Search Results for ""
- ACP Online (7510)
- Annals of Internal Medicine (6736)
- IM Matters (4549)
- ACP Hospitalist (2336)
- Annals of Internal Medicine: Clinical Cases (500)
- ACP Store (254)
Displaying 451 - 460 of 7510 in ACP Online
Medicare Improper Payment Review - Recovery Auditor Contractors(RAC)
Summary of Program
Medicare Improper Payment Review - Overview
CMS considers any payment to the wrong provider, for the wrong services or in the wrong amount an improper payment. This includes overpayments and underpayments. These improper payments are most often because statutory coverage requests were not met, medically necessity requirements were not met, the claim was improperly coded or there was not sufficient documentation submitted with the claim. Improper payment review is the evaluation of claims to determine whether the items/services are covered, correctly coded and medically necessary.
Medicare Improper Payment Review - Medical Review (MR) Programsat MACs
The goal of the medical review program is to reduce payment error by identifying and addressing billing errors concerning coverage and coding made by providers. Claims selections are targeted to claims that are most likely to contain an improper payment. Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs - formerly called fiscal intermediaries and carriers) review CERT data, RAC vulnerabilities and OIG/GAO reports.
Medicare Improper Payment Review - Comprehensive Error RateTesting (CERT) Contractors
CMS implemented the CERT program to measure improper payments in the Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) program in order to comply with the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act
Medicare Home Health Face-to-Face Requirement | ACP
Visit ACP for information about the Medicare home health face-to-face encounter requirement. Read FAQs and access sample forms.
Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS)
The Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) builds on traditional fee-for-service payments by adjusting them up or down based on a physician’s performance in a new reporting system.
Alternative Payment Models (APMs)
The Alternative Payment Models (APMs) are a new approach to paying for medical care that incentivizes quality and value.
MACRA and the Quality Payment Program | ACP
What you need to know about the Quality Payment Program (QPP) created by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015.
"Welcome to Medicare" Exam | ACP
Ensure your billing staff are aware of Welcome to Medicare preventative visits and services and how to bill for them. Visit ACP for helpful resources.
Medicare Payment & Regulations Resources | ACP
ACP provides Medicare payments and regulations resources to help ensure that you are paid appropriately and are not in violation of any Medicare policies.
Displaying 451 - 460 of 6736 in Annals of Internal Medicine
These Annals of Internal Medicine results only contain recent articles.
- Visit annals.org to search all content back to 1927.
- View Annals of Internal Medicine CME by topic here.
Management of Inpatient Elevated Blood Pressures: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 177, No 4
Background: Management of elevated blood pressure (BP) during hospitalization varies widely, with many hospitalized adults experiencing BPs higher than those recommended for the outpatient setting. Purpose: To systematically identify guidelines on elevated BP management in the hospital. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Guidelines International Network, and specialty society websites from 1 January 2010 to 29 January 2024. Study Selection: Clinical practice guidelines pertaining to BP management for the adult and older adult populations in ambulatory, emergency department, and inpatient settings. Data Extraction: Two authors independently screened articles, assessed quality, and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved via consensus. Recommendations on treatment targets, preferred antihypertensive classes, and follow-up were collected for ambulatory and inpatient settings. Data Synthesis: Fourteen clinical practice guidelines met inclusion criteria (11 were assessed as high-quality per the AGREE II [Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II] instrument), 11 provided broad BP management recommendations, and 1 each was specific to the emergency department setting, older adults, and hypertensive crises. No guidelines provided goals for inpatient BP or recommendations for managing asymptomatic moderately elevated BP in the hospital. Six guidelines defined hypertensive urgency as BP above 180/120 mm Hg, with hypertensive emergencies requiring the addition of target organ damage. Hypertensive emergency recommendations consistently included use of intravenous antihypertensives in intensive care settings. Recommendations for managing hypertensive urgencies were inconsistent, from expert consensus, and focused on the emergency department. Outpatient treatment with oral medications and follow-up in days to weeks were most often advised. In contrast, outpatient BP goals were clearly defined, varying between 130/80 and 140/90 mm Hg. Limitation: Exclusion of non–English-language guidelines and guidelines specific to subpopulations. Conclusion: Despite general consensus on outpatient BP management, guidance on inpatient management of elevated BP without symptoms is lacking, which may contribute to variable practice patterns. Primary Funding Source: National Institute on Aging. (PROSPERO: CRD42023449250)
The Development and Performance of Alternative Criteria for Lung Cancer Screening
