Archive for October, 2019

Georgia Academy of Family Physicians Awards Alice House, MD, FAAFP its 2019 Family Physician of the Year Award

The Georgia Academy of Family Physicians (GAFP) awarded Alice House, MD, FAAFP its 2019 Family Physician of the Year Award, for her extraordinary service to the organization and the family physicians it supports.

Dr. House is the Dean at Mercer University School of Medicine in Columbus. She is also a family medicine specialist at Nephrology Associates.

Dr. House was raised in Buena Vista, Georgia, and graduated from Tri-County High School that served Marion, Webster and Schley counties. She earned degrees in biology and psychology from Macon State College (now Middle Georgia State University) and her medical degree at Mercer University School of Medicine. She completed her residency in family medicine at the Medical Center of Central Georgia (now Medical Center, Navicent Health) and went on to obtain the distinction of Fellow of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

Certified by the American Board of Family Medicine, Dr. House was in private practice in Byron for several years where she served as chief of staff at Peach Regional Hospital before joining the Mercer University School of Medicine faculty in 2002. She also served as medical director of Elberta Healthcare Center from 1998-2015.

Dr. House has demonstrated over 25 years of leadership to the Georgia Academy of Family Physicians through her work on the Board of Directors and the Executive Committee. She has also served as the GAFP President and Board Chair during that time.  Her leadership and direction have helped keep the GAFP as one of the premier American Academy of Family Physicians chapter in the country.

Dr. House will be among a group of five individuals honored by GAFP at the Annual Fall CME meeting in November.

ALL MEMBER NOTICE!!  You’re Invited! Congress of Delegates First Session Webinar/Conference Call

October 17th – 6:00pm

GAFP Members – Join the Discussion

The first meeting of the Congress of Delegates will be via conference call / webinar on Thursday, October 17, at 6 pm. All members are invited and encouraged to attend. The call-in number is 1-800-791-2345, participate code #76232. There will also be the ability to view the webinar via this link: Congress of Delegates: 1st Session.

Members are invited to speak to resolutions of interest or concern to you. Final 2019 resolutions will be available Friday, October 11 on the GAFP website.

The second session of the Congress of Delegates will be from 8 am until 12:30 pm on Saturday, November 16, at the GAFP Annual Meeting at the Evergreen Marriott Conference Resort in Stone Mountain, GA.  The second session is where final discussion and voting occurs. COD delegates can speak and vote for your district during the second session. Below is the current list of delegates.

 

2019 District Delegates as of 10/7/19

Speaker: Carl McCurdy, MD, FAAFP

Vice Speaker: Samuel “Le” Church, MD, MPH, FAAFP

 

District 1 Delegates

Loy “Chip” Cowart, MD

Mah-Fri Fomukong, MD

Angela Gerguis, MD

Peter Rives, MD

 

District 2 Delegates

Mike Busman, MD

Zita Magloire, MD

Laura Guadiana-Sanchez, MD

Michael Satchell, MD

District 3 Delegates

Donald Griffin, MD

Alice House, MD

Shika Shah, MD

Jagdish Shukla, MD

Michael Sims, MD

Daniel Singleton, MD

 

District 3 Alternates

Joy Adegbile, MD

Shawnte Hall-Kraft, MD

Beulette Hooks, MD

Beverley Ann Townsend, MD

 

District 4 Delegates

Andrea Andrews, MD

Jody Bahnmiller-Brasil, MD

Amy Bailey, MD

Emily Herndon, MD

Hira Kohli, MD

Monica Parker, MD

Vera Reaves, MD

James Short, MD

Tina Ann Thompson, MD

 

District 5 Delegates

Shameeka Hunt-McElhaney, MD

Allison Key, MD

Carolyn Smallwood, DO

Irshad Syed, MD

 

District 6 Delegates

Tameka Byrd, DO, MPH

Monique Davis-Smith, MD

Sandhya Ramayya, MD

Eddie Richardson, MD

Bert Wall, MD

Brandan Wormsbacher, MD

 

District 7 Delegates

Kelly Culbertson, MD

Christina Douglass, MD

Pamela Obi, MD

Leonard Reeves, MD

Stephanie Stutz, DO

 

District 8 Delegates

Thomas Fausett, MD

Jay Floyd, MD

Richard Wheeler, MD

 

