we have accepted the RUC recommendations for this family of codes, we believe some clarification on the proper use of these codes would be beneficial. CPT codes 95860, 95861, 95863, and 95864 (Needle electromyogram of 1, 2, 3, or 4 limbs with or without paraspinals (cannot bill paraspinals separately--unless studying paraspinals between T3-T11)). To bill these codes, extremity muscles innervated by three nerves (for example, radial, ulnar, median, tibial, peroneal, femoral, not sub branches) or four spinal levels must be evaluated, with a minimum of five muscles studied. CPT code 95869 (Needle electromyography, thoracic paraspinals). This CPT code should be used when exclusively studying thoracic paraspinals. One unit can be billed, despite the number of levels studied or whether unilateral or bilateral. This cannot be billed with CPT codes 95860, 95861, 95863, or 95864 if only T1 and/or T2 are studied when an upper extremity was also studied. CPT code 95870 (Needle electromyography, limited study). This CPT code can be billed at one unit per extremity. Muscles on the thorax or abdomen (unilateral or bilateral). One unit may be billed for studying cervical or lumbar paraspinal muscles (unilateral or bilateral), regardless of the number of level tested. This code should not be billed when the paraspinal muscles corresponding to an extremity are tested and when the extremity codes 95860, 95861, 95863, or 95864 are also billed. PET Myocardial Perfusion Imaging (HCPCS Codes G0030 Through G0047) When the PET myocardial perfusion imaging tests were originally valued, they were considered analogous to the SPECT codes. In consultation with the RUC, we have decided to raise the values of the PET procedures. Unlike the large field of view of SPECT scanners, PET scanners have a much smaller field. In addition, due to the short half- life of the Rb-82 tracer, physician involvement in patient positioning is critical when using the PET scanner. For these reasons, we are raising the single PET myocardial perfusion image to 1.50 work RVUs and the multiple PET myocardial perfusion image to 1.87 work RVUs. Cervical or Vaginal Cancer Screening; Pelvic and Clinical Breast Examination (HCPCS Code G0101) The law provides for coverage and payment of screening pelvic and clinical [[Page 59091]] breast examinations effective January 1, 1998. We decided that this service is comparable to a level 2 evaluation and management new patient office visit. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Practice Malpractice HCPCS code Work Expense Expense RVUs RVUs RVUs ------------------------------------------------------------------------ G0101................................. 0.45 0.28 0.02 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Colorectal Cancer Screening (HCPCS Codes G0104 Through G0107) Section 4104 of the BBA 1997 provides for Medicare coverage of colorectal cancer screening tests effective for services provided on or after January 1, 1998. The law provides for coverage and payment for screening fecal-occult blood tests, screening flexible sigmoidoscopy, screening colonoscopy, and other such tests determined to be appropriate by the Secretary. We are setting payment amounts for screening sigmoidoscopy, screening colonoscopy, barium enema, and screening fecal-occult blood tests, as follows: Flexible Sigmoidoscopy (HCPCS Code G0104) The law provides that payment for screening flexible sigmoidoscopies be made at rates consistent with payment for similar or related services under the physician fee schedule, not to exceed the rates for a diagnostic flexible sigmoidoscopy (CPT 45330). We have created a new code-- HCPCS code G0104 (Colorectal cancer screening; flexible sigmoidoscopy)--to be used for screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. We believe that the work is the same whether the procedure is a screening or a diagnostic sigmoidoscopy and are therefore assigning the same RVUs to HCPCS code G0104 as those assigned to CPT code 45330 in Addendum B. Screening Colonoscopy (HCPCS Code G0105) The law provides that payment for screening colonoscopies be paid at rates consistent with payment for similar or related services under the physician fee schedule, not to exceed the rates for a diagnostic colonoscopy (CPT 45378). We have created a new code-- HCPCS code G0105 (Colorectal cancer screening; colonoscopy on individual at high risk)-- to be used for screening colonoscopy. We believe that the work is the same whether the procedure is a screening or a diagnostic colonoscopy, and we are therefore assigning the same RVUs to HCPCS code G0105 as those assigned to CPT code 45378 in Addendum B. Barium Enema (HCPCS Code G0106) The law provides that payment for colorectal cancer screening- barium enema be paid at rates consistent with payment for similar or related services under the physician fee schedule. We believe that the work is analogous to CPT code 74280 (Contrast x-ray exam of the colon), and we are therefore assigning the same RVUs to HCPCS code G0106 as those assigned to CPT code 74280 in Addendum B. Fecal-Occult Blood Tests (HCPCS Code G0107) The law provides that screening fecal-occult blood tests be paid at the same rate as diagnostic fecal-occult blood tests (CPT code 82270) paid under the clinical laboratory fee schedule. We have created a new code-- HCPCS code G0107 (Colorectal cancer screening; fecal-occult blood test, 1-3 simultaneous determinations)--to be used for screening fecal-occult blood tests. This code will be carrier-priced at the payment amount that the carrier pays for CPT code 82270 under the clinical laboratory fee schedule. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Practice Malpractice HCPCS code Work expense expense RVUs RVUs RVUs ------------------------------------------------------------------------ G0104................................. 0.96 1.23 0.12 G0105................................. 