Background: The recommendation for lung cancer screening (LCS) developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) may exclude some high-benefit people. Objective: To determine whether alternative criteria can identify these high-benefit people. Design: Model-based projections. Setting: United States. Participants: People from the 1997–2014 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) to develop alternative criteria using fast-and-frugal tree algorithms and from the 2014–2018 NHIS and the 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System for comparisons of USPSTF criteria versus alternative criteria. Measurements: Life-years gained from LCS were estimated using the life-years gained from screening computed tomography (LYFS-CT) model. “High-benefit” was defined as gaining an average of at least 16.2 days of life from 3 annual screenings, which reflects high lung cancer risk and substantial life gains if lung cancer is detected by screening. Results: The final alternative criteria were 1) people who smoked any amount each year for at least 40 years, or 2) people aged 60 to 80 years with at least 40 pack-years of smoking. The USPSTF and alternative criteria selected similar numbers of people for LCS. Compared with the USPSTF criteria, the alternative criteria had higher sensitivity (91% vs. 78%; P < 0.001) and specificity (86% vs. 84%; P < 0.001) for identifying high-benefit people. For racial and ethnic minorities, the alternative criteria provided greater gains in sensitivity than the USPSTF criteria (Black: 83% vs. 56% [P < 0.001]; Hispanic: 95% vs. 73% [P = 0.086]; Asian: 94% vs. 68% [P = 0.171]) at similar specificity. The alternative criteria identify high-risk, high-benefit groups excluded by the USPSTF criteria (those with a smoking duration of ≥40 years but <20 pack-years and a quit history of >15 years), many of whom are members of racial and ethnic minorities. Limitation: The results were based on model projections. Conclusion: These results suggest that simple alternative LCS criteria can identify substantially more high-benefit people, especially in some racial and ethnic groups. Primary Funding Source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Lung Precision Oncology Program.
Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin-Receptor Blockers for Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Retrospective Individual Participant–Level Meta-analysis of Clinical Trials: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 177, No 7
Background: In patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), the effects of initiating treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) on the risk for kidney failure with replacement therapy (KFRT) and death remain unclear. Purpose: To examine the association of ACEi or ARB treatment initiation, relative to a non–ACEi or ARB comparator, with rates of KFRT and death. Data Sources: Ovid Medline and the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration Clinical Trials Consortium from 1946 through 31 December 2023. Study Selection: Completed randomized controlled trials testing either an ACEi or an ARB versus a comparator (placebo or antihypertensive drugs other than ACEi or ARB) that included patients with a baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) below 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. Data Extraction: The primary outcome was KFRT, and the secondary outcome was death before KFRT. Analyses were done using Cox proportional hazards models according to the intention-to-treat principle. Prespecified subgroup analyses were done according to baseline age (<65 vs. ≥65 years), eGFR (<20 vs. ≥20 mL/min/1.73 m2), albuminuria (urine albumin–creatinine ratio <300 vs. ≥300 mg/g), and history of diabetes. Data Synthesis: A total of 1739 participants from 18 trials were included, with a mean age of 54.9 years and mean eGFR of 22.2 mL/min/1.73 m2, of whom 624 (35.9%) developed KFRT and 133 (7.6%) died during a median follow-up of 34 months (IQR, 19 to 40 months). Overall, ACEi or ARB treatment initiation led to lower risk for KFRT (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.55 to 0.79]) but not death (hazard ratio, 0.86 [CI, 0.58 to 1.28]). There was no statistically significant interaction between ACEi or ARB treatment and age, eGFR, albuminuria, or diabetes (P for interaction > 0.05 for all). Limitation: Individual participant–level data for hyperkalemia or acute kidney injury were not available. Conclusion: Initiation of ACEi or ARB therapy protects against KFRT, but not death, in people with advanced CKD. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health. (PROSPERO: CRD42022307589)
Attention Among Health Care Professionals: A Scoping Review: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 177, No 7
Background: The concept of attention can provide insight into the needs of clinicians and how health systems design can impact patient care quality and medical errors. Purpose: To conduct a scoping review to 1) identify and characterize literature relevant to clinician attention; 2) compile metrics used to measure attention; and 3) create a framework of key concepts. Data Sources: Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline (PubMed), and Embase (Ovid) from 2001 to 26 February 2024. Study Selection: English-language studies addressing health care worker attention in patient care. At least dual review and data abstraction. Data Extraction: Article information, health care professional studied, practice environment, study design and intent, factor type related to attention, and metrics of attention used. Data Synthesis: Of 6448 screened articles, 585 met inclusion criteria. Most studies were descriptive (n = 469) versus investigational (n = 116). More studies focused on barriers to attention (n = 387; 342 descriptive and 45 investigational) versus facilitators to improving attention (n = 198; 112 descriptive and 86 investigational). We developed a framework, grouping studies into 6 categories: 1) definitions of attention, 2) the clinical environment and its effect on attention, 3) personal factors affecting attention, 4) relationships between interventions or factors that affect attention and patient outcomes, 5) the effect of clinical alarms and alarm fatigue on attention, and 6) health information technology’s effect on attention. Eighty-two metrics were used to measure attention. Limitations: Does not synthesize answers to specific questions. Quality of studies was not assessed. Conclusion: This overview may be a resource for researchers, quality improvement experts, and health system leaders to improve clinical environments. Future systematic reviews may synthesize evidence on metrics to measure attention and on the effectiveness of barriers or facilitators related to attention. Primary Funding Source: None.
