The American Medical Association (AMA) is moving ahead with a review that could affect how doctors are paid for providing certain non-opioid pain treatments, according to documents reviewed by the Washington Reporter, as lawmakers press the group for more transparency.

The dispute centers on medical billing codes used for certain treatments for chronic pain. The AMA created a work group last year to review the codes and determine whether changes are needed.

The Reporter reported in April that the AMA declined to identify the doctors serving on the workgroup.

Their names are now included in an AMA work plan published on the association’s website.

The Reporter asked AMA for its conflict of interest policy for doctors serving on the workgroup, and specifically whether doctors on the workgroup could also be receiving some compensation from companies impacted by the group’s recommendations, but the AMA did not respond.

The work plan does not appear to list individual conflict-of-interest disclosures or recusals for the members.

The AMA has drawn scrutiny on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R., Tenn.), a pharmacist and vice chair of the House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee, pressed the AMA for more information about the review earlier this summer.

Harshbarger said she wants a coding process that “places the interests of patients and physicians ahead of competing commercial considerations.”

The AMA’s broader control of the medical billing code system has also drawn scrutiny from Senate HELP Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy (R., La.).

“The federal government mandated the use of CPT codes,” Cassidy previously said. “There may be nothing wrong here, but we should get answers to make sure the CPT system is working for the American patient and for the American health care system.”

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R., Ky.) has separately asked the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) about the federal government’s reliance on the AMA’s coding system, which the Reporter previously covered.

The AMA has pushed back on criticism of its coding system, saying stakeholders have opportunities to participate in the process and disputing claims that its licensing fees increase health care costs.

The AMA’s CPT Editorial Panel is scheduled to consider the neurostimulator issue this month.