3.70 4.13 0.39 G0106................................. 0.99 2.58 0.21 G0107................................. (2) Lab Fee Schedule ------------------------------------------------------------------------ National Emphysema Treatment Trials (NETT) (CPT Codes G0110 Through G0116) The following codes have been added to the physician fee schedule for the use of physicians participating in the NETT study. The National Emphysema Treatment Trials (NETT) are co-sponsored by HCFA and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute with the Johns Hopkins University as the coordinating center for the study. The study is to last 7 years starting August 1, 1997. Since the use of these codes will be limited to some 18 clinical centers and physicians associated with these centers, either directly, as in furnishing services in the centers' outpatient departments or in rural areas where some of the participating beneficiaries live, these codes will be listed as restricted and can only be billed by those participating in the NETT study. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Practice HCPCS code Descriptor Work RVUs expense Malpractice RVUs expense RVUs ------------------------------------------------------------------------ G0110............ NETT Pulm 0.90 0.26 0.04 Rehab; education/ skills training, individual. G0111............ NETT Pulm 0.27 0.20 0.02 Rehab; education/ skills training, group. G0112............ NETT Pulm 1.72 0.97 0.10 Rehab; nutritional guidance--init ial. G0113............ NETT Pulm 1.29 0.77 0.09 Rehab; nutritional guidance--subs equent. G0114............ NETT Pulm 1.20 0.35 0.11 Rehab; psychosocial consultation. G0115............ NETT Pulm 1.20 0.35 0.11 Rehab; psychological testing. G0116............ NETT Pulm 1.11 0.35 0.05 Rehab; Psycho- social counseling--in dividual. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ V. Provisions of the Final Rule The provisions of this final rule restate the provisions of the June 18, 1997, proposed rule except as noted elsewhere in this preamble. Following is a highlight of the exceptions: For our proposal relating to physician supervision, we are adopting our proposal to assign an appropriate level of physician supervision to every diagnostic test payable under the physician fee schedule with exceptions for certain procedures personally performed by qualified independent psychologists, clinical psychologists, qualified audiologists, and physical therapists who are certified as qualified electrophysiologic clinical specialists. With respect to several groupings of diagnostic codes, we have changed our proposed policy based on comments from the physician specialities most involved with particular groups of codes. In some cases, such as CTs and MRIs performed without the use of contrast materials, we have lowered the level of required physician supervision. In others, such as ultrasound procedures, we have increased the level of required supervision. We are publishing a listing of diagnostic codes in the preamble of this document with the level of physician supervision we [[Page 59092]] have determined to be appropriate. In addition, we are adding a field to the physician fee schedule data base indicating the appropriate level of supervision. We anticipate that there will continue to be discussions among HCFA, physician specialty groups, and others about these levels of supervision, and we expect that the indicators applicable to individual procedures will be changed from time to time as is currently the case with other data base indicators. As a result of our review of the comments, we have decided that the actual charge issue, including the implications for beneficiary out-of- pocket expense, requires further study. We received numerous comments from individual physicians and suppliers and the organizations that represent them in opposition to this proposal. Based on provisions in the BBA 1997, we are not implementing the system of resource-based practice expense RVUs contained in the proposed rule for 1998. Rather, we are implementing the provision of the BBA 1997 that reduces practice expense RVUs for certain services and uses the monies to increase practice expense RVUs for office visits. Specifically, we are making the following changes from the regulations proposed in our June 18, 1997 proposed rule: In Sec. 414.22 (Relative value units (RVUs)), we are stating that the practice expense RVUs for certain services are reduced to 110 percent of the work RVUs for those services. We are also stating that the following two categories of services are excluded from this limitation: The service is provided more than 75 percent of the time in an office setting; or The 1998 proposed resource-based practice expense RVUs (as specified in the June 18, 1997 physician fee schedule proposed rule) for the specific site, either in-office or out-of-office, increased from its 1997 practice expense RVUs. In Sec. 414.32 (Determining payments for certain physician services furnished in facility settings), we are revising paragraph (b) to state that if physician services of the type routinely furnished in a physician's office are furnished in facility settings, the fee schedule amount for those services is determined by reducing the applicable practice expense RVUs for the service by 50 percent. We are not revising Sec. 414.34 (Payment for services and supplies incident to a physician's service) because our resource-based practice expense system is not being implemented as proposed in the June 18, 1997 proposed rule. We are adding the following changes to regulations required by the BBA 1997: In Sec. 410.34 (Mammography services: Conditions for and limitations on coverage), we are expanding coverage of screening mammography services, effective January 1, 1998, to provide for payment for annual screening for all women beneficiaries age 40 and over. We are adding a new Sec. 410.37 (Colorectal cancer screening tests: Conditions for and limitations on coverage) to provide for Medicare coverage of colorectal cancer screening tests effective for services provided on or after January 1, 1998. We are adding a new Sec. 410.56 (Screening pelvic examinations) to provide for new coverage of screening pelvic exams (including a clinical breast exam) for all women beneficiaries subject to certain frequency and payment limitations. VI. Collection of Information Requirements Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), agencies are required to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register and solicit public comment before a collection of information requirement is submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. In order to fairly evaluate whether an information collection should be approved by OMB, section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires that we solicit comment on the following issues: Whether the information collection is necessary and useful to carry out the proper functions of the agency; The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the information collection burden; The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and Recommendations to minimize the information collection burden on the affected public, including automated collection techniques. Therefore, we are soliciting public comment on each of these issues for the information collection requirements discussed below. Under 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2), the burden associated with the time, effort and financial resources necessary to comply with a collection of information that would be incurred by persons in the normal course of business is excluded from an information collection. The burden in connection with such types of collection activities can be disregarded if it can be demonstrated that such collection activities are usual and customary. Each of the collection requirements referenced below are of the type that are usual and customary in the conduct of commercial business. Thus, we believe they fall under this exception. Under 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(3), a collection of information conducted or sponsored by a Federal agency that is also conducted or sponsored by a unit of State, local or tribal government is presumed to impose a Federal burden except to the extent that the agency shows that such State, local, or tribal requirement would be imposed even in the absence of a Federal requirement. The following sections contain information collection requirements that we believe meet these requirements listed above; therefore, the burden is exempt from the Act. Section 410.33(b)(2) (Supervising physicians) must maintain documentation of sufficient physician resources during all hours of operation to assure that the required physician supervision is furnished. Section 410.33(c) (Non-physician personnel) must maintain documentation available for review certifying that non-physician personnel have the training and proficiency as evidenced by licensure or certification by the appropriate State health or education department or, in the absence of a State licensing board, a national credentialing body. Section 410.33(e) (Multi-State entities) that operate across State boundaries must maintain documentation that its supervising physicians and technicians are licensed and certified in each of the States in which it is furnishing services. The information collection requirement and associated burden as summarized below is subject to the PRA: Section 410.33(b)(2) (Supervising physicians) must evidence proficiency in the performance and interpretation of each type of diagnostic procedure performed by the IDTF. The proficiency may be documented by certification in specific medical specialties or subspecialties or by criteria established by the carrier for the service area in which the IDTF is located. The public reporting burden for this record keeping requirement is minimal. There are about 500 IPLs, which we assume will wish to become IDTFs, each requiring five minutes to document proficiency by certification in specific medical specialties or subspecialties or by criteria established by the carrier for the service area in which the IDTF is [[Page 59093]] located. The total public burden is 42 hours. We have submitted a copy of this final rule with comment to OMB for its review of the information collection requirements in Sec. 410.33(b)(2). This requirement is not effective until it has been approved by OMB. If you comment on any of these information collection and recordkeeping requirements, please mail copies directly to the following: Health Care Financing Administration, Office of Information Services, Information Technology Investment Management Group, Division of HCFA Enterprise Standards, Room C2-26-17, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850, Attn: Louis Blank BPD-884 Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, Attn.: Allison Herron Eydt, HCFA Desk Officer VII. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking and Response to Comments We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and invite prior public comment on proposed rules. The notice of proposed rulemaking can be waived, however, if an agency finds good cause that a notice-and-comment procedure is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest and it incorporates a statement of the finding and its reasons in the rule issued. We find good cause to waive the notice-and-comment procedure with respect to a number of provisions included in this final rule, as explained below. With respect to the BBA 1997 provisions in this final rule affecting payment under the RVU system, we noted that the BBA 1997 was enacted shortly after the proposed rule was published. It delayed the implementation of the resource-based practice expense RVU system until January 1, 1999 and specifies the manner in which practice expense RVUs in 1998 are adjusted. As explained in section III. A. of this preamble, we are conforming the rules to be in compliance with these provisions of the statute. Our change is technical in nature and does not interpret the law. To submit such a technical, conforming change to notice-and-comment rulemaking would be both impracticable and unnecessary. Since the Congress intended that these provisions be effective on January 1, 1998 and intended to forestall significant adjustments in payment that would have occurred under the pre-amendment practice expense provision, it is in the public interest to issue this rule in final form. With respect to the BBA 1997 provisions relating to coverage of screening mammography, coverage of screening pelvic examinations and colorectal cancer screening, and the related payment changes, our reasoning is somewhat similar. This rule conforms the regulations to the revisions contained in sections 4104 and 4102 of the BBA 1997. In addition, insofar as these regulations relate to coverage conditions under authority granted by section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act, they are exempted from public comment requirements pursuant to section 1869(b)(3)(B) of the Act. If we were to delay issuing a final rule beyond January, 1998, the statutory effective date of the benefit, our rules would be in conflict with the statute, which could cause confusion and would not be in the public interest. We also note that, under express authority contained in section 1871(b)(2)(B) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1395hh(b)(2)(B)) issuing a proposed rule is unnecessary if a statute establishes a specific deadline for the implementation of a provision and the deadline is less than 150 days after the enactment of the statute in which the deadline is contained. The BBA 1997 was enacted on August 5, 1997, less than 150 days from the statute's effective date of January 1, 1998. The BBA 1997 provision related to colorectal cancer screening, as described in section III. C. of this preamble, requires us to publish a statement of coverage or noncoverage of screening barium enemas in the Federal Register by November 3, 1997. As noted in our preamble discussion, there was extensive consultation before we reached our decision. According to the National Cancer Institute, colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of death from cancer in the United States. It is clearly in the public interest to make this benefit available without delay and to bring our regulations into line with the expanded coverage. In part IV. B. 2. of this preamble, we identify a number of interim 1997 codes. Since medical practice is dynamic, changes occur in coding or procedures and it is always possible that some changes occur after we have submitted our proposal for public comment. To address these changes, we identify ``interim'' RVUs for new and revised codes. To the extent possible, we subject these interim RVUs to all the procedures and considerations applicable to all RVUs, except publishing them in the Federal Register for public comment. It has been our practice to implement these interim RVUs, along with the ``final'' RVUs so that payment can be consistently made during the upcoming fee schedule year, and to solicit comments on the interim codes. We evaluate and respond to the comments in the next annual final rule. The public has recognized over the years that this approach has been in the public interest by allowing public participation yet permitting immediate, consistent payment to be made. For the above reasons, we find good cause to waive notice-and- comment rulemaking. We invite written comments on the BBA 1997 provisions and the interim RVUs for selected procedures identified in Addendum C. Because of the large number of items of correspondence we normally receive on Federal Register documents published for comment, we are not able to acknowledge or respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the DATES section of this preamble, and, if we proceed with a subsequent document, we will respond to the comments in the preamble to that document. VIII. Regulatory Impact Analysis We have examined the impacts of this final rule under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. E.O. 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects; distributive impacts and equity). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more annually). The benefit changes in this final rule due to the BBA 1997 will result in additional expenditures for calendar year 1998 in excess of $100 million. Because the expenditures resulting from this final rule are expected to exceed $100 million, it is considered a major rule, and, as required by law, this final rule is subject to congressional review. Therefore, this final rule is being forwarded to the Congress for a 60- day review period. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires (in section 202) that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits for any rule that may result in an annual expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million. The final [[Page 59094]] rule has no consequential effect on State, local, or tribal governments. We believe the private sector costs of this rule fall below these thresholds, as well. A. Regulatory Flexibility Act Consistent with the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act we analyze options for regulatory relief for small businesses and other small entities. We prepare a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA) unless we certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA is to include a justification of why action is being taken, the kinds and number of small entities the final rule will affect, and an explanation