ArticleJAMA health forum2025
Quantifying Indirect Billing Within the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule.
Article in JAMA health forum, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reclassifying Primary Care: A Decision Tree Approach to Improving Workforce Estimates and Research Using Claims Data.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- The cost of indirect billing for traditional Medicare beneficiaries.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Under certain circumstances, advance practice clinicians (APCs), such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners, can bill Medicare directly or indirectly (ie, incident to the services of a physician). With indirect billing, the submitted claim states the care was provided by the physician, and the reimbursement is higher. Objective: To quantify volume and spending on office-based encounters billed indirectly in the Medicare program. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used Medicare fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage claims data to identify indirectly billed APC services. To do so, office-based Medicare Part B claims (ie, clinician services) were linked to Part D claims for prescription drug fills. Because the latter contains the prescribing clinician's unique identifier, this linkage distinguished between directly and indirectly billed services provided by APCs. In this way, the fraction of encounters and component services billed indirectly by APCs and physicians were quantified. Main Outcomes and Measures: Share of fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage office encounters provided by APCs and billed indirectly. Share of a physician's billed claims actually provided by an APC and billed indirectly. Results: In 2022, of all office encounters provided by an APC, 38.9% were billed indirectly. Conversely, for the median physician in 2022, indirect billing on behalf of APCs represented 11.1% of all billed encounters. Billing for care delivered by APCs was most common among surgical specialists (29.7% of encounters) and least common for primary care physicians (3.9%). If all indirectly billed APC-provided care was billed directly by the APC, Medicare would have saved $270 million in 2022. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study suggest that APCs provide a substantial fraction of office-based care received by Medicare beneficiaries. Identifying indirectly billed APC-provided care is integral to understanding who serves Medicare beneficiaries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.