Effective November 1, 2012, Wisconsin Act 160 (Act 160) establishes a licensure requirement for anesthesiologist assistants (AAs).  Prior to Act 160, AAs practiced under delegated authority.  Act 160 also established the requirements for obtaining AA licensure, AA’s scope of practice, anesthesiologist supervision requirements as well as a Council on Anesthesiologist Assistants.  This announcement summarizes some of the key aspects of the new law that Wisconsin anesthesiology providers need to know. AA Scope of Practice Act 160 provides that an AA may assist an anesthesiologist in the delivery of medical care.  The medical care tasks that may be assigned by the supervising anesthesiologist, falling within the AA’s scope of practice, are the following: Developing and implementing an anesthesia care plan for the patient;Obtaining a comprehensive patient history and performing relevant elements of a physical exam;Pretesting and calibrating anesthesia delivery systems and obtaining and interpreting information from the systems and from monitors;Implementing medically accepted...

  Many states have laws or regulations in place that require health insurers in the state to reimburse claims within a certain timeframe or face penalties, oftentimes in the form of interest applied to the amount of the claim. Such laws or regulations are typically called “Prompt Pay” laws or “Clean Claim.” While each state or, sometimes, insurer, defines the requirements for a claim to be a “clean claim,” generally, a “clean claim” is a claim that has all of the information an insurer needs to either pay or deny the claim. A “non-clean claim” is a claim that requires additional information or documentation to make it clean. Each state sets forth the timeframes in which insurers have to reimburse a clean claim. Absent certain exceptions (e.g., instances of suspected fraudulent activity, contractual provisions setting forth alternative timeframes, etc.), failure to adhere to the timeframes results in penalties oftentimes in the form...

With a new calendar year just over two months away, the medical and healthcare communities have begun the annual flurry of end-game activity seeking to influence payment rates.  Anesthesiologists need little reminder of the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) threat and the 27 percent cut in Medicare payment that will take effect on January 1, 2013, unless Congress intervenes. On October 15th, more than 100 national medical societies, including the American Society of Anesthesiologists, sent letters to the Senate Finance Committee, the House Ways and Means Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee highlighting the urgency of fixing the SGR problem for a new reason: The sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula is an enormous impediment to successful health care delivery and payment reforms that can improve the quality of patient care while lowering growth in costs. Physicians facing the constant specter of severe cuts under the SGR cannot invest their time,...

  Several clients have inquired as to the documentation and correct coding and billing for Transesophageal Echocardiography (TEE) services. A TEE is a special diagnostic tool, which may be used by properly trained physicians (i.e., anesthesiologists, cardiologists) to benefit patient care. A separately reported TEE may be performed for monitoring and/or diagnostic purposes. However, many payers will only reimburse diagnostic studies.   For example, to establish conditions such as myocardial ischemia or cardiac valve disorders, the anesthesiologist will be utilizing the transesophageal echo for diagnostic purposes. In this case, when the anesthesiologist has the additional certification or documented training in residency, and is privileged by the hospital to do the complete procedure, the anesthesiologist can and should bill separately for the TEE in addition to the anesthesia. The correct CPT code for the complete procedure is 93312. When you bill for both the anesthesia and the TEE, the coder must append...

By Abby Pendleton, Esq., Carey Kalmowitz, Esq. and Adrienne Dresevic, Esq. The Health Law Partners, P.C., Southfield, MI On June 1, 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (the “OIG”) issued its Advisory Opinion No. 12-06, which provides long-awaited guidance to the health care industry regarding the legal permissibility of an anesthesia delivery service model commonly referred to as the “company model.” Insofar as Advisory Opinion No. 12-06 is the initial OIG guidance that specifically focuses on such an arrangement and determines that the factual paradigms presented implicate risks under the Medicare and Medicaid Antikickback Statute (the “AKS”), this Advisory Opinion understandably is capturing broad attention within the medical and legal communities. While OIG Advisory Opinion 12-06 clarifies the almost-axiomatic observation that company model arrangements, especially those that contain the indicia that the OIG historically has identified as problematic under the AKS, certainly have the potential...