Family physicians' scope of work is exceptionally broad, particularly with increasing rurality. Provisions for Medicare bonus payment specified in the health care reform bill (the Patient Pro'/> Rewarding Family Medicine While Penalizing Comprehensiveness? Primary Care Payment Incentives and Health Reform: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)
首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice >Rewarding Family Medicine While Penalizing Comprehensiveness? Primary Care Payment Incentives and Health Reform: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)
【24h】

Rewarding Family Medicine While Penalizing Comprehensiveness? Primary Care Payment Incentives and Health Reform: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

机译:在惩罚综合性的同时奖励家庭医学?初级保健支付激励措施和健康改革:《患者保护和负担得起的护理法案》(PPACA)

获取原文
           

摘要

id="p1">Family physicians' scope of work is exceptionally broad, particularly with increasing rurality. Provisions for Medicare bonus payment specified in the health care reform bill (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) used a narrow definition of primary care that inadvertently offers family physicians disincentives to delivering comprehensive primary care. id="p-2">Recognizing the value of the primary care function, the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act provided a 10% Medicare bonus to primary care practitioners. “Primary care practitioners” originally included family physicians, general internists, geriatricians, pediatricians, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and physician assistants for whom primary care services represent 50% or more of their Medicare physician fee schedule–allowed charges in a prior period. id="p-3">We used 2006 Part B Medicare claims data to estimate the percentage of any family physician's total charges for evaluation and management (E&M) and three other key services reflective of differing scope across the rural to urban continuum (id="xref-fig-1-1" class="xref-fig" href="#F1">Figure 1). We then estimated the percentage of physicians eligible for the bonus in urban, large rural, small rural, isolated rural, and frontier areas. id="F1" class="fig pos-float odd"> class="fig-inline">href="637/F1.expansion.html"> alt="Figure 1." src="637/F1.small.gif" /> class="callout">>View larger version: class="callout-links"> href="637/F1.expansion.html">In this window class="in-nw" href="637/F1.expansion.html">In a new window class="fig-services"> class="fig-caption"> class="fig-label">Figure 1. id="p-4" class="first-child">Percent of family physician claims by type of service and rurality. class="sb-div caption-clear"> id="p-5">The results affirm the broad scope of practice inherent to family medicine and its variation across the rural to urban continuum. With increasing rurality, primary care physicians increasingly provide care in hospital, emergency room, and surgical settings. Defining primary care based on provision of a select set of E&M codes, however, disproportionately excludes many rural physicians who are more likely to provide non-E&M services. Using the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act approach, we found that just 53% of family physicians and 33% of other primary care providers would be eligible for the Medicare bonus. id="p-6">In light of our findings, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has revised its approach to calculating the threshold. Their remedy—excluding hospital services when determining total charges—increases the eligibility of family physicians to 80%.id="xref-ref-1-1" class="xref-bibr" href="#ref-1">1 Although this is a step in the right direction, some family physicians, especially those in rural areas, still risk being penalized rather than rewarded for a broad scope of practice. The versatility of family physicians in adapting to meet their communities' primary care needs, especially those in rural areas, may defy any single category of E&M or Current Procedural Terminology codes. In addition, policymakers must adapt any definition used to increase primary care payment to serve a broader goal: to support primary care practices, not just physicians.
机译:id =“ p1”>家庭医生的工作范围非常广泛,尤其是随着农村人口的增加。医疗改革法案(《患者保护和负担得起的医疗法案》)中规定的Medicare奖金支付规定使用了对初级保健的狭义定义,无意中为家庭医生提供了提供全面初级保健的动力。 id =“ p-2”>认识到初级保健功能的价值,《患者保护负担得起的护理法案》向初级保健从业人员提供了10%的Medicare奖金。 “初级保健从业人员”最初包括家庭医生,普通内科医师,老年病医生,儿科医生,护士从业人员,临床护士专家和医师助理,他们的初级保健服务占其Medicare医师收费表的50%或以上(在上一期间允许) 。 id =“ p-3”>我们使用2006年B部分的Medicare索赔数据来估算任何家庭医生的总评估和管理费用(E&M)以及其他三项主要服务的百分比,这些费用反映了整个医疗服务范围的不同农村到城市的连续体(id="xref-fig-1-1" class="xref-fig" href="#F1">图1 )。然后,我们估算了在城市,大农村,小农村,偏远农村和边远地区有资格获得奖金的医师百分比。 id =“ F1” class =“ fig pos-float奇数”> class =“ fig-inline”> href="637/F1.expansion.html"> alt =“图1。” src =“ 637 / F1.small.gif” /> class =“ callout”> >查看大版本: class =“ callout-links”> < a href =“ 637 / F1.expansion.html”>在此窗口中 class="in-nw" href="637/F1.expansion.html">在新窗口 class =“ fig-services”> class =“ fig-caption”> class = “ fig-label”>图1。 id =“ p-4” class =“ first-child”>按服务类型和农村地区划分的家庭医生索偿百分比。 class = “ sb-div caption-clear”> id =“ p-5”>结果证实了家庭医学固有的广泛实践及其在农村地区乃至农村地区的差异。城市连续体。随着农村人口的增加,初级保健医生越来越多地在医院,急诊室和外科场所提供护理。但是,根据提供的一组E&M代码来定义初级保健,却不成比例地将许多农村医生排除在外,他​​们更可能提供非E&M服务。使用《患者保护平价医疗法案》方法,我们发现只有53%的家庭医生和33%的其他初级保健提供者有资格获得Medicare奖金。 id =“ p-6”>根据我们的发现,医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心已经修改了其计算阈值的方法。他们的补救措施-确定总费用时不包括医院服务-使家庭医生的资格提高到80%。 id =“ xref-ref-1-1” class =“ xref-bibr” href =“#ref- 1“> 1 尽管这是朝着正确方向迈出的一步,但一些家庭医生,尤其是农村地区的家庭医生,仍然面临着受到惩罚的风险,而不是因广泛的实践而受到奖励。家庭医生在适应社区基本医疗需求方面的多功能性,特别是在农村地区,可能会违反E&M或当前程序术语法中的任何单一类别。此外,决策者必须调整用于增加初级保健费用的任何定义,以达到更广泛的目标:支持初级保健实践,而不仅仅是医生。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号