District 8 Alternates

Jairaj Goberdhan, MD

District 9 Delegates

Philip Kimsey, MD

Monica Newton, DO, MPH

Nkiruka Udejiofor, MD

 

District 10 Delegates

Edward Agabin, MD

Julie Dahl-Smith, DO

Jacqueline DuBose, MD

Joseph Hobbs, MD

Stalina Gowdie, MD

 

District 11 Delegates

Susana Alfonso, MD

Marva Ayers, MD

Teresa Beck, MD

Michelle Cooke, MD

Kim Eubanks, MD

Wanda Gumbs, MD

Riba Kelsey-Harris, MD

Hogai Nassery, MD

Jun Ro, MD

 

Resident Delegates:

Babatunde Ajibola, MD

Oluwole Akintayo, MD

Tarah Henderson, MD

Julie Kostanjevec, MD

Philomise Moncion, MD

Jemese Richards-Boyd, MD

 

Student Delegates:

Chinomnso Ekeke – Morehouse

Caleb Swindell – Mercer University

Catherine Waldron – Memorial Health

 

 

Listen to Archived Webinars on the GAFP Website

Did you miss a GAFP webinar? They are available to watch on the GAFP website at www.gafp.org/education/webinars/. Below is a list of past webinar topics. Please click on the title link to register to view the recorded session.

GAFP Education Webinars

The following webinars with objectives can be found on the GAFP education page:

For more information about the webinars, please contact Director of Education Felica Kenan at fkenan@gafp.org or call 404-321-7445.

 

Natural Disaster Relief Available for GAFP Members

We are aware that several Georgia communities experienced flooding and power outages on September 4-5, 2019 when Hurricane Dorian passed through Coastal Georgia. Our thoughts and prayers are with those who have been impacted by this storm.

Because damage is still being assessed in the impacted communities, we want you to know that the Georgia Academy’s Foundation (Georgia Healthy Family Alliance) has a Disaster Relief Fund to help our members who may have experienced damage to their practice.  We established this fund in 2007 and were able to help two family physicians who lost their practices when a tornado ripped through downtown Americus.

If you are aware of a family physician in need or if you have damage to your office don’t hesitate to contact us at (404) 321-7445.  Either Kara Sinkule (ksinkule@gafp.org) or Fay Fulton (ffulton@gafp.org) can assist you with filling out a simple disaster relief application.

 

Sincerely,

Patrick “PJ” Lynn, MD, FAAFP

President

Georgia Healthy Family Alliance

Foundation of the Georgia Academy of Family Physicians

www.georgiahealthyfamilyalliance.org

 

Georgia Academy Adds its Voice to AAFP Concerning the 2020 Revisions to Medicare’s Physician Fee Schedule

President Donald L. Fordham, MD submitted a letter of comment on behalf of the Georgia Academy on the proposed revisions to the 2020 physician fee schedule for Medicare.  These comments echoed many of the points that the AAFP submitted to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).  Below are some of the highlights of those comments:

The Georgia Academy respectfully offers comments on the following high-level issues for your consideration.

Office/Outpatient Evaluation and Management (E/M) Coding. The Georgia Academy supports the adoption of the work relative value units (RVUs) recommended by the RVU Update Committee (RUC) for all the office/outpatient E/M codes, the new prolonged services add-on code, and CMS’ proposal to maintain separate values for levels two through four visits rather than implement its plan for a blended payment rate for those services. However, since most family medicine practices already operate on extremely thin margins and these services have been undervalued for decades, we implore CMS to implement these changes in 2020 rather than 2021 as proposed.

Global Surgical Packages. Based upon analysis available from RAND and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, we believe the proposed recommendations put forth by CMS are the appropriate policy. Therefore, we strongly support CMS’ proposal to not adjust the office/outpatient E/M visits for codes with a global period to reflect the changes made to the values for office/outpatient E/M visits.

Chronic Care Management. The Georgia Academy is concerned the addition of new principal care management (PCM) codes would move away from the continuous, comprehensive, and coordinated value-based care and primary care CMS has otherwise been encouraging as a cost-effective way to care for Medicare patients. We offer alternative recommendations in the body of the letter to strengthen care for beneficiaries with chronic conditions and urge CMS to use the existing Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) coding process to make changes to these codes.

