Differences in the Complexity of Office Visits by Physician Specialty: NAMCS 2013–2016

ABSTRACT Background Specialty-to-specialty variation in use of outpatient evaluation and management service codes could lead to important differences in reimbursement among specialties. Objective To compare the complexity of visits to physicians whose incomes are largely dependent on evaluation and...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM 2020-06, Vol.35 (6), p.1715-1720
Hauptverfasser: Goodson, John D., Shahbazi, Sara, Rao, Karthik, Song, Zirui
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1720
container_issue 6
container_start_page 1715
container_title Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM
container_volume 35
creator Goodson, John D.
Shahbazi, Sara
Rao, Karthik
Song, Zirui
description ABSTRACT Background Specialty-to-specialty variation in use of outpatient evaluation and management service codes could lead to important differences in reimbursement among specialties. Objective To compare the complexity of visits to physicians whose incomes are largely dependent on evaluation and management services to the complexity of visits to physicians whose incomes are largely dependent on procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants We analyzed 53,670 established patient outpatient visits reported by physicians in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) from 2013 to 2016. We defined high complexity visits as those with an above average number of diagnoses (> 2) and/or medications (> 3) listed We based our comparison on time intervals corresponding to typical outpatient evaluation and management times as defined by the Current Procedural Terminology Manual and specialty utilization of evaluation and management codes based on 2015 Medicare payments. Main Outcome and Measures Proportion of complex visits by specialty category. Key Results We found significant differences in the content of similar-length office visits provided by different specialties. For level 4 established outpatient visits (99214), the percentage involving high diagnostic complexity ranged from 62% for internal medicine, 52% for family medicine/general practice, and 41% for neurology (specialties whose incomes are largely dependent on evaluation and management codes), to 34% for dermatology, 42% for ophthalmology, and 25% for orthopedic surgery (specialties whose incomes are more dependent on procedure codes) ( p value of the difference 
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11606-019-05624-0
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7280404</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2410649924</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-17f5a3730da6f55e60ab7063bfbc919256002ac603ce17035f31b70c3b6bdb8c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kctuFDEQRS1ERIaQH2CBLLFh06T87maBFA1PKRCkkIid5faUM456uge7B9E7_oE_5EtwMnkAC1Z3UaduPS4hjxk8ZwDmIDOmQVfAmgqU5rKCe2TGFFcVk425T2ZQ17KqjZC75GHOFwBMcF4_ILuCM2W01DPy5VUMARP2HjONPR2XSOfDat3h9zhOdAj0OITokZ7FHMdM24l-Wk45-uh6erLGot04vaAfDz_MTygvE379-FlEPyI7wXUZ9691j5y-ef15_q46On77fn54VHlp5FgxE5QTRsDC6aAUanCtAS3a0PqGNVxpAO68BuGRGRAqCFYAL1rdLtraiz3ycuu73rQrXHjsx-Q6u05x5dJkBxft35U-Lu358M0aXoMEWQyeXRuk4esG82hXMXvsOtfjsMmWC6N5-ZtSBX36D3oxbFJfzrNcMtCyafilId9SPg05Jwy3yzCwl8HZbXC2BGevgrNQmp78ecZty01SBRBbIJdSf47pbvZ_bH8DCpaiYQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2410649924</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Differences in the Complexity of Office Visits by Physician Specialty: NAMCS 2013–2016</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Goodson, John D. ; Shahbazi, Sara ; Rao, Karthik ; Song, Zirui</creator><creatorcontrib>Goodson, John D. ; Shahbazi, Sara ; Rao, Karthik ; Song, Zirui</creatorcontrib><description>ABSTRACT Background Specialty-to-specialty variation in use of outpatient evaluation and management service codes could lead to important differences in reimbursement among specialties. Objective To compare the complexity of visits to physicians whose incomes are largely dependent on evaluation and management services to the complexity of visits to physicians whose incomes are largely dependent on procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants We analyzed 53,670 established patient outpatient visits reported by physicians in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) from 2013 to 2016. We defined high complexity visits as those with an above average number of diagnoses (&gt; 2) and/or medications (&gt; 3) listed We based our comparison on time intervals corresponding to typical outpatient evaluation and management times as defined by the Current Procedural Terminology Manual and specialty utilization of evaluation and management codes based on 2015 Medicare payments. Main Outcome and Measures Proportion of complex visits by specialty category. Key Results We found significant differences in the content of similar-length office visits provided by different specialties. For level 4 established outpatient visits (99214), the percentage involving high diagnostic complexity ranged from 62% for internal medicine, 52% for family medicine/general practice, and 41% for neurology (specialties whose incomes are largely dependent on evaluation and management codes), to 34% for dermatology, 42% for ophthalmology, and 25% for orthopedic surgery (specialties whose incomes are more dependent on procedure codes) ( p value of the difference &lt; 0.001). High medication complexity was found in the following proportions of visits: internal medicine 56%, family medicine/general practice 49%, and neurology 43%, as compared with dermatology 33%, ophthalmology 30%, and orthopedic surgery 30% ( p value of the difference &lt; 0.001). Conclusion Within the same duration visits, specialties whose incomes depend more on evaluation and management codes on average addressed more clinical issues and managed more medications than specialties whose incomes are more dependent on procedures.