Progressive Resistance Training or Neuromuscular Exercise for Hip Osteoarthritis: A Multicenter Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 177, No 5
Background: Exercise is recommended as first-line treatment for patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA). However, randomized controlled trials providing evidence for the optimal exercise type are lacking. Objective: To investigate whether progressive resistance training (PRT) is superior to neuromuscular exercise (NEMEX) for improving functional performance in patients with hip OA. Design: Multicenter, cluster-randomized, controlled, parallel-group, assessor-blinded, superiority trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04714047) Setting: Hospitals and physiotherapy clinics. Participants: 160 participants with clinically diagnosed hip OA were enrolled from 18 January 2021 to 28 April 2023 and randomly assigned to PRT (n = 82) or NEMEX (n = 78). Intervention: Twelve weeks of PRT or NEMEX with 2 supervised 60-minute group sessions each week. The PRT intervention consisted of 5 high-intensity resistance training exercises targeting muscles at the hip and knee joints. The NEMEX intervention included 10 exercises and emphasized sensorimotor control and functional stability. Measurements: The primary outcome was change in the 30-second chair stand test (30s-CST). Key secondary outcomes were changes in scores on the pain and hip-related quality of life (QoL) subscales of the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS). Results: The mean changes from baseline to 12-week follow-up in the 30s-CST were 1.5 (95% CI, 0.9 to 2.1) chair stands with PRT and 1.5 (CI, 0.9 to 2.1) chair stands with NEMEX (difference, 0.0 [CI, −0.8 to 0.8] chair stands). For the HOOS pain subscale, mean changes were 8.6 (CI, 5.3 to 11.8) points with PRT and 9.3 (CI, 5.9 to 12.6) points with NEMEX (difference, −0.7 [CI, −5.3 to 4.0] points). For the HOOS QoL subscale, mean changes were 8.0 (CI, 4.3 to 11.7) points with PRT and 5.7 (CI, 1.9 to 9.5) points with NEMEX (difference, 2.3 [CI, −3.0 to 7.6] points). Limitation: Participants and physiotherapists were not blinded. Conclusion: In patients with hip OA, PRT is not superior to NEMEX for improving functional performance, hip pain, or hip-related QoL. Primary Funding Source: Independent Research Fund Denmark.
Sodium–Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors, Dulaglutide, and Risk for Dementia: A Population-Based Cohort Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 177, No 10
Background: Both sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) may have neuroprotective effects in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, their comparative effectiveness in preventing dementia remains uncertain. Objective: To compare the risk for dementia between SGLT2 inhibitors and dulaglutide (a GLP-1 RA). Design: Target trial emulation study. Setting: Nationwide health care data of South Korea obtained from the National Health Insurance Service between 2010 and 2022. Patients: Patients aged 60 years or older who have T2D and are initiating treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors or dulaglutide. Measurements: The primary outcome was the presumed clinical onset of dementia. The date of onset was defined as the year before the date of dementia diagnosis, assuming that the time between the onset of dementia and diagnosis was 1 year. The 5-year risk ratios and risk differences comparing SGLT2 inhibitors with dulaglutide were estimated in a 1:2 propensity score–matched cohort adjusted for confounders. Results: Overall, 12 489 patients initiating SGLT2 inhibitor treatment (51.9% dapagliflozin and 48.1% empagliflozin) and 1075 patients initiating dulaglutide treatment were included. In the matched cohort, over a median follow-up of 4.4 years, the primary outcome event occurred in 69 participants in the SGLT2 inhibitor group and 43 in the dulaglutide group. The estimated risk difference was −0.91 percentage point (95% CI, −2.45 to 0.63 percentage point), and the estimated risk ratio was 0.81 (CI, 0.56 to 1.16). Limitation: Residual confounding is possible; there was no adjustment for hemoglobin A1c levels or duration of diabetes; the study is not representative of newer drugs, including more effective GLP-1 RAs; and the onset of dementia was not measured directly. Conclusion: Under conventional statistical criteria, a risk for dementia between 2.5 percentage points lower and 0.6 percentage point greater for SGLT2 inhibitors than for dulaglutide was estimated to be highly compatible with the data from this study. However, whether these findings generalize to newer GLP-1 RAs is uncertain. Thus, further studies incorporating newer drugs within these drug classes and better addressing residual confounding are required. Primary Funding Source: Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of South Korea.