of any considered meaningful options that achieve the objectives and will lessen any significant adverse economic impact on the small entities. For purposes of the Act, all physicians are considered to be small entities. Thus, we have prepared the following analysis, which, together with the rest of this preamble, meets all three assessment requirements. It explains the rationale for and purposes of the rule, details the costs and benefits of the rule, analyzes alternatives, and presents the measures to minimize the burden on small entities. B. Geographic Practice Cost Index Changes Changes in GPCIs do not affect total payments under the physician fee schedule but rather redistribute payments among payment localities. An estimate of the overall redistributive effects can be seen by examining the changes in locality geographic adjustment factors or GAFs. The GAFs are a weighted composite of the locality GPCIs. Addendum F is a comparison of 1997 and 1999 locality GAFs. As this comparison shows, 58 of the 89 localities will experience changes in payments of less than 0.5 percent; 76 of the 89 localities will experience changes in payments of less than 1 percent; and only 3 of the 89 localities will experience changes in payment of 2 percent. The effects will be even less in 1998 as the GPCI revisions are phased in equally over a 2- year period. The effects of the GPCI revisions are thus negligible in most cases, and very minimal in all others. C. Fee Schedule for Clinical Psychologist Services Before January 1, 1997, the clinical psychologist fee schedule was derived from the reasonable charge payment system and was updated by an economic index different from that used for the physician fee schedule. As a result, relative to physicians' services, Medicare allowances for certain clinical psychologist services in many localities were artificially high or low. Moreover, there were wide geographic variations in Medicare rates for clinical psychologists as well as for clinical social workers, whose rates are set, by statute, at 75 percent of clinical psychologists' rates. Effective January 1, 1997, the fee schedule for clinical psychologist services is linked to the physician fee schedule. The fee schedule for clinical psychologist services is set at 100 percent of the physician fee schedule amount for the corresponding service. This payment policy was prompted by the creation of new psychotherapy codes that make a distinction between services that include or exclude medical evaluation and management. Both previous and current clinical psychologist fee schedules were implemented through carrier instruction. Because this final rule will codify current payment policy, there will be no impact on Medicare program or beneficiary expenditures. D. Diagnostic Tests Our policy specifies the level of physician supervision required for diagnostic tests furnished in settings in which such services are payable under the physician fee schedule. All of these tests will require at least a general level of physician supervision (that is, responsibility for the equipment and nonphysician personnel). The following services will be excepted from this provision: Diagnostic mammography procedures regulated by the FDA. Certain tests personally performed by qualified audiologists as discussed earlier. Certain testing services personally performed by qualified independent psychologists and clinical psychologists as discussed earlier. This policy may result in some program savings due to the denial of payments for tests that are not reasonable and necessary because the required level of physician supervision was not furnished. However, we do not have data on which to base an estimate of savings. We expect that most testing entities that did not previously furnish testing with the level of physician supervision required under the proposal in our June 18, 1997 proposed rule (62 FR 33179 through 33181) will modify the way they furnish testing services to conform to the new policy. We will also create a new type of entity known as an independent diagnostic testing facility (IDTF) with specific national standards. It will replace the existing IPL. Since the current IPL national policy is based on State law and local Medicare carrier policy, it is likely that some IPLs in certain areas will be more affected by this proposal than others. We do not have any data upon which to base any estimates of savings at this time. There are wide-spread allegations of unnecessary testing furnished by IPLs under the current policy. Our new policy is designed to assist Medicare carriers in addressing these allegations. E. Reasonable Compensation Equivalent Limit Update Factor The methodology currently employed to update the physician fee schedule uses an inflation factor distinct from the CPI-U used to update the reasonable compensation equivalent limits. To achieve a measure of consistency in the methodologies employed to determine reasonable payments to physicians for physicians' direct medical and surgical services furnished to individual patients and reasonable compensation levels for physicians' services that benefit provider patients generally, we are revising the methodology used to update the reasonable compensation equivalent limits by adopting the physician fee schedule's inflation factor (the MEI) to update the reasonable compensation equivalent limits. For cost reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 1998, updates to the reasonable compensation equivalent limits will be calculated using the MEI. Because we are not making an actual update to the reasonable compensation equivalent limits at this time that is based on the MEI for cost reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 1998, this change in policy will not have an impact on Medicare program or beneficiary expenditures at this time. F. Payment to Participating and Nonparticipating