II.J. Review and Verification of Medical Record Documentation

Summary

Building on medical record documentation relief it implemented in 2019, CMS proposes to establish a general principle to allow the physician, the physician assistant (PA), or the advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) who furnishes and bills for their professional services to review and verify, rather than re-document, information included in the medical record by physicians, residents, nurses, students, or other members of the medical team. This principle would apply across the spectrum of all Medicare-covered services paid under the physician fee schedule. Because this proposal is intended to apply broadly, CMS proposes to amend regulations for teaching physicians, physicians, PAs, and APRNs to add this new flexibility for medical record documentation requirements for professional services furnished by teaching physicians, physicians, PAs, and APRNs in all settings.

Specifically, CMS proposes to amend relevant sections of its regulations to add a new paragraph entitled, “Medical record documentation.” This paragraph would specify that, when furnishing their professional services, the clinician may review and verify (sign/date) notes in a patient’s medical record made by other physicians, residents, nurses, students, or other members of the medical team, including notes documenting the practitioner’s presence and participation in the services, rather than fully re-documenting the information. CMS notes that, while the proposed change addresses who may document services in the medical record, subject to review and verification by the furnishing and billing clinician, it does not modify the scope of, or standards for, the documentation that is needed in the medical record to demonstrate medical necessity of services, or otherwise for purposes of appropriate medical recordkeeping.

CMS also proposes to make conforming amendments to its regulations to also allow physicians, residents, nurses, students, or other members of the medical team to enter information in the medical record that can then be reviewed and verified by a teaching physician without the need for re-documentation.

Georgia Academy of Family Physicians Response

The Georgia Academy strongly supports CMS’ proposals in this regard as it is long overdue. The proposed principle and related regulatory changes are consistent with prior CMS efforts to reduce the administrative burden associated with medical record documentation. They are also consistent with the team-based model of care used in family medicine practices and residencies. However, we urge CMS to clarify that multiple students and residents can enter patient information into the medical record even on the same day and during the same office visit. We encourage CMS to finalize this proposal as clarified per our recommendation in the final rule this fall.

  1. P. Payment for Evaluation and Management (E/M) Visits

Summary – Office/Outpatient E/M Visit Coding and Documentation

For calendar year 2021, for office/outpatient E/M visits (CPT codes 99201-99215), CMS proposes to adopt the new coding, prefatory language, and interpretive guidance framework adopted by the CPT Editorial Panel for CPT 2021. This includes deletion of code 99201 and acceptance of a new, single add-on CPT code for prolonged office/outpatient E/M visits (code 99XXX) that would only be reported when time is used for code-level selection and the time for a level five office/outpatient visit (the floor of the level five time range) is exceeded by 15 minutes or more on the date of service. This new add-on code would obviate the need for code GPRO1 (extended office/outpatient E/M time), which CMS had planned to implement in 2021, but now proposes to delete instead.

The one variance from CPT in this regard is that, for Medicare, CPT codes 99358 and 99359 (Prolonged E/M without direct patient contact) would no longer be reportable in association or “conjunction” with office/outpatient E/M visits. New CPT prefatory language specifies 99358 and 99359 may be reported for prolonged services on a date other than the date of a face-to-face encounter. CMS believes its proposed policy regarding 99358 and 99359 would be consistent with the way the office/outpatient E/M visit codes were resurveyed, where the RUC instructed those surveyed to consider all time spent three days prior to, or seven days after, the office/outpatient E/M visit. CMS finds the CPT language and reporting instructions related to 99358 and 99359 to be unclear and circular and believes CPT codes 99358 and 99359 may need to be redefined, resurveyed, and revalued. In the meantime, CMS seeks public input on its proposal and whether it would be appropriate to interpret the CPT reporting instructions for CPT codes 99358 and 99359 as proposed, as well as how this interpretation may impact valuation.

Georgia Academy of Family Physicians Response – Office/Outpatient E/M Visit Coding and Documentation

The Georgia Academy appreciates and strongly supports CMS’ proposal to adopt the new coding, prefatory language, and interpretive guidance framework adopted by the CPT Editorial Panel for CPT 2021. This includes deletion of code 99201 and acceptance of a new, single add-on CPT code for prolonged office/outpatient E/M visits (code 99XXX) in lieu of the code (GPRO1) CMS previously planned to use.

