Search

Background: Medicare reimbursement is rapidly declining in many specialties. An in-depth analysis of Medicare reimbursement for routinely performed diagnostic imaging procedures in the United States is warranted., Purpose/hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to evaluate Medicare reimbursement trends for the 20 most common lower extremity imaging procedures performed between 2005 and 2020, including radiographs, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We hypothesized that Medicare reimbursement for imaging procedures would decline substantially over the studied period., Study Design: Cohort study., Methods: The Physician Fee Schedule Look-up Tool from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was analyzed for reimbursement rates and relative value units associated with the top 20 most utilized Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes in lower extremity imaging from 2005 to 2020. Reimbursement rates were adjusted for inflation and listed in 2020 US dollars using the US Consumer Price Index. To compare year-to-year changes, the percentage change per year and compound annual growth rate were calculated. A 2-tailed t test was used to compare the unadjusted and adjusted percentage change over the 15-year period., Results: After adjusting for inflation, mean reimbursement for all procedures decreased by 32.41% ( P = .013). The mean adjusted percentage change per year was -2.82%, and the mean compound annual growth rate was -1.03%. Compensation for the professional and technical components for all CPT codes decreased by 33.02% and 85.78%, respectively. Mean compensation for the professional component decreased by 36.46% for radiography, 37.02% for CT, and 24.73% for MRI. Mean compensation for the technical component decreased by 7.76% for radiography, 127.66% for CT, and 207.88% for MRI. Mean total relative value units decreased by 38.7%. The commonly billed imaging procedure CPT 73720 (MRI lower extremity, other than joint, with and without contrast) had the greatest adjusted decrease of 69.89%., Conclusion: Medicare reimbursement for the most billed lower extremity imaging studies decreased by 32.41% between 2005 and 2020. The greatest decreases were noted in the technical component. Of the modalities, MRI had the largest decrease, followed by CT and then radiography., Competing Interests: One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: N.H. has received education payments from Goode Surgical and ImpactOrtho. K.P. has received education payments from Arthrex. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto., (© The Author(s) 2023.)

» In documenting a patient encounter, the orthopaedic evaluation consists of 3 key components: “History,” “Physical Examination,” and “Medical Decision-Making.” » The level of service coded must be supported by the complexity of the problem, the care provided, and the documentation of the encounter. » Determining whether the patient is new or established is the first step in the evaluation and management (E/M) process and relies on same-practice/same-specialty rules. » Careful attention must be paid to documentation and coding to allow for appropriate care of the patient and efficient use of the orthopaedist’s time. The available step-by-step guidelines include all necessary criteria to accomplish this. » Continue to monitor for the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) changes to stay up-to-date on changes in the guidelines.

Introduction: Cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) imaging is an emerging technology for clinical endodontic practice. The aim of this study was to investigate the acceptance, accessibility, and usage of CBCT imaging among American Association of Endodontists members in the United States by means of an online survey., Methods: An invitation to participate in a web-based survey was sent to 3076 members of the American Association of Endodontists. The survey consisted of 8 questions on demographics, access to CBCT machines, field of view (FOV), frequency of use for particular applications, and reasons in case CBCT was not used., Results: A total of 1083 participants completed the survey, giving an overall completed response rate of 35.2%; 80.30% of the participants had access to a CBCT scan, of which 50.69% (n = 443) were on-site and 49.31% (n = 431) were off-site, and 19.30% of all respondents denied having access to CBCT imaging. Limited FOV was used by 55.26% participants, 22.37% used larger FOV formats, and the remaining 22.37% were not sure about the format. There was a significantly greater usage of CBCT technology in residency programs (n = 78/84 [92.86%]) compared with practitioners who had finished an endodontic specialty program (n = 796/999 [79.68%]) (χ 2 = 10.30, P = .02). Practitioners used CBCT imaging "frequent" or "always" for internal or external resorptions (47.28%), preoperatively for surgical retreatment or intentional replantation (45.34%), missing canals (25.39%), preoperatively for nonsurgical retreatments (24.91%), differential diagnosis (21.16%), identifying periradicular lesions (18.26%), calcified cases (13.54%), immature teeth (4.71%), and to assess healing (3.87%). There was a significant difference in on-site and off-site CBCT imaging use for any of these applications (P < .001). Prevalent reasons for not using CBCT technology were cost (53.79%) and lack of installation space (8.29%). General concerns were expressed about resolution limitations, radiation exposure, and cost to the patient., Conclusions: There is a widespread application of CBCT technology in endodontic practice; however, results from the survey also confirmed that the benefit versus risk ratio should always be in favor of the patient if CBCT scans are taken., (Copyright © 2017 American Association of Endodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)