Suppliers We are revising the definitions at Sec. 414.2 (Definitions) to define a ``participating supplier'' as being a supplier as defined in Sec. 400.202, which includes physicians as suppliers, when they have an agreement with HCFA to participate in Part B of Medicare in effect on the date of the service. Similarly, we are defining ``nonparticipating supplier'' as a supplier that does not have an agreement with HCFA to participate in Part B of Medicare in effect on the date of the service. We are also revising Sec. 414.20 (Formula for computing payment amounts) to clarify that the formula in [[Page 59095]] the section computes the fee schedule amount, which may differ from the payment basis, and to clarify that the fee schedule amount for a nonparticipating supplier is 95 percent of the fee schedule amount for a participating supplier. We are also revising the heading of Sec. 414.20 to read ``Formula for computing fee schedule amounts'' to reflect more accurately the content of the section. We are revising Sec. 414.48 (Limits on actual charges of nonparticipating suppliers), which describes the Medicare limiting charge for nonparticipating suppliers to clarify that the limiting charge is 115 percent of the fee schedule amount for nonparticipating physicians as calculated in Sec. 414.20(b). The changes to Secs. 414.2, 414.20, and 414.48 will have no impact on Medicare payment, beneficiaries, physicians, other suppliers of physician services, Medicare carriers, or other insurers. We believe that Medicare carriers are currently properly calculating the fee schedule amounts for participating and nonparticipating suppliers and are paying based on those properly calculated amounts. These changes are intended to conform our regulations to the law and current practice. G. Increase in Work Relative Value Units for Global Surgical Services to Account for the 1997 Increases for Work Relative Value Units in Evaluation and Management Services In our November 22, 1996 final rule with comment period, as part of the 5-year review of all physician work RVUs, we increased most of the work RVUs for evaluation and management services for hospital and office or other outpatient visits. We revised the work RVUs for evaluation and management services partly in recognition of the increase in preservice and postservice work. At that time, we made no adjustments to the work RVUs assigned to global surgical services, which, in addition to the surgical procedure, include the related preservice and postservice evaluation and management visits a surgeon provides within a defined period of time. Upon further examination of this issue, we are increasing the work RVUs for global surgical services to be consistent with the 1997 increases in the work RVUs for evaluation and management services. Because the increases in the work RVUs for global surgical services will cause an increase in payments for those services, we must reduce all payments by 0.7 percent to maintain budget neutrality. H. Caloric Vestibular Testing We are reducing the work and malpractice RVUs for CPT code 92543 global service and CPT code 92543-26, and the malpractice RVUs for CPT code 92543-TC to 25 percent of what they would otherwise be. Therefore, beginning in 1998, when a physician performs and interprets four irrigations, the physician will bill Medicare for four units of CPT code 92543 (that is, the global service). When a physician interprets four irrigations, the physician will bill four units of CPT code 92543- 26. When a physician or supplier performs four irrigations, the physician or supplier will bill four units of CPT code 92543-TC. As part of the overall policy of resource-based practice expense RVUs for all codes, we are establishing practice expense RVUs for CPT code 92543 global service, -26, and -TC based on the assumption that one unit of the service equals one irrigation or the interpretation of one irrigation. We expect the changes to the RVUs for caloric vestibular testing to have no impact on Medicare program or beneficiary expenditures because this is actually a change in coding interpretation rather than a change in value. Medicare has interpreted one unit of CPT code 92543 to mean up to four irrigations and has established its RVUs based on that interpretation. The AMA interprets one unit to mean one irrigation. Therefore, when the usual service is furnished (that is, a total of four irrigations--two to each ear), Medicare instructed physicians to bill for that as one unit of service, while the AMA's instructions considered it four. We are now, in a budget-neutral fashion, adopting the AMA interpretation to reduce billing confusion regarding this code. The change is being made by having what used to be one service--for Medicare purposes--now equal four services, while at the same time establishing the RVU levels at 25 percent of what they would have otherwise been. I. Clinical Consultations The regulations set forth at Sec. 415.130 (Conditions for payment: Physician pathology services), paragraph (b) (Clinical consultation services), require that a clinical consultation meet four criteria before it can be paid. One of these criteria is that the clinical consultation must be requested by the patient's attending physician. We have allowed a standing order policy to be used as a substitute for the individual request by the patient's attending physician. However, effective January 1, 1998, we will not accept a standing order as a substitute for the individual request by the attending physician. We will instruct the Medicare carriers to enforce Sec. 415.130(b) as it is presently written. The national allowed charges for CPT code 80500 (Clinical pathology consultation; limited, without review of patient's history and medical records) for 1996 are $5.6 million. Of this amount, 70 percent of total allowed charges are from seven States. These