Changes of this magnitude may have an impact on EHRs, since most are built around the current CPT structure and 1995/1997 E/M documentation guidelines. If CMS finalizes this proposal, it must provide this updated framework to EHR vendors as soon as possible and work with the American Medical Association (AMA) and specialty societies on the physician communications and educational efforts that will be needed between now and 2021.

Regarding codes 99358 and 99359 (Prolonged E/M without direct patient contact), we acknowledge the points of confusion in the CPT guidance for use of these codes in conjunction with office/outpatient visit codes vis-à-vis the parameters in which the latter codes were surveyed for the RUC. However, we would encourage CMS to work with the CPT Editorial Panel to resolve these points of confusion between now and 2021 rather than unilaterally making 99358 and 99359 no longer reportable in conjunction with office/outpatient E/M visits for Medicare.

Part of the administrative complexity and burden that hampers our members’ ability to care for their patients is variability in payment policy among payers and payment policy at odds with guidance otherwise included in CPT. CMS’ proposal to unilaterally change its payment policy in this regard, and in conflict with CPT would add to our members’ administrative complexity and burden. Therefore, we oppose CMS’ proposal and instead urge CMS to work through the CPT process so any changes apply to more than just Medicare. As noted in the AAFP’s policy on “Coding and Payment,” the AAFP supports CPT and the coding principles it contains. Thus, the Georgia Academy believes it is important for both physicians and health plans to abide by the principles of CPT.

Summary – Office/Outpatient E/M Visit Revaluation (CPT codes 99201 through 99215)

CMS proposes to adopt the RUC-recommended work RVUs for all the office/outpatient E/M codes and the new prolonged services add-on code, effective for dates of service on or after January 1, 2021. CMS proposes to maintain separate values for levels two through four visits rather than implement its plan for a blended rate for those services.

Regarding the RUC recommendations for PE inputs for these codes, CMS proposes to remove equipment item ED021 (computer, desktop with monitor), as CMS does not believe that this item would be allocated to the use of an individual patient for an individual service. Instead, CMS believes this item is better characterized as part of indirect costs like office rent or administrative expenses.

The one point of confusion or concern for CMS in valuing these codes concerns the total physician time to be assigned to each code. As CMS notes, the RUC separately averaged the survey results for pre-service, day of service, and post-service times, and the survey results for total time, with the result that, for some of the codes, the sum of the average times associated with the three service periods does not match the RUC-recommended total time, which was the average of the respondents’ total time. A simple example illustrates how this might occur:

  Pre-Service Time Intra-Service Time Post-Service Time Total Time
Respondent A 1 2 1 4
Respondent B 2 2 0 4
Respondent C 3 2 1 6
Median 2 2 1 4

CMS is concerned by the fact that if one adds up the medians of the individual time components (which is 5 [2+2+1] in the illustration above), the total does not equal the median of total time among all respondents (which is 4 in this illustration).

CMS proposes to adopt the RUC-recommended times, in which total time reflects the median of total time among all respondents rather than the sum of the medians for the three components of total time. However, CMS seeks comment on how it should address the discrepancies in median total times versus sum of the median component times. CMS believes this has implications both for valuation of individual codes and for MPFS rate setting in general, as the intra-service times and total times are used as references for valuing many other services under the MPFS and the programming used for MPFS rate setting requires that the component times sum to the total time. Specifically, CMS requests comment on which times it should use, and how it should resolve differences between the sum of the components and median total times when they conflict.

Georgia Academy of Family Physicians Response- Office/Outpatient E/M Visit Revaluation (CPT codes 99201 through 99215)

The Georgia Academy appreciates and strongly supports CMS’ proposal to adopt the RUC-recommended work RVUs for all the office/outpatient E/M codes and the new prolonged services add-on code, effective for dates of service on or after January 1, 2021. However, since most family medicine practices already operate on extremely thin margins and these services have been undervalued for decades, we implore CMS to implement these changes in 2020. We also appreciate and support the CMS proposal to maintain separate values and payment for levels two through four visits rather than implement its plan for a blended rate for those services.

