It is essential for providers, clinicians, and other users to understand the importance of providing preventative services. The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) has recommendations and has applied Grade Definitions as a suggested resource to imply the significance and strength of preventative services. The following definitions apply to recommendations voted on after July 2012. The USPSTF states “Determining whether or not the service should be offered or provided to an individual patient will typically require an informed conversation between the clinician and patient.”
Affordable Care Act and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations
Suggestions for Practice
The USPSTF recommends the service.
There is high certainty that the net benefit is substantial. Offer or provide this service.
The USPSTF recommends the service. There is high certainty that the net benefit is moderate or there is moderate certainty that the net benefit is moderate to substantial.
Offer or provide this service.
The USPSTF recommends selectively offering or providing this service to individual patients based on professional judgment and patient preferences. There is at least moderate certainty that the net benefit is small.
Offer or provide this service for selected patients depending on individual circumstances.
The USPSTF recommends against the service. There is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits.
Discourage the use of this service.
The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of the service. Evidence is lacking, of poor quality, or conflicting, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined.
Read the clinical considerations section of USPSTF Recommendation Statement. If the service is offered, patients should understand the uncertainty about the balance of benefits and harms.
Levels of Certainty Regarding Net Benefit (Per USPSTF)
Level of Certainty*
The available evidence usually includes consistent results from well-designed, well-conducted studies in representative primary care populations. These studies assess the effects of the preventive service on health outcomes. This conclusion is therefore unlikely to be strongly affected by the results of future studies.
The available evidence is sufficient to determine the effects of the preventive service on health outcomes, but confidence in the estimate is constrained by such factors as:
The number, size, or quality of individual studies.
Inconsistency of findings across individual studies.
Limited generalizability of findings to routine primary care practice.
Lack of coherence in the chain of evidence.
As more information becomes available, the magnitude or direction of the observed effect could change, and this change may be large enough to alter the conclusion.
The available evidence is insufficient to assess effects on health outcomes. Evidence is insufficient because of:
The limited number or size of studies.
Important flaws in study design or methods.
An inconsistency of findings across individual studies.
Gaps in the chain of evidence.
Findings not generalizable to routine primary care practice.
(or Lack of information on important health outcomes)
More information may allow estimation of effects on health outcomes.
If you have questions or comments about this article please contact us. Comments that provide additional related information may be added here by our Editors.
Stay Ahead of your CEUs in 2019Get the latest webinars and earn over 24 CEUs each year included with your BC Advantage Magazine subscription.
Latest Webinar: Scanning the Unscannable: Improving Patient Flow in MRI
Presenter: Wendy Stirnkorb, President & CEO Stirnkorb Consulting, LLC
Time: 46 Minutes Cost: $0.00 to all BC Advantage Magazine Subscribers CEUs: 1.0 On-demand: Watch 24/7 from work or ...
Beginning January 1st, 2019 all of our RHC and FQHC organizations have a new CPT code to
consider implementing for their Medicare populous (check per Advantage Plan Administration for coverage). In its current form, this code is not reportable by organizations not meeting the RHC/FQHC designation.
The code isG0071 and is termed ...
If your practice performs a lot of fine needle aspirations (FNA), you probably have the code options memorized (10021 without image guidance and 10022 with image guidance). However, the 2019 CPT codes now include nine (9) new FNA codes (10004-10012), one deleted FNA code (10022) and one revised FNA code ...
Dry Needling January 3rd, 2019 - Wyn Staheli, Director of Research
The correct coding of dry needling, also known as trigger point needling, has been a subject of confusion for quite some time. The American Chiropractic Association (ACA) and the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) have been working together for several years to obtain appropriate codes to describe this service. In ...
The new year is upon us and so it’s time to double check and make sure we are ready. Those with Premium Membership can use the ChiroCode Online Library and search all the official code sets: ICD-10-CM, CPT, and HCPCS. It also includes the updated NCCI edits and RVUs for ...
Many articles have been published regarding the 2019 proposed Evaluation and Management coding changes but hopefully, you have taken the time to review those in detail and be ready for them. If not, here is a link to a Find-A-Code article written by Wyn Staheli (Director of Research) entitled, “Are You Ready ...
CMS recently announced that the quality measures for 2019 have been finalized. There are new eligible clinicians so be aware of how that may affect your organization. New ECs are:
Qualified speech-language pathologists
Registered dietitian or nutrition professionals
The following are changes to Electronic Clinical Quality Measures (eCQMs) available ...