Why Is Your Doctor Typing So Much?

 

“We had to downgrade half of your notes this month.” The coders sat opposite the table from me. The department chair sat to their left.

“You billed a level 5 clinic visit for Mr. Arancibia here,” they brought my clinic note up on the screen.

“Yes,” I replied, “I spent an hour discussing his brain tumor surgery with him and his family. It’s a very complex tumor and required at least that much face-to-face time. I figured it would be worth the highest level of billing.”

“But you didn’t document that you listened to the heart and lungs.”

“I didn’t document because I didn’t do it.  I didn’t do it because whatever I heard wouldn’t make a lick of difference in my clinical plan. I’m a neurosurgeon. I haven’t used a stethoscope since medical school.”

“We can’t bill a level 5 unless you document that you listened to the heart and lungs. You have to perform a comprehensive physical exam for a level 5. We had to bill this visit as a level 2.” The coders looked disappointed.

The department chair shook his head, “A level 2 is only worth 0.93 RVU. A level 5 would have gotten us 3.17. And that’s just the professional fee. Look at this,” he gestured to a spreadsheet that the coders brought up on screen, “we could be nearly tripling your clinic billing if you just documented appropriately.”

Mentally, I weighed my options.

Would you like me to cut my discussion with the patient short so I can perform a comprehensive physical exam, even though that won’t change anything about the patient’s workup or treatment? 

Would you like me to simply lie about my physical examination in the note?

Would you like me to see fewer patients so I can fit in more comprehensive exams and the appropriate documentation?

I knew the answer, though. No need to be snarky. It’s not the chairman’s fault that these rules exist.

It’s not even the coders’ fault. Their job is to take my clinical note and turn it into a billing code.

That’s the problem.

Traditionally, medical care is reimbursed as “fee for service.” Provide a service (clinic visit, inpatient consultation, surgery, etc) and receive a fee. What it has become, however, is “fee for documentation.”

The most common services physicians provide are within the broad category of “Evaluation and Management (E&M)” codes. E&M codes include all clinic visits, ER visits, and care for admitted patients. Essentially anything that isn’t a surgery or procedure. The codes are typically stratified into levels 1-5, based on the complexity of care. The differences in reimbursement are huge. However, the rules governing what can be billed in each tier are complex and murky at best.

They are complex and murky because they are determined by the government. This isn’t because of private insurance or the result of a fragmented system. This is top-down governmental regulation.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issues guidelines on what must be documented to bill for each level of E&M code, certain checkboxes that must be met. This all must be included in the clinical note. Thus, physician notes have gone from a means by which physicians could outline their clinical reasoning and communicate with one another to a means by which coders can assign billing codes.

Physicians and coders have decided that more information in the note means a higher likelihood of it passing a CMS audit. With electronic medical records’ ability to automatically import data, notes have ceased to have any clinical utility. Brief notes which should only occupy a few lines are now pages long, with every lab and radiology finding from the last year auto imported. Notes are copied and pasted from one visit to the next. The physicians who generate the most revenue off their clinic visits are those who ensure each note has the required CMS guidelines for a level 5 evaluation. Time writing notes is rewarded, not patient care.

Entire industries exist around these guidelines. There are classes physicians take to maximize billing. There are companies that contract out the coding and consulting firms that train unyielding doctors on how to become stenographers. There are lobbyists at CMS and within the American Medical Association who come up with the guidelines for each code, along with the codes themselves.

Ever wonder why doctors don’t reply to emails? There’s no code associated with that.

Instead of using clinical judgment, physician behavior revolves around the documentation “guidelines” assigned to each code. Patients experience this with those forms at the doctor’s office, asking about a lengthy list of obscure and unrelated symptoms. That’s because CMS decided that the top-level billing codes require a physician cover a 15-point “review of systems.” Since covering a review of 15 comprehensive bodily systems alone would eat up twice the allotted appointment time, physicians have patients fill out the form themselves. Of course, that review of systems was derived for a primary care practitioner, yet it is still mandated that every dermatologist, gastroenterologist, or orthopedist include it in documentation if they are to receive adequate compensation. The same goes for the physical examination requirements. Heart and lungs are a must, even if your specialty is bones or brains.

That’s why, as a neurosurgeon, I’m expected to use a stethoscope on every patient. I simply can’t bill for a top-level clinic visit otherwise. It doesn’t matter that I’m not trained to interpret heart sounds and am the last person who should be basing clinical decisions around the results of a stethoscope examination. CMS would rather I do that rather than spend time covering what, in my professional judgment, matters.

So here I am, documenting at all hours of the night, taking my work home. Here we are, as a profession, writing lengthy and useless notes to satisfy our coders. Those who claim the administrative burden will improve with Medicare-for-All have never read CMS billing guidelines.

Published in Healthcare
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 125 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    MISTER BITCOIN (View Comment):

    Dr. Craniotomy (View Comment):

    TheRightNurse (View Comment):

    Dr. Craniotomy (View Comment):

    TheRightNurse (View Comment):

    Dr. Craniotomy (View Comment):
    The problem is, that means my notes won’t reimburse as much. As I’m a hospital employee, that means less money for our department and meetings regarding my “productivity.”

    Maybe they need to move to a sensor system that can track how long your sensor was in the room. This clearly indicates the amount of time physically spent in the patient’s presence, which should enhance billing and additionally indicates when and where a physician is. We do this with staff other than med staff, so why not? Why not make it more transparent and easily tracked that you were where you said you were; with the patient. I believe part of the billing is due to patient care time, if I’m not wrong.

    Stethoscope time makes sense; I see providers do that, though they have no interest in lung or cardiac function (although, I’ve seen specialists find things that way). It’s strange that is how we’re assessing value, rather than visualization of patient, interaction with pt/family, and research on plan of care.

    Again, something needs to change. There needs to be more care in healthcare.

    Reimbursing based on time alone also creates problems. For one, much of my time is spent doing chart review, looking at images and planning surgery. This isn’t done in the patient’s room. For another, it’s just another way to cheat the system and reduces access to care. You’re incentivizing physicians to work slowly, which means fewer patients seen, which means longer wait times to get into clinic, which means decreased access to care.

    Naw, you include prep time, time reviewing case/labs/imaging, time to do notation. You roll it all in there. If it’s a complex case, all of those things should take longer. If it is a simple case, it should be shorter, including the face to face time.

    That would be nice, and very possible given the EMR tracks our time logged in, our clicks, etc. I still worry about incentivizing physicians to work slowly. I worked with one spine surgeon who saw 45 patients a day in his clinic. The patients loved it because they had access to a top-level spine surgeon with no more than a two-week wait for an appointment. There are benefits to the fee-for-service system as it undoubtedly increases access to care.

    45 patients per day?

    That is 7 per hour?

    225 per week

    11250 charts per year???

    Doctors take a panel of 2,000 patients or so.  And they don’t do 7 an hour.

    • #121
  2. Dr. Bastiat Member
    Dr. Bastiat
    @drbastiat

    Flicker (View Comment):

    MISTER BITCOIN (View Comment):

    Dr. Craniotomy (View Comment):

    TheRightNurse (View Comment):

    Dr. Craniotomy (View Comment):

    TheRightNurse (View Comment):

    Dr. Craniotomy (View Comment):
    The problem is, that means my notes won’t reimburse as much. As I’m a hospital employee, that means less money for our department and meetings regarding my “productivity.”

    Maybe they need to move to a sensor system that can track how long your sensor was in the room. This clearly indicates the amount of time physically spent in the patient’s presence, which should enhance billing and additionally indicates when and where a physician is. We do this with staff other than med staff, so why not? Why not make it more transparent and easily tracked that you were where you said you were; with the patient. I believe part of the billing is due to patient care time, if I’m not wrong.

    Stethoscope time makes sense; I see providers do that, though they have no interest in lung or cardiac function (although, I’ve seen specialists find things that way). It’s strange that is how we’re assessing value, rather than visualization of patient, interaction with pt/family, and research on plan of care.

    Again, something needs to change. There needs to be more care in healthcare.

    Reimbursing based on time alone also creates problems. For one, much of my time is spent doing chart review, looking at images and planning surgery. This isn’t done in the patient’s room. For another, it’s just another way to cheat the system and reduces access to care. You’re incentivizing physicians to work slowly, which means fewer patients seen, which means longer wait times to get into clinic, which means decreased access to care.

    Naw, you include prep time, time reviewing case/labs/imaging, time to do notation. You roll it all in there. If it’s a complex case, all of those things should take longer. If it is a simple case, it should be shorter, including the face to face time.

    That would be nice, and very possible given the EMR tracks our time logged in, our clicks, etc. I still worry about incentivizing physicians to work slowly. I worked with one spine surgeon who saw 45 patients a day in his clinic. The patients loved it because they had access to a top-level spine surgeon with no more than a two-week wait for an appointment. There are benefits to the fee-for-service system as it undoubtedly increases access to care.

    45 patients per day?

    That is 7 per hour?

    225 per week

    11250 charts per year???

    Doctors take a panel of 2,000 patients or so. And they don’t do 7 an hour.

    I used to have over 7,000 charts, and I saw between 40-50 patients per day.  That’s one reason I switched to a concierge practice.

    • #122
  3. Dr. Craniotomy Coolidge
    Dr. Craniotomy
    @Craniotomy

    MISTER BITCOIN (View Comment):

    I have a dumb question: lasik, plastic surgery and IVF doctors type less because they don’t accept insurance?

     

    100% correct.  

    • #123
  4. Dr. Craniotomy Coolidge
    Dr. Craniotomy
    @Craniotomy

    MISTER BITCOIN (View Comment):

    45 patients per day?

    That is 7 per hour?

    225 per week

    11250 charts per year???

     

    It was only 1 day a week.  The rest of the time he spent in the operating room.  He also didn’t bill for his clinic appointments because, as he told me, it was more cost effective to get more surgeries and simply not bill.  If he tried to bill for clinic appointments, he would have to cut the amount he saw in half, but then he would get fewer surgeries and it wouldn’t make up for it.  

    • #124
  5. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    MISTER BITCOIN (View Comment):

    Dr. Craniotomy (View Comment):

    TheRightNurse (View Comment):

    Dr. Craniotomy (View Comment):

    TheRightNurse (View Comment):

    Maybe they need to move to a sensor system that can track how long your sensor was in the room. This clearly indicates the amount of time physically spent in the patient’s presence, which should enhance billing and additionally indicates when and where a physician is. We do this with staff other than med staff, so why not? Why not make it more transparent and easily tracked that you were where you said you were; with the patient. I believe part of the billing is due to patient care time, if I’m not wrong.

    Stethoscope time makes sense; I see providers do that, though they have no interest in lung or cardiac function (although, I’ve seen specialists find things that way). It’s strange that is how we’re assessing value, rather than visualization of patient, interaction with pt/family, and research on plan of care.

    Again, something needs to change. There needs to be more care in healthcare.

    Reimbursing based on time alone also creates problems. For one, much of my time is spent doing chart review, looking at images and planning surgery. This isn’t done in the patient’s room. For another, it’s just another way to cheat the system and reduces access to care. You’re incentivizing physicians to work slowly, which means fewer patients seen, which means longer wait times to get into clinic, which means decreased access to care.

    Naw, you include prep time, time reviewing case/labs/imaging, time to do notation. You roll it all in there. If it’s a complex case, all of those things should take longer. If it is a simple case, it should be shorter, including the face to face time.

    That would be nice, and very possible given the EMR tracks our time logged in, our clicks, etc. I still worry about incentivizing physicians to work slowly. I worked with one spine surgeon who saw 45 patients a day in his clinic. The patients loved it because they had access to a top-level spine surgeon with no more than a two-week wait for an appointment. There are benefits to the fee-for-service system as it undoubtedly increases access to care.

    45 patients per day?

    That is 7 per hour?

    225 per week

    11250 charts per year???

    Doctors take a panel of 2,000 patients or so. And they don’t do 7 an hour.

    I used to have over 7,000 charts, and I saw between 40-50 patients per day. That’s one reason I switched to a concierge practice.

    Wow.  That’s a lot.  Was this your own private practice?

    • #125
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.