are: Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Illinois, Kentucky, California, and Missouri. Florida accounts for $2.5 million or 45 percent of the total. We believe that the use of standing orders has clearly contributed to increased payments for clinical consultations in Florida relative to other States. We do not know the prevalence of standing orders in other States but, generally, the data do not seem to indicate a widespread problem. J. Changes in Practice Expense Relative Value Units for 1998 As discussed earlier, section 4505 of the BBA 1997 specifies the manner in which practice expense RVUs in 1998 are adjusted. The 1998 practice expense RVUs for certain services are reduced to 110 percent of their work RVUs for the service. The reductions are used to increase practice expense RVUs for office visits. We estimate that the aggregate reduction in the practice expense RVUs for services subject to this 110 percent is about $330 million. (See section III. A. above for a detailed explanation of the calculation of this provision of the BBA 1997.) Because these funds are used to increase the practice expense RVUs for office visits, there is no change in total spending as a result of this provision. K. Coverage of Screening Mammography and Related Payment Changes Section 4101 of the BBA 1997 provides for expanded coverage and waiver of the Part B deductible for screening mammography services furnished on or after January 1, 1998. Specifically, the revised benefit will allow for annual coverage of screening mammographies for all women age 40 and over, including women age 65 and over. Before enactment of the BBA 1997, biennial coverage of screening mammograms was available for (1) women at least age 40 but not yet age 50 who were not at high risk for breast cancer, and (2) women age 65 and over. Annual coverage of screening mammograms was only available for (1) women at least age 40 but not yet age 50 who were at high risk for breast [[Page 59096]] cancer, and (2) women at least age 50 but not yet age 65. We estimate that these changes in the frequency limitations and in the Part B deductible will result in an increase in Medicare payments. These payments will be made to many screening mammography suppliers, including the physicians who interpret the results of these examinations, as well as to other physicians who may be involved in providing any medically necessary follow-up tests or treatment that may be required as a result of the screening tests. L. Colorectal Cancer Screening Section 4104 of the BBA 1997 authorizes coverage of certain colorectal screening tests, effective January 1, 1998, subject to certain frequency and payment limits. The new tests include (1) screening fecal-occult blood tests, (2) screening flexible sigmoidoscopy exams, (3) screening colonoscopy exams, and (4) screening barium enema exams. Based on the projected utilization of these various screening services and related medically necessary follow-up tests and treatment that may be required for the beneficiaries screened, we estimate that this new benefit will result in an increase in Medicare payments. These payments will be made to many primary care physicians for the screening fecal-occult blood tests, and mostly to physician specialists such as gastroenterologists (in the case of screening flexible sigmoidoscopies and screening colonoscopies) and radiologists (in the case of screening barium enema procedures). M. Coverage of Screening Pelvic Examination (Including a Clinical Breast Examination) and Related Payment Changes Effective for services furnished beginning January 1, 1998, section 4102 of the BBA 1997 provides for coverage and waiver of the Part B deductible for screening pelvic examinations (including a clinical breast examination) subject to certain frequency and payment limitations. We estimate that this new coverage provision will increase program expenditures. These payments will be made to a large number of physicians and other practitioners who provide these tests or any medically necessary follow-up tests or treatment that may be required as a result of the screening tests throughout the United States. N. Reinstatement of the Payment for Transportation of EKG Equipment As set forth in section 4559 of the BBA 1997, effective for services furnished after December 31, 1997 and before January 1, 1999, carriers will make separate payments for HCPCS code R0076 (Transportation of portable EKG to facility or location, per patient) based upon payment methods in effect for these services as of December 31, 1996. EKG transportation payments should be made at the carrier- priced level that was in effect on December 31, 1996. The procedure codes involved are CPT code 93000 (a 12-lead EKG with interpretation and report) or CPT code 93005 (a 12-lead EKG, tracing only, without interpretation and report). When multiple patients receive services at the same site, the transportation payment amount must be prorated among all patients seen. These payments may be made only under the following circumstances: The transportation service is furnished in connection with standard EKG procedures furnished by approved suppliers of portable x- ray services as set forth in section 2070.4.F. of the Medicare Carriers Manual. The transportation service is furnished in connection with standard EKG procedures by an independent diagnostic testing facility or an independent physiological laboratory under the condition set forth in section 2070.1.G. of the Medicare Carriers Manual. We estimate that this provision will result in some increase in program expenditures. O. Elimination of the Separate Budget-Neutrality Adjuster for the Work Relative Value Units As discussed in the November 22, 1996 final rule (61 FR 59532) for the 1997 physician fee schedule, we intend to eliminate the separate 8.3 percent budget-neutrality adjustment to the work RVUs that resulted from changes