Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

MEDICARE’S REIMBURSEMENT FOR 

INTERPRETATIONS OF HOSPITAL 

EMERGENCY ROOM X-RAYS 

JULY 1993 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, as 

amended, is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) 

programs as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by those programs. This 

statutorymission is carried out through a nationwidenetwork of audits, investigations, and 

inspectionsconductedby three OIG operating components: the Office of Audit Services, the 

Office of Investigations,and the Office of Evaluation and Inspections. The OIG also informsthe 

Secretary of HHS of program and managementproblems and recommendscourses to correct them. 

OFFICE OF AUDIT SERVICES 

The OIG’SOffice of Audit Services(OAS)provides all auditing services for HHS, either by 

conducting audits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others. Audits 

examine the performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in carrying out 

their respective responsibilitiesand are intended to provide independentassessmentsof HHS 

programs and operations in order to reduce waste, abuse, and mismanagementand to promote 

economy and efficiency throughout the Department. 

OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 

The OIG’SOffice of Investigations(01) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative investigations 

of allegations of wrongdoing in HHS programs or to HHS beneficiaries and of unjust enrichment 

by providers. The investigativeefforts of 01 lead to criminal convictions, administrative 

sanctions, or civil money penalties. The 01 also oversees State Medicaid fraud control units which 

investigate and prosecute fraud and patient abuse in the Medicaid program. 

OFFICE OF EVALUATION AND INSPECTIONS 

The OIG’SOffice of Evaluation and Inspections(OEI) conductsshort-term management and 

program evaluations(called inspections)that focus on issues of concern to the Department, the 

Congress, and the public. The findings and recommendationscontained in these inspection reports 

generate rapid, accurate, and up-to-date information on the efficiency, vulnerability, and 

effectivenessof departmentalprograms. This report was prepared in the New York regional office 

under the direction of Thomas F. Tully, Regional Inspector General and Alan S. Meyer, Deputy 

Regional Inspector General. Project staff included: 

REGIONII HEADQUARTERS 

Joseph J. Benkoski, Project Leader Wm. Mark Krushat 

Joseph J. Corso, Jr, Wayne A. Powell 

Lucille M. Cop, RN Brian P. Ritchie 

William J. Counihan Barbara R. Tedesco 

To obtain a copy of this report, call the New York Regional Office at (212) 264-1998 
Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

MEDICARE’S REIMBURSEMENT FOR 

INTERPRETATIONS OF HOSPITAL 

EMERGENCY ROOM X-RAYS 

JULY 1993 0EI-02-89-01490

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

PURPOSE 

To assess the appropriateness of Medicare policy permitting reimbursement for 

reinterpretations of the same x-ray for emergency room (ER) cases. 

BACKGROUND 

In a typical case, an x-ray of a patient treated in an ER is interpreted both by the treating 

physician and by a radiologist. The latter reinterpretation often takes place after the 

patient is discharged. 

This inspection evaluated the Medicare policy which allows payment to each physician for 

their interpretations. According to Section 2020G of the Medicare Carriers Manual 

(MCM) the service of the radiologist, even if performed after the patient is discharged, !1

... almost always constitutes patient care and, thus, would qualify as a physician’s 

service. ” Medicare’s reasoning is that the radiologist’s reinterpretation is a specialist’s 

evaluation and could affect the course of treatment initiated or cause a new course of 

treatment to begin. 

The inspection consisted of a review of 356 medical records and telephone interviews with 

ER and radiology department directors at 18 hospitals in nine States. We also had 

discussions with directors of residency training programs in Emergency Medicine and with 

representatives of Internal Medicine and Family Practice specialties regarding training in 

x-ray interpretations in residency programs. 

