Fw: Physician Supervision for Ob US
From: James S. Smeltzer, MD (gaperina@mindspring.com)
Sun May 20 16:58:30 2001
>----- Original Message -----
From: "Franklin W. West" <f_west@compuserve.com>
To: <soundadvice@listbox.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: Physician Supervision for Ob US
> Jim,
>
> I suspect the original source of the problem was associated with formal
> support for direct supervision of ultrasound procedures by the ACR and SRU
> back in 1997 - 1998 (when the original rule was published). Given the
> policy folks at HCFA have not been able to get this out the door for three
> years, I further suspect that someone inside HCFA, but not in policy, has
> been refusing to sign off on the Program Memorandum until recently.
> Recognizing the recent 'pressure' to get the PM out the door that has been
> placed on the HCFA policy folks by publication of the Phase One of the
Stark
> II final rule as well as looming congressional pressure, I would not be
> surprised if some "horse trading" occurred, with the impact being the
> maternal-fetal and a few other codes were 'cherry picked' in order to
obtain
> an approval.
>
> While boiling in oil seems appropriate :), the most important thing to be
> done right now is to get the codes reclassified prior to the implemenation
> date. SDMS, SVT and a coalition of other associations are working on this
> (largely thanks to Laurinda Andrist's work on the ob codes). As far as
> potential actions of any professional, I suggest (1) contacting your
> professional societies to ensure they are involved and (2) contacting
> elected representatives to express your point of view. Potentially, HCFA
> can also be contacted to express concern. If you don't have time, I'm
> certain that the professional societies would be happy to accept donations
> given this one will cost both in terms of legal fees and meetings with
HCFA
> in Baltimore.
>
> Oil's too expensive anyway - although a great idea ... ;-)
>
> *************************************************
> Franklin W. West
> PVI
> 18702 North Creek Parkway, Suite 212
> Bothell, Washington 98011
> 425.398.7774 (voice)
> 425.486.8976 (fax)
> f_west@compuserve.com
> *************************************************
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soundadvice-outgoing@admin.listbox.com
> [mailto:owner-soundadvice-outgoing@admin.listbox.com]On Behalf Of James S.
> Smeltzer, MD
> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 2:39 AM
> To: soundadvice@listbox.com
> Subject: Re: Physician Supervision for Ob US
>
> Franklin,
>
> Just who did these people consult with professionally? I am curious who
> needs to be fried in hot oil. (I will supply the oil if you supply the
wood.
> Terry can provide the matches. We will have a good old fashioned weenie
> roast.)
>
> ;^) Jim
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "J.Tomko" <buddy@redrose.net>
> To: <soundadvice@listbox.com>
> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 12:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Physician Supervision for Ob US
>
> >
> > >Dan wrote:
> >
> > >Yes I know the other 3rd parties often eventually follow HCFA's
policies.
> I
> > >was not aware of the 13k OB US cases...interesting.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > Do not forget HCFA (Medicare) is not for the 65 and above. IF a patient
> is
> > under medicare paid disability they would also fall into the guidelines.
> I
> > am just surprised at the low number (13k) ob cases on
> > disability! Disability is not only job oriented injury but
> > conditions...the blind...the hearing impaired...the paraplegic...end
stage
> > renal disease..... so on and so forth. My department head also inquired
> > how many retired people are pregnant. We forget medicare is ageless.
> >
> > >Janet, RDMS
> >
>