However, we respectfully disagree with the CMS proposal to remove equipment item ED021 (computer, desktop with monitor) from the direct PE inputs for these codes. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 85.9% of office-based physicians are using an EHR. Medication and problem lists must be accurately maintained by physicians during a visit using their EHRs. Furthermore, with the multiple medications now required by many patients, monitoring for drug-drug interactions becomes an essential component for patient safety and quality care. All of this makes a computer a typical, indispensable part of the medical equipment used during an office visit. Whether it’s a desktop computer with monitor or a laptop, some computer is typically being used during an office visit, and contrary to CMS’ belief, is allocated to the use of an individual patient for an individual service, just like the exam table in the room.

There is precedent for including a computer as a direct PE. There are 52 CPT codes that include equipment item ED021. For office visits, the work being performed using the computer is not administrative in nature. Rather, it is used to record, analyze, and communicate to the physician about every element of data that the clinical staff collects from the individual patient for the individual service.

In sum, the computer is dedicated solely to each patient throughout the visit to collect history, share and discuss lab and test results, and document the visit. It is an essential tool in conducting today’s office visits, and CMS should recognize it as a direct medical equipment cost. We encourage CMS to accept the RUC’s recommendation to include item ED021 (computer, desktop with monitor) among the direct PE inputs for these codes.

Georgia Academy of Family Physicians Response – Valuation of CPT Code 99XXX (Prolonged Office/Outpatient E/M)

The Georgia Academy appreciates and strongly supports CMS’ proposal to adopt the RUC-recommended work RVUs for the new prolonged services add-on code, effective for dates of service on or after January 1, 2021. However, since most family medicine practices already operate on extremely thin margins, we implore CMS to implement these changes in 2020.

Summary – Global Surgical Packages

Considering three RAND reports on the subject and CMS’ understanding that work RVUs for procedures with a global period are generally valued using magnitude estimation, CMS does not state its intent to accept the RUC recommendation to adjust the office/outpatient E/M visits for codes with a global period to reflect the changes made to the values for office/outpatient E/M visits. Instead, CMS states it will give the public and stakeholders time to study the RAND reports (which CMS makes available), along with this rule and consider an appropriate approach to revaluing global surgical procedures. CMS will continue to study and consider alternative ways to address the values for these services.

Georgia Academy of Family Physicians Response – Global Surgical Packages

Based upon analysis available from RAND and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, we believe the proposed recommendations put forth by CMS are the appropriate policy. Until such time that verifiable, third-party data provides a clearer justification for the inclusion of E/M codes in the global period we strongly support CMS’ decisions as outlined in the proposed rule. As CMS notes in the proposed rule and as the RUC and the surgical specialties have frequently maintained, work RVUs for procedures with a global period are generally valued using magnitude estimation rather than building blocks.

As noted in the proposed rule and as required by law, CMS is collecting data to validate the number and level of E/M services assumed to be included in global surgical services. The RAND study analyzing data collected through claims supports CMS’ intent not to accept the RUC recommendation to adjust the office/outpatient E/M visits for codes with a global period to reflect the changes made to the values for office/outpatient E/M visits. For instance, during the first 12 months of reporting post-operative visits via claims, RAND found most procedures with 10-day global periods did not have an associated post-operative visit. Further, among procedures with 90-day global periods, the ratio of observed-to-expected post-operative visits provided was only 0.39. Further, in its study of the levels of post-procedure visits, RAND found the reported physician time and work for the post-operative visits in the two 90-day global codes studied (i.e., cataract surgery and hip replacement) were generally similar—but slightly less—than the levels expected based on the E/M visits assumed to typically occur by CMS when valuing these procedures

The Office of Inspector General and others have questioned the accuracy of current assumptions underlying 10- and 90-day global codes. Until CMS can adequately address those questions, we believe it would be imprudent to adjust the E/M component because of any changes to the values of stand-alone office/outpatient visit codes 99201-99215 and we strongly support CMS’ decision in this regard. We continue to believe the best approach to this issue is to convert all codes with a 10- or 90-day global period to zero-day global periods and revalue the codes accordingly and thereby allow physicians to appropriately code and document necessary pre- and post-operative services using the E/M codes inclusive of their new values and payment amounts. For decades, physicians using these global codes have not been required to follow the E/M documentation guidelines for charting in the medical record for such visits which has been blatantly unfair to the rest of the physician community and especially primary care—it is time for the global service codes to be eliminated and level the playing field for all physicians and other clinicians.