The Medication Access and Training Expansion (MATE) Act was passed by Congress as part of the Omnibus Bill of 2022. The MATE Act mandates a new one-time, eight-hour training requirement on the treatment and management of patients with opioid or other substance use disorders for all Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)-registered practitioners (other than practitioners who are solely veterinarians) who prescribe schedule II, III, IV, or V drugs.

We continue to receive questions from podiatry practices regarding the use of and billing for amniotic fluid injections for musculoskeletal purposes. We recently published an article, “Caveat Emptor Vendor: Skin Substitutes & Injectable Amniotic Fluid” that details some real-life examples of the risk providers incur if they fail to do proper due diligence in these situations. In the article below, we continue the conversation around amniotic fluid injections by answering three of the most asked questions so you can make informed decisions at your practice.

In the past year, we have seen a dramatic uptick in audits and overpayment claw backs involving two high-dollar products: skin substitutes for wound care and injectable amniotic fluid used for musculoskeletal conditions. While there is no question that these products work, practitioners are often guilty of listening uncritically to sales pitches by vendors who promise high reimbursement and certain payer coverage. Failure to conduct due diligence on these products puts providers at high financial risk because of the substantial cash outlay required to purchase the products, typically upfront.

Background: Big Changes from 2021
The Evaluation and Management (E/M) codes have been based on the 1995 and 1997 E/M Guidelines for what seemed like forever. The E/M codes were based upon three key components: 1) the history, 2) the examination, and 3) medical decision making all performed at the proper levels. On January 1, 2021, everything changed. The changes were specific to Evaluation and Management services that were performed in the office or other outpatient places of service only. Clinicians are now able to use either time or medical decision making to select an E/M code. There is no required level of history or examination for the E/M codes.

Now: Highlights for 2023
On January 1, 2023, the changes that were made to E/M services that were performed in the office or other outpatient places of service were expanded to the other places of service. The E/M codes include a medically appropriate history and/or examination, when performed. The nature and extent of the history and/or physical examination are determined by the treating physician or other qualified health care professional reporting the service. The care team may collect information, and the patient or the patient caregiver may supply information directly (e.g., by electronic health record HERR) portal or questionnaire that is reviewed by the reporting physician or other qualified health care professional. The extent of history and physical examination is not an element in the selection of the level of these E/M codes.

Time is defined as total time spent, including non-face-to-face work done on that day and no longer requires time to be dominated by counseling. It includes time regardless of the location of the physician or other qualified health care professional (e.g., whether on or off the inpatient unit or in or out of the outpatient office). It does not include time spent in the performance of other separately reported service(s).

The definitions of medical decision making (MDM) are the same as the definitions of medical decision making that went into effect for office and other outpatient places of service on January 1, 2021.

We recently received two questions regarding electronic health records (EHR) or electronic medical records (EMR) and thought we’d share the answers in case you’ve asked yourself these questions too. Here they are: