PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9462157

RVU Task Force report: does it really reflect the current methods of practice?

S Abrams
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The ODA in a publication in December 1996 gave two reasons for commissioning this study. 13 First, over the years a number of anomalies had crept into the Fee Guide and needed to be addressed. For instance, code 14301 (motivation of a patient with a bad habit) had a higher responsibility than a root canal treatment code. The second reason was to keep the guide reflective of the current methods of practice of dentistry. These are very noble ideals and unfortunately they were not achieved with the publication of this report. I have provided a few examples of times and responsibility which are not in keeping with the current methods of practice of dentistry. Common sense along with the scientific literature bears this out. The report is filled with inaccuracies and anomalies. In numerous instances there are procedures with times that would not allow for the provision of quality care. One over riding concern is that only 100 procedures had their times directly measured and the remaining 1,100 procedures had their times extrapolated from these measured times. If any of these 100 measured times are inaccurate or do not reflect the current methods of practice, then the extrapolated times will also not be correct. The RVU Task Force has asked for input from the membership. Copies of the report were initially only distributed in limited numbers to the Dental Societies and not to the membership at large. The membership could request additional copies and was given three months to prepare and submit a response on prepared feedback forms. The Task Force received feedback from over 300 members. They now claim that this feedback has generated extensive changes in the diagnostic and restorative sections, recall packages, the endodontic section and fixed and removable prosthodontics. 14 There appears to have been major changes throughout the entire report. How can one then claim that the report was scientifically done or that it produced valid results? How are we sure that these 300 members actually reviewed each and every one of the times and "R" factors for all 1,200 procedures in the Fee Guide? Does this input from the membership now create a valid study? Do these subsequent changes alter the supposed "scientific" underpinning of the RVU Report? Are we sure that these changes will now create a document that meets the objectives of this study? Why should the membership have to review, critique and fix a report that had numerous glaring flaws from its outset? Why must the membership of the Ontario Dental Association and every practicing dentist in Ontario be subjected to the ramifications of this flawed and inaccurate report? The final report will be available prior to the General Council Meeting of the Ontario Dental Association in May 1997. I urge every member to read and review the entire report to see if it meets the objectives of the Task Force. From reviewing the Draft Final Report of the RVU Task Force, and the proposed changes, I would strongly urge all members of the General Council of the Ontario Dental Association to reject any implementation of this report.

Explore related subjects

Fee SchedulesFees, DentalHumansOntarioPractice Management, DentalSocieties, DentalTime and Motion StudiesJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S Abrams. 1997. RVU Task Force report: does it really reflect the current methods of practice?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9462157/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Medicare program; revisions to payment policies, five-year review of work relative value units, changes to the practice expense methodology under the physician fee schedule, and other changes to payment under part B; revisions to the payment policies of ambulance services under the fee schedule for ambulance services; and ambulance inflation factor update for CY 2007. Final rule with comment period.

This final rule with comment period addresses certain provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, as well as making other changes to Medicare Part B payment policy. These changes are intended to ensure that our payment systems are updated to reflect changes in medical practice and the relative value of services. This final rule with comment period also discusses geographic practice cost indices (GPCI) changes; requests for additions to the list of telehealth services; payment for covered outpatient drugs and biologicals; payment for renal dialysis services; policies related to private contracts and opt-out; policies related to bone mass measurement (BMM) services, independent diagnostic testing facilities (IDTFs), the physician self-referral prohibition; laboratory billing for the technical component (TC) of physician pathology services; the clinical laboratory fee schedule; certification of advanced practice nurses; health information technology, the health care information transparency initiative; updates the list of certain services subject to the physician self-referral prohibitions, finalizes ASP reporting requirements, and codifies Medicare's longstanding policy that payment of bad debts associated with services paid under a fee schedule/charge-based system are not allowable. We are also finalizing the calendar year (CY) 2006 interim RVUs and are issuing interim RVUs for new and revised procedure codes for CY 2007. In addition, this rule includes revisions to payment policies under the fee schedule for ambulance services and the ambulance inflation factor update for CY 2007. As required by the statute, we are announcing that the physician fee schedule update for CY 2007 is -5.0 percent, the initial estimate for the sustainable growth rate for CY 2007 is 2.0 percent and the CF for CY 2007 is $35.9848.

Fee Schedules↗
PubMed2006

Kidney Failure? Dialysis is the only medical service without automatic inflation updates from Medicare. Some people are trying to change that.

According to Robert Provenzano, left, president of the Renal Physicians Association, just because dialysis providers have shown strong profits does not mean an automatic update for Medicare reimbursement for dialysis isn't necessary. Unlike other medical products and services, which saw payment increases of 107% between 1990 and 2006, the increase in dialysis payments didn't even hit 7% during that period.

Fee Schedules↗
PubMed2006

Medicare physician payments and spending.

The Medicare program's physician payment method is intended to control spending while ensuring beneficiary access to physician services, but there are signs that it may not be working. The physician's role in the health care delivery system as the primary source of information and treatment options, together with growing demand for services and the imperfect state of knowledge about appropriate service use, challenge Medicare's ability to achieve these two goals. This issue brief describes the history of physician spending and the contribution of escalating service use and intensity of services to the rise in Medicare outlays, setting the stage for further discussion about the use of the Medicare payment system to control spending and ensure access.

Fee Schedules↗