Home>Newsletters>August 2003>Practice Management
 
ASA NEWSLETTER
 
 
August 2003
Volume 67
Number 8

Practice Management


Fees Paid for Anesthesia Services: 2003 Survey Results


Karin Bierstein, J.D.
Assistant Director of Governmental Affairs (Regulatory)



This article is available for download in PDF format

ASA’s fourth biannual survey of anesthesia fees paid by private insurance carriers shows a significant increase. The difference between this year’s conversion factors (CFs) and those of 2001 is roughly 10 percent. According to early 2003 data supplied by 133 anesthesia practices around the country, commercial payments per unit or CFs range between $49.19 and $52.30. The weighted average CF is $50.55.

In each of the four surveys, we have asked the respondents for the CFs actually paid by each of their three highest-volume private (nongovernmental) carriers. We thus have data for up to three times as many payer contracts as we do respondents. Table 1 shows the results for 1997, 1999, 2001 and 2003. As explained in the report on the 2001 survey, published in the September 2001 NEWSLETTER, 25th and 75th percentile data were only calculated beginning that year. The lowest commercial CF reported has increased from $22.68 in 1997 to $26 in 2003 (14.6 percent), and the highest commercial unit payment now stands at $105, up 35 percent from $78.


State and Regional Conversion Factors
Table 2 contains the average, maximum, minimum and quartile values for 11 individual states. Regional data, broken down into five geographic areas, appear in Table 3. We present the results in this manner in order to come within the antitrust safety zone established by the Department of Justice/Federal Trade Commission for fee survey information: the government will not prosecute if 1) the data collection is managed by a third party, e.g., ASA; 2) the information is more than three months old; and 3) there are at least five providers reporting data upon which each statistic is based with no individual provider’s data representing more than 25 percent on a weighted basis of that statistic. Only the 11 states in Table 2 yielded at least five usable responses; geographic aggregates were necessary in order to publish subnational values for the other states.



In 2001, eight states produced more than the requisite five survey responses. Although the number of respondents increased only by about 11 percent, from 120 to 133, five states joined the list (Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio and Virginia). Two (Alabama and Oregon) dropped off.

New Jersey reported the single highest average CF, $80.45. The New Jersey maximum was $105, which was also the highest CF reported in New York. The wide range of CFs in New Jersey suggests that proximity to Manhattan makes a significant difference. Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia generated the lowest sets of CFs. California continues its tradition of relatively low payments, with averages in the $44 range. Georgia shows slightly lower CFs than in 2001, which reflects the change in adjusting for shorter time units rather than any actual decrease (see “Methodology” below).

The rank order of the five geographic regions has not changed over the last two years. The Northeast (including Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont) maintains its standing as the region with the highest average CFs ($51-$59.33). These areas follow, in descending order:
South: (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia);
Midwest: (Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma);
Northwest: (Alaska, Oregon, Washington);
West: (California, New Mexico, Nevada).

Methodology
This year, we made two changes to the survey, one to its composition and the other to the data analysis. First, we have eliminated questions regarding capitation rates. The numbers of responses yielded by the earlier surveys were too small to be meaningful.

We improved the mathematical model for normalizing CFs that applied to 10- or 12-minute units as opposed to the more common 15-minute unit. The math involves multiplying the CF by a factor that adjusts for the shorter time unit. A Committee on Economics member advised that average factors would be about 1.3 for a CF based on a 10-minute unit, and 1.1 for a CF based on a 12-minute unit. The average factors for any individual anesthesia practice may vary. Groups negotiating a CF with a payer that insists on 15-minute units, when the group typically uses a shorter time unit, should calculate the factors for each of their 10 (at least) most frequently performed procedures and use the resulting average factor. The examples in Figure 1 demonstrate the computation.



Source Material:
• 2003 ASA Fee Survey Questionnaire <www.ASAhq.org/Newsletters/2003/08_03/2003feesurvey.pdf>.
• Fees Paid for Anesthesia Services: 2001 Survey Results <www.ASAhq.org/Newsletters/2001/09_01/pm0901.htm>.






return to top


 

FEATURES

Pain Medicine


ARTICLES

DEPARTMENTS


The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views, policies or actions of the American Society of Anesthesiologists.

NL Archives

Information for Authors