Medicare Remote Patient Monitoring: CMS Allows “Incident to” Billing

14 March 2019 Health Care Law Today Blog
Authors: Nathaniel M. Lacktman

CMS just announced a clarification that remote patient monitoring under CPT code 99457 may be furnished by auxiliary personnel, “incident to” the billing practitioner’s professional services.  An “incident to” service is one that is performed under the supervision of a physician (broadly defined), and billed to Medicare in the name of the physician, subject to certain requirements, one of which is discussed below.  The announcement came in a technical correction issued March 14, 2019 and is effective immediately.  This is a highly-anticipated change among remote patient monitoring companies, as we discussed in greater detail in our previous coverage.

The newest code for remote patient monitoring, CPT code 99457, went live in January 2019.  It offers Medicare reimbursement for “Remote physiologic monitoring treatment management services, 20 minutes or more of clinical staff/physician/other qualified healthcare professional time in a calendar month requiring interactive communication with the patient/caregiver during the month.”

When the final rule for the 2019 Physician Fee Schedule was published in November 2018, CMS stated that CPT code 99457 describes professional time and “therefore cannot be furnished by auxiliary personnel incident to a practitioner’s professional services.”   With this technical correction, CMS deleted that sentence, instead replacing it with: “We thank commenters and confirm that these services may be furnished by auxiliary personnel incident to a practitioner’s professional service.”  This is a welcome revision long-awaited by telehealth providers.

The change now allows RPM services to better mirror Chronic Care Management (CCM) services (CPT code 99487, 99489, and 99490).  However, the default rule for incident to billing under Medicare requires direct supervision, not general supervision.  Direct supervision means the physician and auxiliary personnel must be in the same building at the same time (albeit not the same room).  In contrast, general supervision does not require the physician and auxiliary personnel to be in the same building at the same time, and the physician could instead use telemedicine to exert general supervision over the auxiliary personnel.

For CCM Services, CMS created a regulatory exception allowing “incident to” billing under general supervision.  Unfortunately, the recent technical correction for RPM does not state that CPT code 99457 can be delivered under general supervision.  Indeed, CMS has not revised the RPM regulations to allow an exception to the default requirement of direct supervision.  While the correction is good news for providers and patients, changing the RPM rules to expressly allow incident to billing of CPT code 99457 under general supervision will make a huge difference in operations and business models, thereby allowing more patients to enjoy the quality-improving benefits of remote patient monitoring.

Providers and technology companies seeking a change to allow general supervision should consider submitting comments to CMS on this topic once the 2020 Physician Fee Schedule proposed rule is issued (typically the beginning of July).  We will continue to track these rules and changes as they develop.

Want to learn more?

Join a deeper discussion of remote patient monitoring and regulatory issues at the American Telemedicine Association’s 2019 Annual Conference and Expo in New Orleans on April 14-16, 2019.  Read the current program agenda and register here.

For more information on telemedicine, telehealth, virtual care, remote patient monitoring, digital health, and other health innovations, including the team, publications, and representative experience, visit Foley’s Telemedicine & Digital Health Industry Team.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights