ArticleThe Permanente journal2025
Physician Billing for Advance Care Planning Among Medicare Fee-For-Service Beneficiaries, 2016-2021.
Article in The Permanente journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services started reimbursing practitioners for their time spent providing advance care planning (ACP) with patients. This study assessed utilization of this policy by examining trends in ACP billing across medical specialties from 2016 to 2021 and differences in ACP service volume by metropolitan status.
methodsThe authors analyzed Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment files (2016-2021) from 6 specialty groups using corresponding Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes to derive trends in the percentage of practitioners billing any ACP visit. Wilcoxon tests were conducted to compare the average number of visits by metropolitan status.
resultsThe percentage of practitioners billing ACP visits tripled from 1.76% in 2016 to 4.56% in 2021, with the highest percentage among hospice and palliative medicine practitioners (36.94%) in 2021. ACP service volume was similar by metropolitan status for hospice and palliative medicine, but it was higher in nonmetropolitan regions for cancer-related specialties, non-cancer terminal disease specialties, and primary and geriatrics care. DISCUSSION: This nationwide analysis showed low adoption of ACP billing by 2021, and it varied widely across specialties. This may reflect practical challenges of ACP related to comfort level with ACP discussion and documentation burden among the professional communities.
conclusionDespite an overall increase in the proportion of physicians billing ACP codes from 2016 to 2021, adoption remained low. Efforts are needed to address barriers to ACP and provide goal-concordant care to patients.
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.