FINDINGS 

X-RAY REINTERPRETATIONS BY RADIOLOGISTS DID NOT CHANGE 

PRESCRIBED TREATMENTS BY EMERGENCY ROOM PHYSICIANS 

We were able to identify 158 cases (44 percent) in the sample of 356 cases where medical 

records clearly indicate that radiologists reinterpreted x-rays at least one day after patients 

had been discharged. We found that these reinterpretations had no effect on the 

treatments provided by ER physicians. No one among this group was recalled for further 

evaluation based upon the reinterpretations. The experience with these reinterpretations 

raises questions regarding Medicare’s policy assumption that such a reinterpretation 

“almost always constitutes patient care. ” 

Of the remaining 198 medical records in the sample, only 22 contain clear documentation 

that interpretations by radiologists were made available to the ER physician prior to the 

patient’s discharge. In only one instance, in this group of 198 cases, was there 

documentation that the ER physician had specifically requested an interpretation by a 

radiologist before determining a plan of care; this, in fact, was the only such request 
among all 356 sample records. The remaining 176 records do not document whether or 

not these interpretations occurred before or after patients were discharged. However, ER 

directors at the 18 sample hospitals estimate, that on the average, three-quarters of the 

interpretations by radiologists are performed after patients are discharged. As was the 

case with interpretations by radiologists after patients had been discharged, no one among 

this group was recalled to the hospital or referred elsewhere. 

MOST PHYSICIANS WHO TREAT PATIENTS IN EMERGENCY ROOMS COME 

FROM THREE MEDICAL SPECIALTIES; THEY RECEIVE TRAINING IN 

INTERPRETING X-RAYS 

Physicians specializing in Emergency Medicine, Internal Medicine and Family Practice 

represent 89 percent of the ER physicians in our sample. The majority of ER physicians 

(68 percent) specialize in Emergency Medicine. Physicians specializing in Internal 

Medicine represent 11 percent of sample cases; those in Family Practice represent 10 

percent. 

Physicians specializing in Emergency Medicine appear to receive substantial training in 

x-ray interpretation. We were informed by several directors of residency programs in 

Emergency Medicine that training in interpreting x-rays is an integral part of their 

residency programs. Physicians specializing in Internal Medicine and Family Practice also 

receive training in x-ray interpretation, according to representatives of the Accreditation 

Council for Graduate Medical Education’s Residency Review Committee on Internal 

Medicine and of the Board of Family Practice. 

RECOMMENDATION 

In view of our finding that reinterpretations of x-rays by radiologists after patients had 

been discharged from emergency rooms: (1) did not result in the recall of patients; (2) did 

not affect the course of treatment initiated or cause a new course of treatment to begin; 

and (3) did not appear to constitute patient care, HCFA should: 

Pay for reinterpretations of x-rays only when attending physicians specifically 

request a second physician’s interpretation in order to render appropriate 

medical care before the patient is discharged. Any other reinterpretation of 

the attending physician’s original interpretation should be treated and 

reimbursed as part of the hospital’s quality assurance program. The HCFA 

should implement this recommendation through either regulation or by seeking 

legislation as appropriate. 

We project that a minimum of $20.4 million was paid for reinterpretations in 1990 for the 

38 sampled HCPCS codes. Our projection does not take into consideration the apparently 

infrequent instances in which radiologists’ interpretations are specifically requested by the 

treating physician prior to treatment. 

ii 
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG RESPONSE 

We received comments on this report from HCFA. We met with HCFA staff to discuss 

their comments and offer additional information. As a result, HCFA agreed to share 

copies of our draft report with members of the Technical Advisory Committee on National 

Coverage Issues which would consider the report’s recommendations at its next quarterly 

meeting. 

The HCFA noted that its current policy on emergency room x-rays is based on three 

assumptions: (1) reinterpretations almost always constitute patient care; (2) radiologists are 

recognized experts, therefore, x-rays should be read by them; and (3) the qualifications of 

the interpreting physician are more important than the exact timing of the interpretation in 

determining whether a substantive physician service has been provided. Our findings 

question all three assumptions and are the basis for our recommendation that a policy 

based on these assumptions be revised. Based upon our finding that in no case did 

radiologists’ interpretations affect the course of treatment by the ER physician, we 

question whether reinterpretations “almost always constitutes patient care. ” We also 

found that other physician specialists believe they are qualified to interpret x-rays. 

In its comments, the HCFA also raised several concerns, including the medical necessity 

of the services provided to patients in our sample and the sharing of radiologists’ 

interpretations with attending physicians. These concerns and OIG’S responses are 

detailed in an expanded comments and response section in the report. The complete text 

of HCFA’S comments appears in Appendix A. 

... 111 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1


FINDINGS 

Reinterpretations Of X-rays Did Not Affect Patient Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5


Emergency Room Physicians Receive


X-ray Interpretation Training.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6


RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7


Agency Comments AndOIGResponse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7


APPENDICES


A: Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..A-1


B: Projected Savings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..B-1


C: Confidence Intervals For Savings Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE 

To assess the appropriateness of Medicare policy permitting reimbursement for 

reinterpretations of the same x-ray for emergency room (ER) cases. 

BACKGROUND 

An Emergency Room Visit 

An elderly man, while putting his lawn mower away, experienced chest pains, shortness 

of breath and dizziness, and fell heavily upon his left wrist. He was driven by his wife to 

the emergency room (ER) of the local hospital. While there, he was examined by an ER 

physician who ordered an x-ray and other tests. This physician, upon review of the x-ray 

film, diagnosed a simple fracture and applied a splint. Finding everything else normal, he 

gave instructions to the patient and discharged him. 

The following day, in keeping with hospital policy, a radiologist reinterpreted the x-ray 

film. She prepared a report for the patient’s medical record confirming the ER 

physician’s diagnosis. Several days later, this same patient’s x-ray was selected for 

review by a second radiologist as part of the hospital’s quality assurance program. 

How Medicare Pays 

The fictional story above, typical of the manner in which Medicare patients receive 

treatment for injuries in hospital emergency rooms, would have resulted in the following 

claims actions. 

The ER physician and the radiologist who confirmed the diagnosis would have submitted 

separate bills to a Medicare carrier. The radiologist would be paid for her interpretation 

based on a radiology fee schedule. The ER physician’s bill for his services would not, 

however, contain a separate charge for his x-ray interpretation. This is because Medicare 

considers its payment for his interpretation to be part of the attending physician’s overall 

workup and treatment of the patient (Medicare Carrier Manual Section 2020G). This 

same section does permit payment to the first radiologist, stating that: 

... when a hospital radiologist interprets an x-ray that has already been 

interpreted by another physician, that interpretive service almost always 

constitutes patient care ... and the radiologist’s findings could affect the 

course of treatment initiated or cause a new course of treatment to begin. 

The fact that the particular patient was not on the hospital premises at the 

time the radiologist interpreted the x-ray is not controlling in deciding 

whether there was a physicians service, since the patient may be recalled. 

If on the other hand the radiologist is interpreting the x-ray for “quality 
control” purposes ... the service should be considered a hospital service 

reimbursable under Part A of the Medicare program. 

The carrier would have paid the ER physician and the first radiologist 80 percent of


Medicare’s allowed charge. Both physicians would have billed the patient for Medicare’s


20-percent coinsurance amount.


The hospital would have sent its bill for providing emergency room services to a Medicare


intermediary. These services include such items as salaries of employees, facility


maintenance, medical supplies and equipment. The intermediary’s payment to the hospital


would cover the costs associated with the services of the second radiologist. These


services would be treated as administrative costs relating to the hospital’s quality


assurance program.


How much Medicare Pays 

In 1990, Medicare allowed charges for all outpatient department (OPD) interpretations, 

including the ER, amounted to $175 million. Medicare data does not separate charges of 

radiologists for interpretations of ER x-rays from their charges for other OPD 

interpretations. The costs hospitals incur for their quality assurance programs are not 

separately identified and are reimbursed as a part of the reasonable costs included in OPD 

cost reports. 

Related Study 

A study of 23,500 x-rays, conducted from October 1984 to September 1985 at George 

Washington University Medical Center, evaluated patient care outcomes in those instances 

where post-discharge radiology department interpretations differed from ER physician 

interpretations. As reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the 

study found an overall error rate of 1.8% (424 patients) in the accuracy of ER 

interpretations. There were no undesirable patient care outcomes as characterized by 

preventable death, permanent loss of function, suboptimal restoration, or prolonged 

recovery identified by delayed radiological diagnosis. 

Medical Societies’ Positions 

The policy of the American College of Emergency Physicians is that emergency 

physicians should initially interpret and record the results of diagnostic studies and tests 

they order for which they are trained and competent to interpret. When appropriate, such 

interpretations should be made in consultation with other specialists. The College notes 

that ER physicians are entitled to charge and be reimbursed for these services. 

