Premium
An analysis of RUC methodology for determining the RVU valuation of sinus surgery
Author(s) -
Smith Kristine A.,
Oakley Gretchen,
Alt Jeremiah A.,
Orlandi Richard R.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
international forum of allergy and rhinology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.503
H-Index - 46
eISSN - 2042-6984
pISSN - 2042-6976
DOI - 10.1002/alr.22283
Subject(s) - medicine , current procedural terminology , reimbursement , resource based relative value scale , generalizability theory , surgery , health care , statistics , economic growth , mathematics , economics
Background The Relative Value Scale Update Committee, commonly known as the RUC, is responsible for defining the value of Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. The RUC process uses survey responses reporting operative times to determine procedure reimbursement, but it is limited by low response rates, small sample sizes, and unclear generalizability of the results. By comparing actual reported intraoperative times to the times determined by the RUC process, in this study we sought to assess the performance of RUC methodology in endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). Methods The ESS CPT codes that were reassessed in 2016 using the RUC method were examined in this study. Intraoperative time data for these codes were retrospectively collected from 14 medical facilities, using time stamps in the electronic health record. These actual intraoperative times were compared with the 2016 RUC survey results. Results There were 143 RUC physician survey responses and 446 actual procedure times included in the final analysis. There was significant variability within the RUC survey responses (ie, unilateral anterior ethmoidectomy times varied from 5 to 90 minutes). There was also a significant difference between the RUC survey results and actual intraoperative times ( p < 0.001). For example, frontal sinus surgeries showed a particularly poor correlation between actual and RUC times. Conclusion The RUC process may not accurately estimate or value actual intraoperative times. Real‐world intraoperative times are readily accessible and may be an alternative to survey‐based methodology in the future.