Stay ahead of developments in federal and state health care law, regulation and transactions with timely, expert news and analysis.
A lawsuit brought by six Georgia-based primary care physicians Aug. 8 seeks to bar the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services from using recommendations from an American Medical Association panel when determining Medicare physician reimbursement rates (Fischer v. Berwick, D. Md., No. 1:11-cv-02191-WMN, complaint filed 8/8/11).
CMS has “illegally delegated” its valuation responsibility to the AMA Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC), the complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, said.
CMS's “neglectful acceptance” of the RUC's recommendations has resulted in a physician payment system that overvalues specialists and undervalues primary care physicians, the complaint alleged. The physicians, members of the Center for Primary Care PC in Evans, Ga., alleged the RUC is dominated by specialists and is biased against primary care physicians.
This system “creates systemic incentives to provide unnecessary and unnecessarily complex services,” the physicians said in a statement.
CMS has often rubber-stamped the RUC's recommendations without further due diligence, the physicians said in a statement.
“More to the point, while CMS has relied primarily on the RUC to value medical services, functionally treating it as a federal advisory committee, it has not required the RUC to adhere to the management and reporting rules within the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA),” the statement said. “In this, the physicians believe that CMS has colluded with the RUC and is out of compliance with the law.”
Responding to the lawsuit, Barbara Levy, the doctor who chairs the RUC, said in a statement that the organization “is an independent panel of physicians from all medical specialties, including primary care, who make recommendations to CMS as all citizens have a right to do. These volunteers provide physicians' voice and expertise to Medicare decision-makers through their recommendations.”
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), a physician and a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, said in an Aug. 8 statement that he agrees with the plaintiffs that RUC is “heavily biased towards specialists.”
CMS follows the RUC's recommendations more than 90 percent of the time, McDermott said. “Moreover, since the creation of the RUC in 1991, the income disparity between primary care versus procedure-heavy specialists has grown from 61% to 89%,” the statement said. In March, McDermott introduced the Medicare Physician Payment Transparency and Assessment Act of 2011 (H.R. 1256) to require RUC oversight.
“The bill would use independent analytic contractors to conduct surveys and collect data for physician services paid under Medicare and to annually identify services that may be over or under-valued,” the statement said. The American Academy of Family Physicians and the Society of General Internal Medicine have endorsed the measure.
The physicians agreed with McDermott that primary care physicians are undervalued in the physician payment system process.
The complaint asks to the court to:
• declare that CMS and the Department of Health and Human Services have violated the Administrative Procedure Act by unlawfully using the RUC as a de facto federal advisory opinion;
• order CMS to charter RUC as a federal advisory committee and open the AMA RUC procedure to the public; and
• enjoin CMS and HHS from implementing the physician fee schedule to the extent the defendants rely improperly on the RUC as a de facto federal advisory committee.
The complaint also asks for attorneys' fees and costs.
The physicians said in their statement that they funded the action themselves and that they are not asking the court for damages.
“Instead, [we] are using the legal system to try to effect systemic health care change in the public interest,” they said in the statement. The physicians are soliciting donations to help pay for the lawsuit's costs.
The complaint is at http://op.bna.com/hl.nsf/r?Open=droy-8kklwq . A copy of H.R. 1256 is at http://mcdermott.house.gov/images/pdf/mcdermottrucbill.pdf .
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)