The PFS proposal also includes a signature requirement.
Last week, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued the proposed 2022 Physician Fee Schedule. It is merely a proposal, with the final rule to be adopted sometime in late October through early December. As we suspected, there is a proposal to incorporate shared visits into the federal regulations, and in this article I am going to focus on it. Historically, shared visits existed only in the manuals. In early May, CMS withdrew that language, because only items contained in a statute, regulation, or National Coverage Determination (NCD) are binding.
The proposal presents a revisionist history of the old manual provision. The deleted manual language, which was found at Medical Claims Processing Manual Chapter 12, Section 30.6.1, said that a shared visit was possible when the physician “provides any face-to-face portion of the E&M encounter with the patient.” The preamble to the proposed regulation implies that the old policy was that the physician had to provide a “substantive portion” of the visit. That is simply untrue. There was a discussion about “substantive portions,” but it appeared in 30.6.13, a section about nursing facility services, in a discussion about how shared visits are not covered. I went years without knowing that the discussion in 30.6.13 existed, and for good reason. If you are trying to find out how shared visits in the hospital work, and there is a section that defines “shared visits,” you would end your research after reading it. You wouldn’t continue to pore over the Manual looking for additional sections, and you certainly wouldn’t devote any time to reading a section discussing visits in skilled nursing facilities, particularly when that section opens by declaring that shared visits can’t be covered in that setting.
Under the now-deleted Manual language, if the physician walked in and said, “how are you doing?” to the patient, thereby obtaining some history from the patient, it was appropriate for the physician to bill a shared visit. That is similar to the operation of the “incident to” policy. When billing “incident to,” when the physician and non-physician practitioner both see the patient on the same day, that is sufficient to allow the physician to bill. There is no expectation that the physician spend the most time with the patient.
However, the proposed regulation includes precisely that requirement; under the proposal, whoever records the most time on the visit will bill. This is a terrible idea. An experienced cardiologist can offer a ton of meaningful advice quite quickly. Wisdom and time are different. Under the proposal, if a physician has a 20-minute conversation with the patient and an NP, but then leaves the room, and the NP spends one additional one minute with the patient, the physician is not allowed to bill at all. Under the proposal, the total time of 41 minutes spent by the two professionals would be compensated as 21 minutes of NP time. That is not a fair result. The proposal would create a bizarre irony: the more complicated the patient, with the more time the two professionals devote, the more uncompensated care professionals are providing.
The proposal also contains an explicit requirement that the billing professional sign the entry. Historically, there has not been a signature requirement for Medicare encounters. In short, the proposal makes things much worse than they were before. Under a proposed rule you get time to comment, and comment we should. Just like Billy Joel, I don’t want to see you let a good thing slip away. Here’s good information from a man who’s made mistakes. Reach out to CMS and tell her about it.
Programming Note: Listen to healthcare attorney David Glaser’s Risky Business segment Mondays on Monitor Mondays, 10 Eastern.
As the federal government shutdown drags on, an alarming message began circulating across the healthcare community: “physicians won’t get paid until the government reopens.” The
If you employ licensed professionals, it is nearly inevitable that at some point, one of those individuals will fail to properly renew their license. It
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
Denials continue to delay reimbursement, increase administrative burden, and threaten financial stability across healthcare organizations. This essential webcast tackles the root causes—rising payer scrutiny, fragmented workflows, inconsistent documentation, and underused analytics—and offers proven, data-driven strategies to prevent and overturn denials. Attendees will gain practical tools to strengthen documentation and coding accuracy, engage clinicians effectively, and leverage predictive analytics and AI to identify risks before they impact revenue. Through real-world case examples and actionable guidance, this session empowers coding, CDI, and revenue cycle professionals to shift from reactive appeals to proactive denial prevention and revenue protection.
Sepsis remains one of the most frequently denied and contested diagnoses, creating costly revenue loss and compliance risks. In this webcast, Angela Comfort, DBA, MBA, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, provides practical, real-world strategies to align documentation with coding guidelines, reconcile Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 definitions, and apply compliant queries. You’ll learn how to identify and address documentation gaps, strengthen provider engagement, and defend diagnoses against payer scrutiny—equipping you to protect reimbursement, improve SOI/ROM capture, and reduce audit vulnerability in this high-risk area.
Only ICD10monitor delivers what you need: updates on must-know changes associated with the FY26 IPPS, including new ICD-10-CM/PCS codes, CCs/MCCs, and MS-DRGs, plus insights, analysis and answers to your questions from two of the country’s most respected subject matter experts.
This third session in our 2026 IPPS Masterclass will feature a review of FY26 changes to the MS-DRG methodology and new technology add-on payments (NTAPs), presented by nationally recognized ICD-10 coding expert Christine Geiger, MA, RHIA, CCS, CRC, with bonus insights and analysis from Dr. James Kennedy.
Federal auditors are zeroing in on Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) and hospital rehab unit services, with OIG and CERT audits leading to millions in penalties—often due to documentation and administrative errors, not quality of care. Join compliance expert Michael Calahan, PA, MBA, to learn the five clinical “pillars” of IRF-PPS admissions, key documentation requirements, and real-life case lessons to help protect your revenue.
During this essential RACmonitor webcast Michael Calahan, PA, MBA Certified Compliance Officer, will clarify the rules, dispel common misconceptions, and equip you with practical strategies to code, document, and bill high-risk split/shared, incident-to & critical care E/M services with confidence. Don’t let audit risks or revenue losses catch your organization off guard — learn exactly what federal auditors are looking for and how to ensure your documentation and reporting stand up to scrutiny.
Learn how to navigate the proposed elimination of the Inpatient-Only list. Gain strategies to assess admission status, avoid denials, protect compliance, and address impacts across Medicare and non-Medicare payors. Essential insights for hospitals.
RACmonitor is proud to welcome back Dr. Ronald Hirsch, one of his most requested webcasts. In this highly anticipated session, Dr. Hirsch will break down the complex Two Midnight Rule Medicare regulations, translating them into clear, actionable guidance. He’ll walk you through the basics of the rule, offer expert interpretation, and apply the rule to real-world clinical scenarios—so you leave with greater clarity, confidence, and the tools to ensure compliance.
Happy National Doctor’s Day! Learn how to get a complimentary webcast on ‘Decoding Social Admissions’ as a token of our heartfelt appreciation! Click here to learn more →
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 2 with code CYBER24
