User login
Recently, my colleague Randy D. Danielsen, PhD, DFAAPA, PA-C Emeritus, shared a study from the American Journal of Emergency Medicine that focused on “the involvement of NPs and PAs who billed independently” in emergency departments (EDs).1 In casual conversation, several of us agreed the findings didn’t “pass the sniff test,” so I decided to do some investigating.
The context: Data from 2006-2009 indicate that in two-thirds of all EDs, NPs and PAs are involved in the care of 13.7% of all patients.2 Further analysis of Medicare Public Use Files from 2014 reveal that of 58,641 unique emergency medicine clinicians, 14,360 (24.5%) are advanced practice providers.3 All interesting statistics.
The American Journal of Emergency Medicine article, however, gave me (and several colleagues) pause. In it, the authors presented their analysis of Medicare provider utilization and payment data from 2012-2016.1 The researchers documented billing increases of 65% for NPs and 35% for PAs.
But what stopped me in my tracks was that the researchers emphasized an increase—from 18% to 24%—in NP/PA treatment of patients with the highest severity illness or injury (CPT code 99285).1 I discussed this finding with ED-based colleagues, and they too questioned its accuracy.
In fact, the more we parsed this study, the more questions we had … and the higher our eyebrows raised. What were the researchers examining and drawing conclusions on— independent billing by NPs and PAs, or independent practice? These are two very different measures. Were the authors in fact grousing about the increase in NP/PA providers in EDs?
There is a paucity of research on billing by NPs and PAs, and the discussion surrounding this particular study will undoubtedly prompt additional questions. Over the next 3 weeks, we invite you to join us on Thursdays as we continue our examination of this data—and encourage you to share your thoughts with us along the way!
1. Bai G, Kelen GD, Frick KD, Anderson GF. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants in emergency medical services who billed independently, 2012-2016. Am J Emerg Med. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2019.01.052. Accessed April 1, 2019.
2. Wilder JL, Rooks, SP, Ginde AA. Update on midlevel provider utilization in US emergency departments, 2006 to 2009. Academic Emerg Med. 2012;19(8):986-989.
3. Hall MK, Burns K, Carius M, et al. State of the national emergency department workforce: who provides care where? Ann Emerg Med. 2018;72(3):302-307.
Recently, my colleague Randy D. Danielsen, PhD, DFAAPA, PA-C Emeritus, shared a study from the American Journal of Emergency Medicine that focused on “the involvement of NPs and PAs who billed independently” in emergency departments (EDs).1 In casual conversation, several of us agreed the findings didn’t “pass the sniff test,” so I decided to do some investigating.
The context: Data from 2006-2009 indicate that in two-thirds of all EDs, NPs and PAs are involved in the care of 13.7% of all patients.2 Further analysis of Medicare Public Use Files from 2014 reveal that of 58,641 unique emergency medicine clinicians, 14,360 (24.5%) are advanced practice providers.3 All interesting statistics.
The American Journal of Emergency Medicine article, however, gave me (and several colleagues) pause. In it, the authors presented their analysis of Medicare provider utilization and payment data from 2012-2016.1 The researchers documented billing increases of 65% for NPs and 35% for PAs.
But what stopped me in my tracks was that the researchers emphasized an increase—from 18% to 24%—in NP/PA treatment of patients with the highest severity illness or injury (CPT code 99285).1 I discussed this finding with ED-based colleagues, and they too questioned its accuracy.
In fact, the more we parsed this study, the more questions we had … and the higher our eyebrows raised. What were the researchers examining and drawing conclusions on— independent billing by NPs and PAs, or independent practice? These are two very different measures. Were the authors in fact grousing about the increase in NP/PA providers in EDs?
There is a paucity of research on billing by NPs and PAs, and the discussion surrounding this particular study will undoubtedly prompt additional questions. Over the next 3 weeks, we invite you to join us on Thursdays as we continue our examination of this data—and encourage you to share your thoughts with us along the way!
Recently, my colleague Randy D. Danielsen, PhD, DFAAPA, PA-C Emeritus, shared a study from the American Journal of Emergency Medicine that focused on “the involvement of NPs and PAs who billed independently” in emergency departments (EDs).1 In casual conversation, several of us agreed the findings didn’t “pass the sniff test,” so I decided to do some investigating.
The context: Data from 2006-2009 indicate that in two-thirds of all EDs, NPs and PAs are involved in the care of 13.7% of all patients.2 Further analysis of Medicare Public Use Files from 2014 reveal that of 58,641 unique emergency medicine clinicians, 14,360 (24.5%) are advanced practice providers.3 All interesting statistics.
The American Journal of Emergency Medicine article, however, gave me (and several colleagues) pause. In it, the authors presented their analysis of Medicare provider utilization and payment data from 2012-2016.1 The researchers documented billing increases of 65% for NPs and 35% for PAs.
But what stopped me in my tracks was that the researchers emphasized an increase—from 18% to 24%—in NP/PA treatment of patients with the highest severity illness or injury (CPT code 99285).1 I discussed this finding with ED-based colleagues, and they too questioned its accuracy.
In fact, the more we parsed this study, the more questions we had … and the higher our eyebrows raised. What were the researchers examining and drawing conclusions on— independent billing by NPs and PAs, or independent practice? These are two very different measures. Were the authors in fact grousing about the increase in NP/PA providers in EDs?
There is a paucity of research on billing by NPs and PAs, and the discussion surrounding this particular study will undoubtedly prompt additional questions. Over the next 3 weeks, we invite you to join us on Thursdays as we continue our examination of this data—and encourage you to share your thoughts with us along the way!
1. Bai G, Kelen GD, Frick KD, Anderson GF. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants in emergency medical services who billed independently, 2012-2016. Am J Emerg Med. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2019.01.052. Accessed April 1, 2019.
2. Wilder JL, Rooks, SP, Ginde AA. Update on midlevel provider utilization in US emergency departments, 2006 to 2009. Academic Emerg Med. 2012;19(8):986-989.
3. Hall MK, Burns K, Carius M, et al. State of the national emergency department workforce: who provides care where? Ann Emerg Med. 2018;72(3):302-307.
1. Bai G, Kelen GD, Frick KD, Anderson GF. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants in emergency medical services who billed independently, 2012-2016. Am J Emerg Med. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2019.01.052. Accessed April 1, 2019.
2. Wilder JL, Rooks, SP, Ginde AA. Update on midlevel provider utilization in US emergency departments, 2006 to 2009. Academic Emerg Med. 2012;19(8):986-989.
3. Hall MK, Burns K, Carius M, et al. State of the national emergency department workforce: who provides care where? Ann Emerg Med. 2018;72(3):302-307.
