Menu Close
  • Clinical
    • In the Literature
    • Key Clinical Questions
    • Interpreting Diagnostic Tests
    • Coding Corner
    • Clinical
    • Clinical Guidelines
    • COVID-19
    • POCUS
  • Practice Management
    • Quality
    • Public Policy
    • How We Did It
    • Key Operational Question
    • Technology
    • Practice Management
  • Diversity
  • Career
    • Leadership
    • Education
    • Movers and Shakers
    • Career
    • Learning Portal
    • The Hospital Leader Blog
  • Pediatrics
  • HM Voices
    • Commentary
    • In Your Eyes
    • In Your Words
    • The Flipside
  • SHM Resources
    • Society of Hospital Medicine
    • Journal of Hospital Medicine
    • SHM Career Center
    • SHM Converge
    • Join SHM
    • Converge Coverage
    • SIG Spotlight
    • Chapter Spotlight
    • From JHM
  • Industry Content
    • Patient Monitoring with Tech
An Official Publication of
  • Clinical
    • In the Literature
    • Key Clinical Questions
    • Interpreting Diagnostic Tests
    • Coding Corner
    • Clinical
    • Clinical Guidelines
    • COVID-19
    • POCUS
  • Practice Management
    • Quality
    • Public Policy
    • How We Did It
    • Key Operational Question
    • Technology
    • Practice Management
  • Diversity
  • Career
    • Leadership
    • Education
    • Movers and Shakers
    • Career
    • Learning Portal
    • The Hospital Leader Blog
  • Pediatrics
  • HM Voices
    • Commentary
    • In Your Eyes
    • In Your Words
    • The Flipside
  • SHM Resources
    • Society of Hospital Medicine
    • Journal of Hospital Medicine
    • SHM Career Center
    • SHM Converge
    • Join SHM
    • Converge Coverage
    • SIG Spotlight
    • Chapter Spotlight
    • From JHM
  • Industry Content
    • Patient Monitoring with Tech

Medicare Modifications

Physicians who count Medicare among their payers already know the government green-lighted a 1.1% increase in Medicare Part B payments to physicians last summer. The increase was made official by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on Oct. 30, with the release of the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule for fiscal year 2009. The Final Rule governs what services are reimbursed by Medicare, the reimbursement levels for those services, and other rules pertaining to Medicare. Many of these changes, additions, and deletions were dictated by the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act, or MIPPA. (See “MIPPA Matters,” December 2008, p. 18.)

The 2009 Final Rule not only makes official the short-term, 1.1% payment increase, it also marks significant increases in payments for inpatient evaluation and management services, higher bonuses for participation in the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI), and new policies to help direct the future of healthcare.

Here is a look at a few of the key aspects of the Final Rule, of which you may not be aware:

Transparent Physicians

In a continued effort to make healthcare transparent, CMS will begin posting the names of physicians who successfully report through the 2009 PQRI on a physician compare Web site in 2010. (2007 and 2008 PQRI participants will not be included.) Just as the Hospital Compare site enables consumers to view data on facilities, this site will allow consumers to view data reported by individual doctors.

Although consumers may be interested in checking for information on their primary care physician, it is unlikely inpatients will check the site before agreeing to see a specific hospitalist. However, the Physician Compare site will have some impact on hospital medicine. “I think this is the beginning of physicians’ commitment to greater transparency,” says Eric Siegal, MD, chair of SHM’s Public Policy Committee. “In a very broad sense, physicians who agree to be listed on the Physician Compare site very clearly value transparency and quality of care. Their inclusion could be seen as a differentiator, though a small one.”

Another factor to consider regarding transparency: “Physician Compare is not just about patients,” Dr. Siegal points out. “Third-party payers will look at this, as well. If they’re looking for someone to help take care of their patients, this data might sway them in their decision.”

Public Policy Points

NEW AHRQ WEB SITE AGGREGATES QUALITY MEASURES INFORMATION

A new Web site sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) offers a public repository for evidence-based quality measures and measure sets. The National Quality Measures Clearinghouse (NQMC) site (www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov) is designed to provide healthcare professionals with “an accessible mechanism for obtaining detailed information on quality measures, and to further their dissemination, implementation, and use in order to inform healthcare decisions.” The NQMC includes a comparison tool for different measures, summaries of how the measures were developed, and commentary from the site’s editorial board. The database includes measure sets from federal agencies, including the Administration on Aging, AHRQ, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the Office of Public Health and Science, the National Institutes of Health and more.

MASSACHUSETTS INSURER MANDATES E-PRESCRIBING

CMS is not the only payer pushing for e-prescribing; doctors participating in Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts’ physician incentive programs will be required to prescribe medication electronically beginning in 2011. Physicians will be allowed to request financial assistance to help cover e-prescribing start-up costs, including equipment and training. According to the insurer, 99% of primary care physicians in BCBS Massachusetts’ HMO Blue network and 78% of specialists currently participate in the incentive program. The company estimates e-prescribing saved members roughly $800,000 in 2006 by identifying less-costly prescription alternatives.

STUDY SHOWS U.S. LAGS IN CARE FOR CHRONICALLY ILL

The U.S. does not measure up when it comes to caring for chronically ill patients, according to a new study from the Commonwealth Fund. In a survey of 7,500 chronically ill patients in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the U.S., patients in the U.S. are far more likely to go without healthcare because of costs than patients in the other countries. U.S. patients also saw higher rates of medical errors, coordination problems, and steep out-of-pocket costs.

  • Medicare Modifications

    January 1, 2009

  • Beware Office Politics

    January 1, 2009

  • The latest research you need to know

    January 1, 2009

  • Inhaled Insulin: Troubled Drug Rises from the Ashes

    January 1, 2009

  • No Coughing Matter

    December 30, 2008

  • All Aboard the HM Train

    December 30, 2008

  • NFL Star’s Injury Spotlights Reporting Requirements

    December 24, 2008

  • Research Roundup

    December 24, 2008

  • IOM Recommends Resident Duty Hour Revisions

    December 17, 2008

  • Economic Outlook Not Good for Nonprofit Providers

    December 10, 2008

1 … 888 889 890 891 892 … 975
  • About The Hospitalist
  • Contact Us
  • The Editors
  • Editorial Board
  • Authors
  • Publishing Opportunities
  • Subscribe
  • Advertise
  • Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies.
    ISSN 1553-085X
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • SHM’s DE&I Statement
  • Cookie Preferences