The American College of Radiology considers the radiologist responsible for the 

radiological services within the hospital. This responsibility cannot be delegated to other 

physicians. The College feels that regardless of when the interpretation is available to the 

2 
attending physician, the radiologist’s interpretation of previously interpreted ER x-rays 

constitutes patient care and is compensable as a physician service. 

METHODOLOGY 

The inspection consisted of a review of 356 medical records from 311 hospitals, telephone 

interviews with ER and radiology department directors at 18 hospitals in nine States and 

discussions with directors of programs offering residency training in Emergency Medicine. 

We also spoke with representatives of Internal Medicine and Family Practice specialties 

regarding training in x-ray interpretations in residency programs. 

This study examined a random sample of cases where Medicare paid for interpretations by 

radiologists of x-rays on ER patients. In this report, these services are referred to as 

“reinterpretations,” when performed after the patient was discharged from the ER. The 

ER cases were identified among all OPD claims by matching ER visit codes with 38 codes 

for x-ray interpretations occurring within five days of the ER visit. This time lapse match 

was established based on preinspection findings that interpretations by radiologists 

frequently occur after patients are discharged. The 38 procedures cover several anatomic 

sites: head and neck, chest, spine and pelvis, and upper and lower extremities. Thirty-six 

of these diagnostic procedures deal with skeletal traumas; the other two were x-rays of the 

chest which may or may not be related to chest injuries. The procedures were chosen 

because they represent x-rays commonly taken in hospital ERs. We obtained 

reimbursement data on the 38 codes in order to calculate projected savings. 

A multi-stage sampling technique was used. The first stage of this sample used 1990 

BMAD data to randomly select ten carriers, with replacement, proportionate to the total 

number of cases in each carrier. The second stage originally called for a minimum of 30 

cases to be randomly selected from each of the ten carriers to assure adequate precision. 

However, pre-inspection data indicated that oversampling was necessary because many of 

the ER patients would not have an outpatient bill associated with every physician bill due 

to some ER patient admissions as inpatients. Therefore, based on our pre-inspection 

calculations, 73 cases were randomly selected from each of the ten carriers (730 total 

cases). 

Outpatient records were then obtained from the 1990 Medicare Automated Data Retrieval 

System (MADRS) for the ten sampled carriers. These records enabled us to eliminate 

cases where the patient had an inpatient admission immediately following the emergency 

room visit. The 730 sample cases were then compared to the MADRS data. In order to 

allow for delays in billing information and billing errors, we decided that any outpatient 

department bill with a date of service within three days of the ER physician’s bill was a 

valid match. This comparison reduced the sample to 452 cases which had a matching 

outpatient department bill within three days of the emergency department service. These 

452 cases constituted the study sample. 

We then requested medical records from the 311 hospitals where the x-rays were taken 

and received 404 records, for an 89 percent response rate. We did not include 48 of the 

3 
404 records in the study because either the records were incomplete (12) or the ER 

patients (36) had been admitted as inpatients. Hospitals also provided the medical 

specialty of the attending ER physician for the sample cases. 

We abstracted and reviewed data from the remaining 356 medical records. This review 

included the frequency of patients recalled to the hospital based on radiologists’ 

reinterpretations of x-rays and whether subsequent evaluations resulted in changes in 

patients’ courses of treatment. 

In a separate data collection activity, nine States with the largest number of OPD x-ray 

interpretations were identified. A purposive sample of 18 hospitals (two in each State) 

based on bed size was selected and their ER and radiology department directors were 

interviewed by telephone. Our discussions in November and December 1991 focused on 

(1) how often radiologists interpret x-rays before patients are discharged and how often 

after discharge, and (2) the frequency of recalling discharged patients for further 

evaluation based on these delayed reinterpretations by radiologists. 

We wrote to the American College of Radiology and the American College of Emergency 

Physicians, asking them to designate someone who could provide their views on the 

respective roles of ER and radiology departments in interpretation of ER x-rays. Neither 

organization designated a spokesperson, but they did provide their written positions. 

