12.30.08
Posted in Uncategorized at 1:01 am by chicken
With Congress heading back to Washington, D.C., and President-elect Obama set to be inaugurated, Chuck Hofmann, MD, a general internist in Baker City, Ore., is keeping a close eye on an issue that promises to make or break his practice: repairing the Medicare pay system.
Dr. Hofmann runs a solo practice with 3,300 patients -- 60% on Medicare. A few years ago he sought and received a rural health clinic designation, which enabled him to stay in business after two physicians left the practice and he couldn't replace them.
Any payment advantage he receives as a rural health clinic would be wiped out if the estimated 21% Medicare cut takes effect Jan. 1, 2010. "It would put us out of business," Dr. Hofmann said. "You can't take a system that runs as leanly as [Medicare] runs now and ... then put 20% cuts on it."
Dr. Hofmann's story is a familiar one to physicians and has resonated with lawmakers. Every year since 2002, Congress has applied temporary patches to stop the cuts and implement small pay updates or freezes.
But 2009 promises to be an unusual year. An 18-month patch, which passed in July 2008 after an override of a presidential veto, provided slightly more time to consider longer-term reforms. Issue fatigue, a new political landscape and a new appetite for comprehensive health reform also are factors that may increase the odds of a more permanent fix.
Unless Congress acts, physicians will see a 21% Medicare pay cut in 2010.
"There's a big club saying we have got to do something," said Gail Wilensky, PhD, a former Medicare chief who now is a senior fellow at Project Hope. "Congress is clearly getting tired of these short-term patches. They're making them even more onerous in terms of what happens when they wear off, which presumably indicates, among other things, their strong desire to move to a new system."
Whether Congress has the time or willpower to approve a permanent solution by the 2010 deadline remains to be seen.
The sustainable growth rate formula sets a target volume for physician services; if actual spending exceeds the target in a given year, payments are cut in subsequent years. Although Congress has approved numerous patches to prevent cuts from taking place, the spending target has not been reset. So when each patch ends, the system acts as if it had never occurred. Thus, a 21% cut is expected in January 2010.
The SGR formula and the failure of Congress to reset it has created as much as a $300 billion gap over 10 years between what physicians are projected to be paid and how much their costs are expected to increase, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Future cuts set up by the temporary patches are making it increasingly expensive for Congress to put off approving a permanent fix, said Mark McClellan, MD, a former Medicare chief who now directs the Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform. "Each time Congress does one of these short-term fixes, they dig a deeper hole."
Still, coming up with the money for any pay proposal -- temporary or permanent -- for 2010 likely will be a contentious issue, experts said. This potential is heightened by lawmakers' renewed focus on spending money on comprehensive health system reform.
Congress has been applying temporary patches to Medicare's physician pay system every year since 2002.
"The usual way this works is to spread the price squeeze from physicians to other providers and organizations in Medicare so maybe other providers will get a bit less of a payment update," said Dr. McClellan, who said Medicare private insurers may be one group in line for a cut.
Rep. Tom Price, MD (R, Ga.), noted that most pay update proposals involve a finite amount of money that typically is "split up among different specialties and, consequently, the specialties will find themselves fighting each other, which is oftentimes to the delight of policymakers."
Physicians in all specialties, however, are concerned about being paid fairly, said AMA President Nancy H. Nielsen, MD, PhD. "They deserve not to go through this game of Russian roulette every year. That's no way to run a business."
Rep. Michael Burgess, MD (R, Texas), was pessimistic about the chances for long-term pay reform this year. Temporary patches are handy vehicles for lawmakers to pass less popular bills, he said.
Democrats appear ready to take on a whole host of health care issues, particularly now that they hold the presidency, the House and a larger majority in the Senate. Obama already has taken steps to put health system reform high on his priority list, such as tapping former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to be Secretary of Health and Human Services and leader of the White House Office of Health Reform.
