- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 552
- Reaction score
- 565
Well, some lobby we got in CAP.....
2019 Medicare Fee Schedule
- Thread starter Alteran
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2016
- Messages
- 227
- Reaction score
- 76
A pretty strong hike in FISH
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 552
- Reaction score
- 565
This is true, but you have to own the technical to benefit from it.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2016
- Messages
- 214
- Reaction score
- 128
Should be no surprise.
The TC on FISH goes up because lab corporations are likely to own the equipment.
The CAP has always been a lobby group for the lab corporations. Pathologists are the worker bees.
They don't see a cent from me.
The TC on FISH goes up because lab corporations are likely to own the equipment.
The CAP has always been a lobby group for the lab corporations. Pathologists are the worker bees.
They don't see a cent from me.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2009
- Messages
- 515
- Reaction score
- 86
Looks like the TC on most high-volume path codes is going up but the PC is going down on just about everything. Awesome.
I often hear that there are too many pathologists overall in the U.S. Is the problem that there is not enough work to go around, or that pathologists are too efficient at their work? The demand for other medical specialties seems, anecdotally, to be increasing.
Last edited:
what is the best way to stop academic programs from adding / maintaining unneeded positions? Does CMS care about the money paid to hospitals to support positions that are not needed? Are there objective studies that shows maximum residents necessary per accession number or service needs and a way to force programs to have some sort of accountability? Who is in charge? Who makes the rules people?
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2016
- Messages
- 285
- Reaction score
- 209
Cap is garbage.
- Joined
- May 15, 2005
- Messages
- 128
- Reaction score
- 91
- Joined
- May 6, 2016
- Messages
- 561
- Reaction score
- 658
That's such a load of crap...essentially only benefits you if you perform global billing...TC and global up, but 26mod / PC only is down across the board.
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2016
- Messages
- 227
- Reaction score
- 76
Almost any decent sized lab who has multiple accounts, performs their own TC (in private practice).
- Joined
- May 6, 2016
- Messages
- 561
- Reaction score
- 658
unless you're private hospital based and don't own the lab
But aren’t positions paid for by CMS? Why does CMS just hand over taxpayer money to hospitals without scrutinizing how the money is spent on salaries in unneeded residency spots? How do programs get away with justifying this? It seems like there is a pressure point somewhere in the system. If hospitals had to pay for resident salaries without CMS recoupment wouldnt they diminish spots to save money?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2009
- Messages
- 515
- Reaction score
- 86
Bingo.
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2016
- Messages
- 227
- Reaction score
- 76
That is exactly where the big labs are headed towards because it is the only territory left to play the overbilling scam.
This year is an ugly year for PC cpt codes.
TC was a much big looser in this decade
The base TC 88302-88309 was cut 45-55% in the past 6 years.
In 2013, CMS cut the 88305 TC over 50% alone.
Last year CMS cut many of the other base codes such as 88307 and 88309 TC another 15- 20%.
CMS increased base TC CPTs between 4%-15% this year.
This is still a large net loss over time. So much of what looks like a boost is mild relief after big losses. Don't get too jealous of labs that bill globally or do TC.
CMS has a pattern here. CMS gives big cuts. Then we get some recovery.
I see the really big jumps in TC for 88365 and 88360-88161 Perhaps this got big cut in the past? I don't remember.
Flow continues to get it's butt kicked. So does Prostate.
TC was a much big looser in this decade
The base TC 88302-88309 was cut 45-55% in the past 6 years.
In 2013, CMS cut the 88305 TC over 50% alone.
Last year CMS cut many of the other base codes such as 88307 and 88309 TC another 15- 20%.
CMS increased base TC CPTs between 4%-15% this year.
This is still a large net loss over time. So much of what looks like a boost is mild relief after big losses. Don't get too jealous of labs that bill globally or do TC.
CMS has a pattern here. CMS gives big cuts. Then we get some recovery.
I see the really big jumps in TC for 88365 and 88360-88161 Perhaps this got big cut in the past? I don't remember.
Flow continues to get it's butt kicked. So does Prostate.
If your working for Urology office start thinking of other options.
The -12% TC cut on the G0416 shows : "º Codes impacted by one-year RVU reduction limit".
That does not sound good to me. I think many Uro IOPs are still doing ok only because private insurances still use the CPT 88305 x12.
Eventually they will convert this to a CPT and Uro labs may be toast.
The -12% TC cut on the G0416 shows : "º Codes impacted by one-year RVU reduction limit".
That does not sound good to me. I think many Uro IOPs are still doing ok only because private insurances still use the CPT 88305 x12.
Eventually they will convert this to a CPT and Uro labs may be toast.
- Joined
- May 15, 2005
- Messages
- 128
- Reaction score
- 91
I suspect that even without reimbursement that some number of resident spots would still be worth the cost of a resident (salary and benefits) to the hospital but that you are right that some spots would be reduced. The programs are just playing by the rules of ACGME and it has never been an objective to reject trainees due to job market concerns. In other words, programs are held responsible to have an adequate training program, so why should they worry about the number of trainees they are training? And if ACGME/ABP doesn't hold them responsible for training residents adequately, isn't that ACGME/ABP's fault?
As for CMS, I cannot comment because I do not know enough about the history. I am not sure the taxpayers understand the intricacies enough to create enough political pressure to cause changes. It is a federal agency and therefore its actions are complicated and unpredictable. My guess is that CMS, with regard to residency spots, is more concerned with the need and cost for more overall residency spots (as I think they have been static with a growing population) than to focus on a small subspecialty like pathology.
Although I am not entirely sure, I think you might be assuming that CMS has more active control regarding residency spots and hospital reimbursement than it actually does. There are certainly legally defined rules that CMS follows but legislation is slow and it isn't just one person doing whatever they want in a given moment. If we want to improve as a profession, then our professional societies need to be pressured to up the ante. Be sure to let me know the next time you get a ballot for the leadership of ACGME or ABP. ;-)
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2003
- Messages
- 28,059
- Reaction score
- 441
You have been posting this exact same line for 6 years now (at least). And yet, you are still here.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 217
- Reaction score
- 22
I gotta stop doing these.
Correct! According to another one of your posts, it may be having some effect. The job market had gone from futile to horrendous. Hopefully we can continue to spread the truth about what Big Academia has done to turn us from a profession into a commodity who just took huge paycuts from CMS and there is nothing we can do about it because we HAVE NO LEVERAGE. If there were just enough of us to do the work like most apprentice trained professionals have functioned historically, we would tell CMS to stick their damn paycuts and damn intrusive no evidence based, value destroying regulations and inspections where the sun doesn’t shine!
FLEE PATHOLOGY NOW!!!!
