Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

How Is Physician Work Valued?

  • Jeffrey P. Jacobs(corresponding author)
    ,
  • Stephen J. Lahey
    ,
  • Francis C. Nichols
    ,
  • James M. Levett
    ,
  • George Gilbert Johnston
    ,
  • Richard K. Freeman
*Corresponding author for this work
  • Johns Hopkins University
    ,
  • Florida Hospital
    ,
  • The Society of Thoracic Surgeons
    ,
  • University of Connecticut
    ,
  • Mayo Clinic Rochester, MN
    ,
  • Physicians’ Clinic of Iowa
Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Open access

Abstract

Strategies to value physician work continue to evolve. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database have an increasingly important role in this evolution. An understanding of the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) system (American Medical Association [AMA], Chicago, IL) and the Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) is necessary to comprehend how physician work is valued. In 1965, with the dawn of increasingly complex medical care, immense innovation, and the rollout of Medicare, the need for a common language describing medical services and procedures was recognized as being of critical importance. In 1966, the AMA, in cooperation with multiple major medical specialty societies, developed the CPT system, which is a coding system for the description of medical procedures and medical services. The RUC was created by the AMA in response to the passage of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, legislation of the United States of America Federal government that mandated that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services adopt a relative value methodology for Medicare physician payment. The role of the RUC is to develop relative value recommendations for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. These recommendations include relative value recommendations for new procedures or services and also updates to relative value recommendations for previously valued procedures or services. These recommendations pertain to all physician work delivered to Medicare beneficiaries and propose relative values for all physician services, including updates to those based on the original resource-based relative value scale developed by Hsaio and colleagues. In so doing, widely differing work and services provided can be reviewed and comparisons of their relative value (to each other) can be established. The resource-based relative value scale assigns value to physician services using relative value units (RVUs), which consist of three components: work RVU, practice expense RVU, and malpractice RVU, also known as professional liability insurance RVU. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services retains the final decision-making authority on the RVUs associated with each procedure or service. The purpose of this article is to discuss the role that the CPT codes and the RUC play in the valuation of physician work and to provide an example of how the methodology for valuation of physician work continues to evolve.

Publication Information

Output type

Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Original language

English (US)

Pages from-to (Number of pages)

Pages 373-380 (8 pages)

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Annals of Thoracic Surgery (Volume 103, Issue 2)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 02/01/2017

Publication status

Published - 02/01/2017

ISSN

0003-4975

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 85009895139
  • PubMed: 28109347

Publication metrics

Metrics

SciVal
citations
26
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
0.07
Fractional count
14
Fractional count
0.93
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
1
SciVal
FWCI
2.30
SciVal
Author count
15
SciVal
Paper percentile
92
SciVal
Top percentile
10
Scopus
citations

PlumX, opens in new tab

Citation count
85
Captures
56