Regional Variation in the Denial of Reimbursement for Bone Mineral Density Testing Among US Medicare Beneficiaries

Division of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA.
Journal of Clinical Densitometry (Impact Factor: 1.6). 10/2008; 11(4):568-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocd.2008.07.004
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Although the Bone Mass Measurement Act outlines the indications for central dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) testing for US Medicare beneficiaries, the specifics regarding the appropriate ICD-9 codes to use for covered indications have not been specified by Medicare and are sometimes ambiguous. We describe the extent to which DXA reimbursement was denied by gender and age of beneficiary, ICD-9 code submitted, time since previous DXA, whether the scan was performed in the physician's office and local Medicare carrier. Using Medicare administrative claims data from 1999 to 2005, we studied a 5% national sample of beneficiaries age > or =65 yr with part A+B coverage who were not health maintenance organization enrollees. We identified central DXA claims and evaluated the relationship between the factors listed above and reimbursement for central DXA (CPT code 76075). Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the independent relationship between DXA reimbursement, ICD-9 diagnosis code, and Medicare carrier. For persons who had no DXA in 1999 or 2000 and who had 1 in 2001 or 2002, the proportion of DXA claims denied was 5.3% for women and 9.1% for men. For repeat DXAs performed within 23 mo, the proportion denied was approximately 19% and did not differ by sex. Reimbursement varied by more than 6-fold according to the ICD-9 diagnosis code submitted. For repeat DXAs performed at <23 mo, the proportion of claims denied ranged from 2% to 43%, depending on Medicare carrier. Denial of Medicare reimbursement for DXA varies significantly by sex, time since previous DXA, ICD-9 diagnosis code submitted, place of service (office vs facility), and local Medicare carrier. Greater guidance and transparency in coding policies are needed to ensure that DXA as a covered service is reimbursed for Medicare beneficiaries with the appropriate indications.

Download full-text


Available from: Robert S Matthews, Jun 20, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To summarize recent policy and guideline updates that have significant consequences for the clinical use of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis and, thus, the prevention of fractures and associated morbidity and mortality. Recent policy trends have sought to reverse reimbursement declines for DXA services, whereas updated guidelines have attempted to restrict the candidates for bone density testing. Recent literature reflects the ongoing controversy of repeat DXA testing. Patient access to DXA scans has been threatened by declining reimbursement and, therefore, access to diagnosis and fracture prevention. There have been successful efforts to reverse this trend, but the future remains uncertain. The complexities and omissions of updated guidelines for obtaining DXA testing may serve again to restrict initial access, and the recent controversy of repeat DXA testing may make monitoring results of therapy more difficult.
    Current opinion in rheumatology 07/2011; 23(4):385-8. DOI:10.1097/BOR.0b013e328347d90c · 5.07 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) seek to improve the generalizability and increase the statistical power of traditional explanatory trials. They are a major tenet of comparative effectiveness research. While a powerful study design, PCTs have been limited by high cost, modest efficiency, and limited ability to fill relevant evidence gaps. Based on an American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) supported meeting of national stakeholders, we propose several innovations and future research that could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of such studies focused in the U.S. Innovations discussed include optimizing the use of community based practices through partnership with Practice Based Research Networks (PBRNs), using information technology to simplify PCT subject recruitment, consent and randomization processes, and utilizing linkages to large administrative databases, such as Medicare, as a mechanism to capture outcomes and other important PCT variables with lower subject and research team burden. Testing and adaptation of such innovations to PCT are anticipated to improve the public health value of these increasingly important studies.
    Contemporary clinical trials 07/2012; 33(6):1211-6. DOI:10.1016/j.cct.2012.07.002 · 1.99 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines recommend bone mineral density (BMD) monitoring for men on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer, but single center studies suggest this is underutilized. OBJECTIVE: We examined determinants of BMD testing in men receiving ADT in a large population-based cohort of men with prostate cancer. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-Results (SEER)-Medicare database to identify 84,036 men with prostate cancer initiating ADT from 1996 through 2008. MAIN MEASURES: Rates of BMD testing within the period 12 months prior to 3 months after initiation of ADT were assessed and compared to matched controls without cancer and to men with prostate cancer not receiving ADT. A logistic regression model was performed predicting use of BMD testing, adjusted for patient demographics, indications for ADT use, year of diagnosis and specialty of the physician involved in the care of the patient. KEY RESULTS: Rates of BMD testing increased steadily over time in men receiving ADT, diverging from the control groups such that by 2008, 11.5 % of men were receiving BMD testing versus 4.4 % in men with prostate cancer not on ADT and 3.8 % in the non-cancer controls. In the logistic regression model, year of diagnosis, race/ethnicity, indications for ADT use and geographic region were significant predictors of BMD testing. Patients with only a urologist involved in their care were significantly less likely to receive BMD testing as compared to those with both a urologist and a primary care physician (PCP) (odds ratio 0.71, 95 % confidence interval 0.64-0.80). CONCLUSIONS: There has been a sharp increase in rates of BMD testing among men receiving ADT for prostate cancer over time, beyond rates noted in contemporaneous controls. Absolute rates of BMD testing remain low, however, but are higher in men who have a PCP involved in their care.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 05/2013; 28(11). DOI:10.1007/s11606-013-2477-2 · 3.42 Impact Factor