Lastly, discussions were held with directors of five programs offering residency training 

in Emergency Medicine and with representatives of national accreditation organizations for 

Internal Medicine and Family Practice specialties, regarding training in x-ray 

interpretations in residency programs. 

4 
FINDINGS 

X-RAY REINTERPRETATIONS BY RADIOLOGISTS DID NOT CHANGE 

PRESCRIBED TREATMENTS BY EMERGENCY ROOM PHYSICIANS 

All Instances Where Patients Were Clearly Discharged Before Reinterpretah”onDo Not 

Appear To Constitute P~”ent Care 

We identified 158 cases where medical records clearly indicate that radiologists 

reinterpreted x-rays after patients were discharged. These reinterpretations had no effect 

on the treatments provided by emergency room physicians. The medical records of these 

158 patients (44 percent) in the sample of 356 records, document that the reinterpretations 

of x-rays by radiologists occurred at least one day after patients had been discharged. No 

one among this group was recalled to the hospital, or referred elsewhere, for finther 

evaluation of their condition based upon the reinterpretations by radiologists. 

The experience with these reinterpretations raises questions regarding Medicare’s policy 

assumption that such a reinterpretation “almost always constitutes patient care. ” Our 

analysis is supported by the ER directors at the 18 sample hospitals who estimate that, on 

the average, less than two percent of radiologists’ reinterpretations result in recall of 

patients for further evaluation of the conditions for which they sought care. 

Most Instances Where Patients Were Discharged On The Same Day As The 

Interpretation Were Probably Interpreted After Discharge And Appear Not To Constitute 

Patient Care 

Of the remaining 198 medical records in the sample, only 22 contain clear documentation 

that interpretations by radiologists were made available to the ER physician prior to the 

patient’s discharge. In only one instance, in this group of 198 cases, was there 

documentation that the ER physician had specifically requested an interpretation by a 

radiologist before determining a plan of care; this is the case with all 356 sample records. 

The remaining 176 records indicate either that a radiologist interpreted x-rays on the same 

day of treatment (160), or the date of interpretation was not recorded (16). There is no 

indication whether or not these 176 interpretations occurred before or after the patients 

were discharged. However, the ER directors at the 18 sample hospitals estimate, on the 

average, that three-quarters of all interpretations by radiologists are performed after 

patients are discharged. This suggests that a majority of these 176 interpretations were 

probably performed post-discharge. As was the case with interpretations by radiologists 

clearly documented as having occurred after patients were discharged, no one among this 

group of 176 patients was recalled to the hospital or referred elsewhere. 

5 
MOST PHYSICIANS WHO TREAT PATIENTS IN EMERGENCY ROOMS COME 

FROM THREE MEDICAL SPECIALTIES; THEY RECEIVE TRAINING IN 

INTERPRETING X-RAYS 

Physicians specializing in Emergency Medicine, Internal Medicine and Family Practice 

represent 89 percent of the ER physicians in our sample. The majority of ER physicians 

(68 percent) specialize in Emergency Medicine. Physicians specializing in Internal 

Medicine represent 11 percent of sample cases; those specializing in Family Practice 

represent 10 percent. 

In response to our questions about the training that physicians in these three specialties 

received in x-ray interpretation in residency programs, we learned the following. 

Physicians specializing in Emergency Medicine appear to receive substantial training in 

x-ray interpretation. Directors of five residency programs in Emergency Medicine 

reported that training in interpreting x-rays is an integral part of their residency programs. 

While each program was not structured in the same manner, training characteristically 

consisted of working in the radiology department for about a month, reading x-rays in the 

ER with trained ER physicians and attending didactic lectures on radiology. 

Physicians specializing in Internal Medicine and Family Practice also receive training in 

x-ray interpretation. A representative of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical 

Education indicated that a typical residency in Internal Medicine consists of a three-month 

assignment to the ER in two- to four-week blocks over the course of three years. During 

these periods training in x-ray interpretation is provided by an experienced ER physician. 

A representative of the Board of Family Practice indicated that, while each residency 

program is different, it provides “ample opportunity” to learn to read x-rays. Some 

programs have residents assigned to the radiology department for varying amounts of 

time. 