made during the 5-year review of work RVUs. We will accomplish this by increasing the practice and malpractice expense RVUs by 8.3 percent and reducing the CF by 8.3 percent. This allows us to eliminate the separate adjuster while not changing the payment for any service. However, due to the affects of the BBA 1997, we are postponing the elimination of the separate budget neutrality adjustment until 1999. P. Effect of Changes Resulting From Adjustments to Relative Value Units Because the new RVUs cause an increase in total estimated payments under the physician fee schedule, we must reduce payments by 0.8 percent in order to maintain budget neutrality as required by section 1848(c)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. This reduction in payments is being implemented through a 0.8 percent reduction to the conversion factor. We anticipate that the reduction of net Medicare revenues for some physician practices due to the changes contained in this regulation will result in a volume and intensity response that will cause overall physician expenditures to increase by 0.1 percent, requiring an offsetting 0.1 percent reduction in the CF to maintain budget neutrality. This 0.1 percent reduction is included in the 0.8 percent reduction described above. We increased the Sustainable Growth Rate target for physician spending by the anticipated 0.1 volume and intensity response. Because we increased the target, if the anticipated volume and intensity response does not occur, the Sustainable Growth Rate system will return the 0.1 percent reduction to the CF in the form of higher future updates. Q. Net Impact of Relative Value Unit Changes on Medicare Specialties 1. Impact Estimation Methodology Physician fee schedule impacts were estimated by comparing predicted physician payments under a continuation of the current RVUs to the estimated payments under the new RVUs. 2. Overall Fee Schedule Impact As described above, we are making the budget neutrality adjustment required for changes in relative value units through an adjustment to the CF. In the discussion below of differential impacts by specialty, we have incorporated the separate 0.8 percent downward adjustment on the CF. The table below does not contain the impacts of the single CF. 3. Specialty Level Effect (Includes Table 3--Impact on Medicare Payments by Specialty Due to Changes in Relative Value Units) Table 3, ``Impact on Medicare Payments by Specialty Due to Changes in Relative Value Units,'' shows the estimated percentage change in Medicare physician fees from the current RVUs to the new RVUs and by specialty. The specialties are ranked according to the impact of the changes to Medicare fees. The impact of the changes contained in this regulation on the total revenue (Medicare and non-Medicare) for a given specialty is less [[Page 59097]] than impact displayed in Table 3 since physicians provide services to Medicare and non-Medicare patients. Table 3.--Impact on Medicare Payments by Speciality Due to Changes in Relative Value Units [In percent] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Impact on Impact on Impact on practice Specialty total work expense payments payments payments ------------------------------------------------------------------------ M.D./D.O. Physicians: Obstetrics/Gynecology........ 3.0 2.8 3.9 General Surgery.............. 1.8 3.8 -0.4 Plastic Surgery.............. 1.7 3.9 -0.6 Vascular Surgery............. 1.5 4.3 0.7 Rheumatology................. 1.4 -0.9 5.0 Family Practice.............. 1.3 -1.0 5.3 General Practice............. 1.2 -0.4 4.1 Anesthesiology............... 0.9 1.0 0.7 Hematology/Oncology.......... 0.8 -0.6 2.5 Orthopedic Surgery........... 0.8 4.0 -2.0 Internal Medicine............ 0.6 -0.9 3.0 Otolaryngology............... 0.6 0.3 1.1 Urology...................... 0.4 0.6 0.3 Dermatology.................. 0.2 -0.6 1.7 Neurology.................... 0.0 0.7 1.2 Clinics...................... -0.1 -0.3 0.2 Neurosurgery................. -0.2 3.2 -3.6 Thoracic Surgery............. -0.2 5.0 -4.7 All Other Physicians......... -0.2 -0.6 0.5 Pulmonary.................... -0.4 -0.8 0.4 Emergency Medicine........... -0.6 -0.7 -0.5 Psychiatry................... -0.7 -0.9 -0.4 Radiology.................... -0.7 -0.9 0.6 Cardiac Surgery.............. -0.7 5.4 -5.9 Radiation Oncology........... -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 Pathology.................... -1.1 -0.8 -1.5 Nephrology................... -1.2 -0.8 -1.9 Gastroenterology............. -1.3 -0.8 -2.0 Cardiology................... -1.4 -0.6 -2.3 Ophthalmology................ -2.6 1.6 -6.8 Others: Podiatry..................... 0.8 0.5 1.4 Optometry.................... 0.1 -0.9 1.8 Nonphysician Practitioner.... -0.6 0.3 -2.2 Chiropractic................. -0.8 -0.8 -0.8 Suppliers.................... -1.0 -0.8 -1.1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ R. Five-Year Impacts of Benefit Changes (Includes Table 4--Projected Budget Impact of New Benefits) We estimate that the benefit changes enacted in the BBA 1997 described in this final rule will result in the following Medicare expenditures over the next 5 fiscal years: Table 4.--Projected Budget Impact of New Benefits [In millions] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total budget impact....................... $160 $385 $510 $685 $780 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S. Rural Hospital Impact Statement Section 1102(b) of the Act requires the Secretary to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area and has fewer than 50 beds. This final rule will have little direct effect on payments to rural hospitals since this rule will change only payments made to physicians and certain other practitioners under Part B of the Medicare program and will make no change in payments to hospitals under Part A. We do not believe the [[Continued on page 59098]]