Early indications point to a steep price tag for these comprehensive reforms, putting in question whether doctors will go yet another year since 2002 without some level of Medicare cut. Sen. Max Baucus (D, Mont.), chair of the Senate Finance Committee, issued an outline of his own reform proposal in November 2008, which contains a myriad of policy recommendations in addition to proposals for a permanent pay system fix. Cost estimates haven't been released yet, but Baucus acknowledged, in a statement, that "in the short term, health care reform would cost taxpayers more than the government can achieve in savings from all reforms and financing changes."
In the House, Rep. Pete Stark (D, Calif.), chair of the Ways and Means health subcommittee, also has said he plans to take up physician pay reform in the next legislative session, and his staff is drafting legislation.
Even if Congress manages to overcome the challenges and come to consensus on the makeup of a permanent fix, Wilensky noted that some form of temporary patch still may be needed to allow time for any permanent program to be implemented.
Although no clear consensus has emerged on what should replace the sustainable growth rate formula, lawmakers may choose elements from among several proposals that stand out in the debate.
For example, the AMA supports "re-basing" the SGR, as a start. This concept means that Congress updates the spending target baseline used to calculate the formula so that it reflects the rate changes lawmakers have approved over the past seven years, Dr. Nielsen said. "Re-basing means simply accepting reality from now."
This proposal, however, wouldn't mean a blank check for doctors, said Robert Doherty, senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy for the American College of Physicians, which supports re-basing. "It is going to be tied, I believe, to some other payment reforms that may or may not be the ones the medical community would like."
Another vision of SGR reform would replace a single overall spending target with several targets for different physician service categories. The House passed such a reform in 2007 as part of a larger bill, but that provision didn't make it out of conference committee. Multiple SGR spending targets already are on the legislative agenda for 2009; Baucus included the concept in his proposal.
Payment bundling is a reform concept that's also gaining new attention. This would group services for a patient's predetermined episode of care into one set payment. This billing practice already is in place for other Medicare participants, including hospitals, home health agencies and skilled nursing facilities.
Wilensky noted that some agreement exists on the need to bundle high-cost, high-volume services for complex surgeries and treatment of chronic diseases.
The Baucus plan calls for expanding a Medicare bundling demonstration that is expected to launch in 2010. This project will give physicians and hospitals a global payment for patients who receive cardiac or orthopedic services.
The patient-centered medical home is another concept that has many supporters, Baucus included. "There is real interest in Washington in doing something to help primary care," said Paul Ginsburg, PhD, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change.
A medical home would offer additional payments to primary care physicians or other doctors for coordinating patient care. Medicare is planning a medical home demonstration project in up to eight states, which will launch in 2010.
Other popular proposals include Medicare pay-for-performance, which would establish incentives for physicians to hit quality benchmarks; and gainsharing, which would allow hospitals to share with physicians the savings from improved health care delivery.
"The thing to watch over the next three to six months as this process unfolds, is how much consensus does emerge behind some of these more innovative ways to pay physicians that hold some promise to both make physician jobs easier and to help keep down overall Medicare spending," Dr. McClellan said.
Physicians plan to keep up the pressure from their camp. The financial crunch facing primary care doctors is real, said Ted Epperly, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. "This isn't a lot of doctors blowing smoke in terms of the impending loss of access for our seniors."
The print version of this content appeared in the Jan. 5, 2009 issue of American Medical News.
Permalink
Comments off
Posted in Uncategorized at 1:01 am by chicken
The privacy of hundreds of minor patients' medical records lies in the hands of the Ohio Supreme Court as it deliberates a case over alleged violations of the state's abortion consent law.
The parents of a 14-year-old girl who had an abortion without their consent allege Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region repeatedly ran afoul of the state statute that requires physicians to obtain written parental permission before performing an abortion on a minor. To prove their case, the parents claim they need access to 10 years' worth of medical records on minors who sought abortions.
