Rising high-acuity emergency care services independently billed by advanced practice providers, 2013 to 2019.

BACKGROUND

Advanced practice providers (APPs) comprise an increasing proportion of the emergency medicine (EM) workforce, particularly in rural geographies. With little known regarding potential expanding practice patterns, we sought to evaluate trends in independent emergency care services billed by APPs from 2013 to 2019.

METHODS

We performed a repeated cross-sectional analysis of emergency clinicians independently reimbursed for at least 50 evaluation and management (E/M) services (99281-99285, 99291) from Medicare Part B, with high-acuity services including Codes 99285 and 99291. We describe the outcome proportion of E/M services by acuity level and report at (1) the encounter level and (2) at the clinician level. We stratified analyses by clinician type and geography.

RESULTS

A total of 47,323 EM physicians, 10,555 non-EM physicians, and 26,599 APPs were included in analyses. APPs billed emergency care services independently for 5.1% (rural 7.3%, urban 4.8%) of all high-acuity encounters in 2013, increasing to 9.7% (rural 16.4%, urban 8.8%) by 2019. At the clinician level, in 2013, the average rural-practicing APP independently billed 22.8% of services as high acuity, 72.6% as moderate acuity, and 4.5% as low acuity. By 2019, the average rural-practicing APP independently billed 36.2% of services as high acuity, representing a +58.8% relative increase from 2013. Relative increases in high-acuity visits independently billed by APPs were substantially greater when compared to EM physicians across both rural and urban geographies.

CONCLUSIONS

In 2019, APPs billed independent services for approximately one in six high-acuity ED encounters in rural geographies and one in 11 high-acuity ED encounters in urban geographies, and well over one-third of the average APPs' encounters were for high-acuity E/M services. Given differences in training and reimbursement between clinician types, these estimates suggest further work is needed evaluating emergency care staffing decision making.