A survey of clinical productivity and current procedural terminology (CPT) coding patterns of pediatric hematologist/oncologists

Abstract

Subspecialty-specific normative values for clinical productivity of practicing pediatric hematologist/oncologists have not been well established. This information could be a useful adjunct in administrative decision-making in areas such as necessary levels of physician staffing and development of compensation plans. Current procedural terminology (CPT) coding information was obtained from 27 pediatric hematology/oncology groups. Clinical productivity was assessed by overall number of patient encounters and the total number of physician work relative value units (RVU) as defined by the resource-based relative value scale. The average physician productivity within each individual program was calculated. To determine uniformity of CPT coding, an additional survey solicited mock patient encounter documentation and CPT coding for a simple clinical vignette. A broad range of clinical productivity was observed for both numbers of patient encounters and RVU. Evaluation of the CPT coding data of the surveyed groups revealed differences in usage of certain evaluation and management (E/M) codes and procedural and specimen interpretation codes. Within individual categories of E/M service codes, a wide variation in assigned CPT code levels was also observed. This observation was supported by differences in the E/M coding for the clinical vignette. Assessment and tracking of physician productivity can provide useful information for the administrative management of pediatric hematology/oncology programs. Caution must be exercised, however, when making productivity comparisons with other subspecialties or even between pediatric hematology/oncology programs. Such comparisons should take into account the number of patient encounters, characteristics of E/M coding patterns, the use of physician extenders, as well as overall RVU production.