LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement/CMS Issues 2019 Physician Fee Schedule, Streamlines Rules
Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement

CMS Issues 2019 Physician Fee Schedule, Streamlines Rules

November 14, 2018 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

CMS Issues 2019 Physician Fee Schedule, Streamlines Rules
Source: Wikimedia Commons and W.C. Pearson
Secondary#medicare#physicianfeeschedule#telemedicine

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a 2,378-page final rule on calendar year (CY) 2019 physician payment rates on November 1, with numerous new payment policies and quality rules. There are also changes, some up, some down, in payment amounts for various procedures. It’s far too much to provide details in this report, but here are:

  1. Something new:

The changes create a Medicare payment for when beneficiaries connect with their doctor virtually using telemedicine to determine whether they need an in-person visit. Medicare will pay providers for brief telemedical patient check-ins and will also pay for evaluation of remote pre-recorded images and/or video. CMS has also expanded the Medicare-covered telehealth services.

“The final 2019 Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) and the Quality Payment Program (QPP) rule…promote access to virtual care,” CMS said. It also changes rules “to ease health information exchange through improved interoperability and updates QPP measures to focus on those that are most meaningful to positive outcomes.”

The rule also streamlines some policies for accountable care organizations (ACOs) ”to reduce burden and encourage better health outcomes.”

CMS says its changes will save physicians 21 million hours of administrative labor over the 10 years beginning in 2021 and will save clinicians $87 million in administrative costs in 2019 and $843 million over the next decade.

  1. CY 2019 and beyond changes:
  • Eliminating a requirement to document the medical necessity of a home visit in lieu of an office visit.
  • For established patients, when relevant information is already in the medical record, practitioners may choose to document what has changed since the last visit, or pertinent items that have not changed, and need not re-record the defined list of required elements if the practitioner reviewed the previous information and updated as needed.
  • Clarifying that for evaluation and management (E/M) office/outpatient visits, for new and established patients for visits, practitioners need not re-enter in the medical record information on the patient’s chief complaint and history that has already been entered by ancillary staff or the beneficiary.
  • Removing potentially duplicative requirements for notations in medical records that may have previously been included in the medical records by residents or other members of the medical team for E/M visits furnished by teaching physicians.
  1. CY 2021 and beyond changes:

CMS has issued a completely new set of payment rates and rules for E/M office/outpatient visits, including single rates for visit levels 2-4 for both established and new patients, and allowing flexibility, based on the complexity of medical decision-making or time, instead of the current 1995 or 1997 E/M documentation guidelines.  (See the color chart, created by CMS, for details.)

For more information: https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/final-policy-payment-and-quality-provisions-changes-medicare-physician-fee-schedule-calendar-year

“CMS intends to engage in further discussions with the public to potentially further refine the policies for CY 2021,” the agency said.

E&M Payment Amounts Table – view here

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy