Letters

Providers or physicians?

To the Editor:

Providers? I thought we were physicians.

"The Emergence of Consumer-Driven Health Care" [January 2000, page 46], by Norman Vinn, DO, is a good article, and I strongly believe that market-driven health care will benefit both patients and physicians. I was distracted, however, by the author's repeated use of the word "provider" where I assumed he was talking about physicians.

Proliferation of that word is part of a managed care strategy to place nurse practitioners, physician assistants, optometrists and other nonphysician groups in the same class as physicians. It's AMA and AAFP policy not to use the word "provider" when referring to physicians, and I hope this is taken into account in future AAFP-sponsored literature.

Douglas L. Schulz, MD
San Diego, Calif.

Author's response:

I was in no way trying to suggest that physicians and nonphysicians are equal in their training or skills. Rather, the point of the article was that anyone who provides patient care -- family physicians, other specialists and midlevel providers -- should be focusing on service excellence.

Norman E. Vinn, DO
San Diego, Calif.

The purpose of progress notes

To the Editor:

I have a fundamental difference of opinion with the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) regarding coding and office/progress notes. [See "Sneak Preview of the (Revised) Revised E/M Documentation Guidelines," September 1999, page 43.]

Office notes are maintained as evidence of what we have done in a patient encounter, and they serve two general purposes: to remind us of the patient's clinical problems and treatment plans, and to help us communicate with colleagues about the care we have rendered.

The progress note is by no means the entire record of the visit. It is simply a snapshot of what transpired. For lack of time, many routine and normal findings are not recorded. In addition, because our job is to find the problem, not what is normal, we chart largely by exception. When we perform a physical on an established patient, it is a waste of time and chart space to record the family history for the fifth time or to go through the entire review of systems.

HCFA's bullet-counting system has twisted what should be a clinical document into an economic document, which physicians try to "fluff up" to achieve higher visit levels. The clinical effects of this are a loss of esteem for the writer of those notes and incredibly poor communication -- but great documentation for the bean counters.

Peter J. Gates, MD
Ledyard, Conn.

Response:

I agree that the 1997 "Documentation Guidelines for Evaluation and Management Services" are unnecessarily onerous for patient visits. That's why the CPT Editorial Panel has submitted a "new framework" to HCFA that would greatly simplify these guidelines. Like it or not, such guidelines are required to justify reimbursement for each visit.

I disagree, however, with the assertion that the medical record is not a reflection of the complete patient visit. In addition to being a clinical document, the medical record is also a legal document, and thus all pertinent positive and negative findings of the history and exam should be clearly documented. Remember: If it is not documented, it did not occur.

It's also important to remember that the documentation guidelines do not require the re-documentation of history and exam elements that have not changed; a reference to the previous recording of this information is adequate. And if you use the proper CPT code for preventive medicine visits, the documentation guidelines don't even apply!

While the current guidelines do need to be revised for easier clinical application, I believe that carefully applied guidelines can empower family physicians to code appropriately at higher levels of service for work we always do but usually do not record.

Douglas E. Henley, MD
Vice chair, AMA CPT Editorial Panel
Fayetteville, N.C.

DOPC study

To the Editor:

I was glad to hear about the Direct Observation of Primary Care (DOPC) study and its findings on over- and undercoding ["Identifying Patterns of Over- and Undercoding," November/December 1999, page 12]. We need this feedback to do a better and more "honestly accurate" job of coding. Keep sharing this information with us in the field!

Jon M. Bylander, MD
St. Cloud, Minn.

Editor's note:

See page 47 for the fifth article in our series on the DOPC.

Copyright © 2000 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact fpmserv@aafp.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.