6 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

In view of our finding that reinterpretations of x-rays by radiologists after patients had 

been discharged from emergency rooms: (1) did not result in the recall of patients; (2) did 

not affect the course of treatment initiated or cause a new course of treatment to begin; 

and (3) did not appear to constitute patient care, HCFA should: 

Pay for reinterpretations of x-rays only when attending physicians specifically 

request a second physician’s interpretation in order to render appropriate 

medical care before the patient is discharged. Any other reinterpretation of 

the attending physician’s original interpretation should be treated and 

reimbursed as part of the hospital’s quality assurance program. The HCFA 

should implement this recommendation through either regulation or by seeking 

legislation as appropriate. 

We project that a minimum of $20.4 million was paid for reinterpretations in 1990 for the 

38 sampled HCPCS codes. Our projection does not take into consideration the apparently 

infrequent instances in which radiologists’ interpretations are specifically requested by the 

treating physician prior to treatment. Nevertheless, we consider this to be a conservative 

estimate due to (1) difficulties in establishing a universe of ER x-ray interpretations by 

radiologists encountered in drawing our sample and (2) to the fact that our projection is 

based on only 38 interpretation codes. It is probable that substantially more dollars are 

involved. During this same period Medicare allowed charges for all outpatient department 

interpretations, including the ER, amounted to $175 million. 

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG RESPONSE 

We received comments on this report from HCFA. We met with HCFA staff to discuss 

their comments and offer additional information. As a result, HCFA agreed to share 

copies of our draft report with members of the Technical Advisory Committee on National 

Coverage Issues which would consider the report’s recommendations at its next quarterly 

meeting. A summary of HCFA’s comments and our response appears below. The 

complete text of HCFA’s comments appears in Appendix A. 

The HCFA suggests that if x-rays were not medically necessary it would be unlikely that 

either the ER physician or the radiologist would have identified any medical problem 

when reading the x-rays. Our review of medical records did not examine the medical 

necessity of x-rays ordered for ER patients. Rather, it focused on whether radiologists’ 

interpretations affected patient care; in no instance did this occur regardless of patients’ 

reasons for seeking medical attention. Our sample consisted of 164 cases (40 percent) 

covering diagnostic procedures of several anatomic sites which normally deal with skeletal 

traumas. The remaining 212 cases (60 percent) were chest x-rays of which 34 represented 

traumas. Regarding non-trauma chest x-rays, we reviewed a subsample of 30 cases. 

7 
Twenty-five patients came to the ER with complaints of chest pain. The remaining five 

patients were seen for conditions other than chest conditions; one could question the 

necessity of these x-rays. 

The HCFAcomrnents state that results of radiologists’ interpretations possibly were 

forwarded to patients’ attending physicians rather than to ER physicians. While this may 

have been the case in some instances, ourreview ofrecords compared radiologists’ 

interpretations with those of ER physicians. The fact that results may have been sent to 

private physicians would not alter our comparative analysis. We found that radiologists’ 

interpretations confirmed those of ER physicians in all cases. 

The HCFA also noted that its current policy is based on three assumptions: (1) 

reinterpretations almost always constitute patient care; (2) radiologists are recognized 

experts, therefore, x-rays should be read by them; and (3) the qualifications of the 

interpreting physician are more important than the exact timing of the interpretation in 

determining whether a substantive physician service has been provided. Our findings 

question all three assumptions and are the basis for our recommendation that a policy 

based on these three assumptions be revised. Based upon our finding that in no case did 

radiologists’ interpretations affect the course of treatment by the ER physician, we 

question whether reinterpretations “almost always constitutes patient care. ” We also 

found that other physician specialists believe they are qualified to interpret x-rays. 

The HCFA notes that our recommendation to limit coverage of radiologists’ 

interpretations to those performed before a patient is discharged would discriminate 

against small- and medium-sized hospitals which do not have radiologists available 24 

hours a day. We cannot respond directly to this concern, as we did not include the 

availability of radiologists in our study. However, we again note that no reinterpretations 

in our random sample resulted in a change in patient care. 

The HCFA points out that it would be difficult to enforce our recommendation on a 

prepayment basis. We note that HCFA has overcome other prepayment difficulties by 

using such techniques as code modifiers and identification of referring physicians for 

certain services in order to make coverage determinations. The HCFA can also enforce 

this policy, as it does many policies, on a post-payment basis using focused medical 

review, 

The HCFA states that our savings estimate appears to assume that Medicare would not 

pay ER physicians separately for interpretations if there were no payment to radiologists. 

This is a correct assumption. Medicare is currently paying for ER physicians’ 

interpretations as part of the total work-up of the patient. 

8 
APPENDIX A 

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT 

A-1 
.... Health Care 

HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHZ?L Financing Admmistfatlon

Memorandum 

Im . w-i “am Toby, Jr. /’ F .

Acting Admkistrato~


Office of Inspector Gene.ml (OIG) Draft Report: “kkdicare’s Reirnbursem@ for


Interpretation of Hospital Emergenq Room X-ram” (OEI-02-8901490)


Bvan B. Mitchell


P*@al Deputy Inspectrx General


We reviewed the draft inspection report which evaluates the appropriateness of 

Medicare reimbursement for radiologists’ interpretations of x-rays which have been 

previously interpreted by hospital emergenq room (ER) physicians. 

OIG recommends that the Health Care Financing Administration (HmA) pay 

for Teinterpretatinns of x-rays only when the ER physician specifically requests a 

second physician’s interpretation in order to render appropriate medical care to the 

patient before discharge. Any other reinterpretation should be treated ad 

reimbursed as part of the hospital’s cpali~ assurance program. 

HCFA defers comment on the recommendation pending OIG clarification of 

several concerns outlined in the attachment. Once this information is provided, we 

will consider presenting OIG’S findings and recommendation to the HCFA Technology 

Advisory Committee for their evaluation and comment. 

Thank ynu for the oppcntuni~ to review and mrnrnent on this report. 

Attachment 

. 

., 

. 

dz?$

Ctmnrnents of the Health Care Financing Administration fF?CFA)


on the Office of Insuector General (OIGl Draft


Audit Reuort: Medicare’s Reimbursement for


Interpretations of HosDital Emereencv Room X-ram


(OEI-02-89-0149Q


Recommendation 1 

HCFA should pay for reinterpretations of x-rays only when attending phyicians 

-W =q~es ~ *ti physician!! interpretation in order to render appmpria$e 

medical care before the patient is discharged. Any other reinterpretation of the 

attending physician’s original interpretation should be treated and reimbursed as part of 

the hospital’s quality assurance program. HCFA should implement this recommendation 

through either regulation or by seeidng legislation as appropriate. 

HCFA Resuonse 

HCFA defers comment on the recommendation pending receipt of DIG dadicztion ~f 

sewzral &cmuems outlined below 

o	 We are concerned about whether all x-rays ordered for ER patients were 

medically necessary. It is not clear fkom the report if OIG considered this 

factor. If the x-rays were not needed, it is not likely that either the ER 

physician or the radiologist would have identified any medical problem 

when reading the x-rays. (See Coverage Issues Manual section 50-28 for 

the medical necessity guidelines that contractors are expected to apply-to 

diagnostic procedures, such as chest x-rays, upon admission to the hospital.) 

o Additionally, it is not clear if OIG examined the possibility that copies of 

radiologists’ written interpretations were forwarded to the patients’ 

attending physicians with offices outside of the hospital (for exarnpl% 

general practice physicians or orthopedists) rather than to the ER 

physicians who initially treated the patient. We understand that many 

hosnitals discourage ER patients from returning to those facilities to 

rec&ve the resulti-of the~ x-rays after they ha~ been discharged and that 

many radiologists send copies of their written interpretations directly to the 

attending physicians rather than the ER physicians. . . 

Upon receipt of this additional information, we will consider presenting OK’S ~dings


and recommendation to the HCFA Technology Advisory Committee for thefi ewduation


and comment.


Prior to the development of the current policy in the Medicare Carrier Manual (MCM)


section 2020G, Medicare paid for the most meaningful x-ray interpretation


that was done for ER patients. The result was an administrative nightmare because of

Page 2 

the various competing Nfedicaw claims for payment and the difficulty in deciding which 

interpretation Setices were reasonable and necessary for the patient. 

Currently, MCM section 2020G provides that “when a hospital radiologist interprets an 

x-ray that has already been interpreted by another physic- that interpretative sewic.e 

almost always constitutes patient care an~ thus, would also qual& as a physician’s 

setice.” The only situations in which a radiologist’s interpretation of an ER x-ray is not 

covered under Medicare is: (1) where the ordering of the x-ray was not medically 

necessary in the first pl~ and [2) where the patient died before & Merpnetation was 

performed. This policy is based on the assumption that it is the radiologist who is the 

recognized medical expert in reading x-rays and that x-rays appropriately ordered for ER 

patients should be read by such experts. In addition, our current policy is based on the 

assumption that the qualifications of the interpreting physician are more important than 

the exact timing of the interpretation in determining whether a substantive physician 

semice has been provided that can be billed separately under the program. 

We see several limitations to OIGS recommendation. If as OIG sugges~ we limit 

coverage of ~adiologists’ x--y interpretation m &e ER &ming to those performed before 

patients are discharged, such practice would discriminate against small- and medium-s= 

hospitals. Such hospitals do not have radiologists available .24 hcmrs a day ~ is the +case 

at large urban hospitals. 

Additionally, we would like to point out that it would be difficult to enforce OIGS 

recommended policy on a prepayment basis since the information required to make 

payment (i.e., whether the interpretation of the x-ray was specifically requested by the 

ER physician) is not captured on the physician’s billing form. Currently, the only way to 

determine whether the ER physician requested the specialist’s reinterpretation is to look 

at the medical records. 

%nilarly, the issue of bundling electrocardiogram interpretations into medical visits was a 

policy change enacted by the OmniiUS Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990. 

Given the controversy about that provision, particularly the disproportionate effects by 

specialty, it is likely to be ?epeal~d by Congress It appears highly doubtful that we 

would have much success in persuading Congress to reenact a similar proposaL 

Lastly, we are concerned with OIG’S savings estimate of $20 million. It appears that this 

projection assumes that Medicare would not pay the ER physicians for interpretations if 

there were no payment to the radiologist. We do not believe that the recommendation 

would achieve this result since it does not appear that OIG has taken into account the 

offsetting costs that would probably result from the demands of ER physicians for higher 

payments for their interpretation sewices. It is highly probable that ER physicians would 

argue that they dese~e separate coverage and payment for their interpretation semkes if 

they, rather than the radiologists, are determined to be legally responsl%le to the 

hospitals and patients (as well as the Medicare program) for providing these sefices. 
APPENDIX B 

PROJECTED SAVINGS FOR 38 SAMPLED HCPCS CODES 

1990 Allowed OPD Amounts 1990 ER Savings 

Carrier-Sample All X-Rays Studied X-Rays Projection 

FLORIDA BS


IOWA BS


MICHIGAN BS


MASS BS FOR NH/VT


PA BS FOR NJ


PENN BS-FIRST


PENN BS-SECOND


EQUITABLE IDAHO


NW OHIO-FIRST


NW OHIO-SECOND


National Total 

$11,023,700 

$1,933,100 

$8,339,200 

$1,162,900 

$5,347,600 

$15,040,300 

$15,040,300 

$477,400 

$9,422,100 

$9,422,100 

$174,953,900 

$4,001,500 $1,344,378 

$391,800 $189,173 

$2,739,600 $973,721 

$219,100 $120,225 

$1,859,800 $592,422 

$4,681,700 $1,734,855 

$4,681,700 $1,515,649 

$129,200 $41,468 

$3,034,800 $1,322,389 

$3,034,800 $1,196,953 

$53,912,000 $20,371,162 

The projected national savings were calculated using standard statistical formulas 

for a two-stage cluster sample and are not the sum of the 10 samples from the 

carriers. 

B-1 
APPENDIX C 

CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR 

SAVINGS PROJECTIONS 

90 % Confidence Interval Precision 

Lower 

Upper 

95 % Confidence Interval Precision 

Lower 

c-1 

$20,371,162 

8.16% 

$18,708,726 

$22,033,599 

9.72% 

$18,390,387