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0884-8734</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-1497</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11606-019-05624-0</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32157646</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Aged ; Ambulatory Care ; Bone surgery ; Complexity ; Dermatology ; Diagnostic systems ; Evaluation ; Government programs ; Health Care Surveys ; Humans ; Internal Medicine ; Management services ; Medicare ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Neurology ; Office Visits ; Ophthalmology ; Original Research ; Orthopedics ; Outpatients ; Physicians ; Surgery ; Terminology ; United States</subject><ispartof>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM, 2020-06, Vol.35 (6), p.1715-1720</ispartof><rights>Society of General Internal Medicine 2020</rights><rights>Society of General Internal Medicine 2020.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-17f5a3730da6f55e60ab7063bfbc919256002ac603ce17035f31b70c3b6bdb8c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-17f5a3730da6f55e60ab7063bfbc919256002ac603ce17035f31b70c3b6bdb8c3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8847-1653</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7280404/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7280404/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32157646$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Goodson, John D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shahbazi, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rao, Karthik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Song, Zirui</creatorcontrib><title>Differences in the Complexity of Office Visits by Physician Specialty: NAMCS 2013–2016</title><title>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM</title><addtitle>J GEN INTERN MED</addtitle><addtitle>J Gen Intern Med</addtitle><description>ABSTRACT Background Specialty-to-specialty variation in use of outpatient evaluation and management service codes could lead to important differences in reimbursement among specialties. Objective To compare the complexity of visits to physicians whose incomes are largely dependent on evaluation and management services to the complexity of visits to physicians whose incomes are largely dependent on procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants We analyzed 53,670 established patient outpatient visits reported by physicians in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) from 2013 to 2016. We defined high complexity visits as those with an above average number of diagnoses (&gt; 2) and/or medications (&gt; 3) listed We based our comparison on time intervals corresponding to typical outpatient evaluation and management times as defined by the Current Procedural Terminology Manual and specialty utilization of evaluation and management codes based on 2015 Medicare payments. Main Outcome and Measures Proportion of complex visits by specialty category. Key Results We found significant differences in the content of similar-length office visits provided by different specialties. For level 4 established outpatient visits (99214), the percentage involving high diagnostic complexity ranged from 62% for internal medicine, 52% for family medicine/general practice, and 41% for neurology (specialties whose incomes are largely dependent on evaluation and management codes), to 34% for dermatology, 42% for ophthalmology, and 25% for orthopedic surgery (specialties whose incomes are more dependent on procedure codes) ( p value of the difference &lt; 0.001). High medication complexity was found in the following proportions of visits: internal medicine 56%, family medicine/general practice 49%, and neurology 43%, as compared with dermatology 33%, ophthalmology 30%, and orthopedic surgery 30% ( p value of the difference &lt; 0.001). Conclusion Within the same duration visits, specialties whose incomes depend more on evaluation and management codes on average addressed more clinical issues and managed more medications than specialties whose incomes are more dependent on procedures.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Ambulatory Care</subject><subject>Bone surgery</subject><subject>Complexity</subject><subject>Dermatology</subject><subject>Diagnostic systems</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Government programs</subject><subject>Health Care Surveys</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Management services</subject><subject>Medicare</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Neurology</subject><subject>Office Visits</subject><subject>Ophthalmology</subject><subject>Original Research</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Outpatients</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Terminology</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>0884-8734</issn><issn>1525-1497</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kctuFDEQRS1ERIaQH2CBLLFh06T87maBFA1PKRCkkIid5faUM456uge7B9E7_oE_5EtwMnkAC1Z3UaduPS4hjxk8ZwDmIDOmQVfAmgqU5rKCe2TGFFcVk425T2ZQ17KqjZC75GHOFwBMcF4_ILuCM2W01DPy5VUMARP2HjONPR2XSOfDat3h9zhOdAj0OITokZ7FHMdM24l-Wk45-uh6erLGot04vaAfDz_MTygvE379-FlEPyI7wXUZ9691j5y-ef15_q46On77fn54VHlp5FgxE5QTRsDC6aAUanCtAS3a0PqGNVxpAO68BuGRGRAqCFYAL1rdLtraiz3ycuu73rQrXHjsx-Q6u05x5dJkBxft35U-Lu358M0aXoMEWQyeXRuk4esG82hXMXvsOtfjsMmWC6N5-ZtSBX36D3oxbFJfzrNcMtCyafilId9SPg05Jwy3yzCwl8HZbXC2BGevgrNQmp78ecZty01SBRBbIJdSf47pbvZ_bH8DCpaiYQ</recordid><startdate>20200601</startdate><enddate>20200601</enddate><creator>Goodson, John D.</creator><creator>Shahbazi, Sara</creator><creator>Rao, Karthik</creator><creator>Song, Zirui</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8847-1653</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200601</creationdate><title>Differences in the Complexity of Office Visits by Physician Specialty: NAMCS 2013–2016</title><author>Goodson, John D. ; Shahbazi, Sara ; Rao, Karthik ; Song, Zirui</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-17f5a3730da6f55e60ab7063bfbc919256002ac603ce17035f31b70c3b6bdb8c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Ambulatory Care</topic><topic>Bone surgery</topic><topic>Complexity</topic><topic>Dermatology</topic><topic>Diagnostic systems</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Government programs</topic><topic>Health Care Surveys</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Management services</topic><topic>Medicare</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Neurology</topic><topic>Office Visits</topic><topic>Ophthalmology</topic><topic>Original Research</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Outpatients</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Terminology</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Goodson, John D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shahbazi, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rao, Karthik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Song, Zirui</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Goodson, John D.</au><au>Shahbazi, Sara</au><au>Rao, Karthik</au><au>Song, Zirui</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Differences in the Complexity of Office Visits by Physician Specialty: NAMCS 2013–2016</atitle><jtitle>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM</jtitle><stitle>J GEN INTERN MED</stitle><addtitle>J Gen Intern Med</addtitle><date>2020-06-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1715</spage><epage>1720</epage><pages>1715-1720</pages><issn>0884-8734</issn><eissn>1525-1497</eissn><abstract>ABSTRACT Background Specialty-to-specialty variation in use of outpatient evaluation and management service codes could lead to important differences in reimbursement among specialties. Objective To compare the complexity of visits to physicians whose incomes are largely dependent on evaluation and management services to the complexity of visits to physicians whose incomes are largely dependent on procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants We analyzed 53,670 established patient outpatient visits reported by physicians in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) from 2013 to 2016. We defined high complexity visits as those with an above average number of diagnoses (&gt; 2) and/or medications (&gt; 3) listed We based our comparison on time intervals corresponding to typical outpatient evaluation and management times as defined by the Current Procedural Terminology Manual and specialty utilization of evaluation and management codes based on 2015 Medicare payments. Main Outcome and Measures Proportion of complex visits by specialty category. Key Results We found significant differences in the content of similar-length office visits provided by different specialties. For level 4 established outpatient visits (99214), the percentage involving high diagnostic complexity ranged from 62% for internal medicine, 52% for family medicine/general practice, and 41% for neurology (specialties whose incomes are largely dependent on evaluation and management codes), to 34% for dermatology, 42% for ophthalmology, and 25% for orthopedic surgery (specialties whose incomes are more dependent on procedure codes) ( p value of the difference &lt; 0.001). High medication complexity was found in the following proportions of visits: internal medicine 56%, family medicine/general practice 49%, and neurology 43%, as compared with dermatology 33%, ophthalmology 30%, and orthopedic surgery 30% ( p value of the difference &lt; 0.001). Conclusion Within the same duration visits, specialties whose incomes depend more on evaluation and management codes on average addressed more clinical issues and managed more medications than specialties whose incomes are more dependent on procedures.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><pmid>32157646</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11606-019-05624-0</doi><tpages>6</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8847-1653</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0884-8734
ispartof Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM, 2020-06, Vol.35 (6), p.1715-1720
issn 0884-8734
1525-1497
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7280404
source MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; SpringerNature Journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Aged
Ambulatory Care
Bone surgery
Complexity
Dermatology
Diagnostic systems
Evaluation
Government programs
Health Care Surveys
Humans
Internal Medicine
Management services
Medicare
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Neurology
Office Visits
Ophthalmology
Original Research
Orthopedics
Outpatients
Physicians
Surgery
Terminology
United States
title Differences in the Complexity of Office Visits by Physician Specialty: NAMCS 2013–2016
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T18%3A47%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Differences%20in%20the%20Complexity%20of%20Office%20Visits%20by%20Physician%20Specialty:%20NAMCS%202013%E2%80%932016&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20general%20internal%20medicine%20:%20JGIM&rft.au=Goodson,%20John%20D.&rft.date=2020-06-01&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1715&rft.epage=1720&rft.pages=1715-1720&rft.issn=0884-8734&rft.eissn=1525-1497&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11606-019-05624-0&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2410649924%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2410649924&rft_id=info:pmid/32157646&rfr_iscdi=true