The family also charges that the clinic failed to report suspected child abuse. The teenage girl became pregnant by her 21-year-old soccer coach, who posed as her father to help her obtain an abortion, according to court records.
Planned Parenthood denies any wrongdoing and maintained in court documents that the records -- which do not involve parties to the lawsuit -- are irrelevant and protected under the state's physician-patient privilege.
Doctors agree and fear that if the information is released, not only will patients' confidentiality be compromised, so will their access to care.
"We have to make sure the physician-patient privilege means something," said Nancy Gillette, general counsel to the Ohio State Medical Assn. The organization filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, along with the Litigation Center of the American Medical Association and State Medical Societies and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
State law generally protects nonparty medical records from disclosure in lawsuits, Gillette said. If that privacy is not protected, patients --especially minors -- will be less likely to seek treatment.
A trial court initially granted the family's request for the documents, with specific patient-identifying information removed. An appeals court rejected the lower court decision in 2007.
Plaintiffs appealed to the state Supreme Court, where oral arguments were heard Oct. 7. A decision is expected by spring.
Permalink
Comments off
Posted in Uncategorized at 1:01 am by chicken
Washington -- A national health insurers' association released a health reform proposal that would guarantee coverage for people with preexisting conditions in exchange for the government requiring everyone to have health insurance.
America's Health Insurance Plans unveiled the proposal Dec. 3 after three years of developing its national health system reform policies and soliciting public input on the issue. "Today our board is making a strong statement that now is the time for health care reform," said AHIP President and CEO Karen Ignagni. The plan's four main principles are controlling costs, adding value, assisting consumers and businesses, and covering everyone.
The proposal also calls on Congress to set a goal of reducing national health expenditures by 30% over five years -- a cumulative total of $500 billion. A public-private advisory group could devise a plan to achieve this goal. The process could start by examining variations in care around the U.S., by paying based on quality rather than volume, and by improving administrative efficiency, according to AHIP.
AHIP committed itself to help reduce costs and administrative hassles by developing a uniform online portal allowing physicians and hospitals to communicate with health plans and to access up-to-date information on benefits and eligibility.
The plan also calls for increasing eligibility for the State Children's Health Insurance Program to 300% of the federal poverty level, and for Medicaid, to 100% of poverty. It also would offer sliding-scale tax credits for buying health insurance to people with incomes at less than 400% of poverty, and it would give the same tax benefits to those buying individual health insurance as those in group coverage.
However, Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the 85,000-member California Nurses Assn., said the plan's call for reducing costs does not address health plans' profits or place "any limits on insurance industry price gouging, profiteering or lavish executive pay packages."
"In sum, it fully privatizes profit while socializing the health care risk," DeMoro said.
President-elect Obama has embraced a mandate for covering children, but he has said he only would support a mandate for adults once health insurance is affordable for everyone.
The AHIP proposal is available online (www.americanhealthsolution.org).
Permalink
Comments off
12.15.08
Posted in Uncategorized at 1:10 pm by chicken
Washington -- The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on Dec. 2 proposed three national coverage determinations that would end Medicare pay for surgeries involving any of three major errors.
Physician and hospital organizations generally agree that these errors -- surgery on the wrong patient, surgery on the wrong body part, or the wrong surgery -- should never happen. But they say CMS' definitions of these events leave too much room for interpretation about the scope of the rules.
If the determinations become final, the government would instruct all Medicare contractors to follow the no-pay policy. It would not end pay for procedures determined to be medically necessary after surgery has begun. CMS is soliciting input on exactly how far the policy would reach.
The agency in late July indicated it would issue these Medicare coverage rules separately from a list of 10 hospital-acquired conditions for which Medicare would no longer pay at a higher diagnosis-related group rate. Medicare stopped paying hospitals the higher amount for those conditions, including catheter-associated urinary tract infections, foreign objects retained after surgery and blood incompatibility, starting Oct. 1.
By using the national coverage determination process, the no-pay rule for the three surgical errors would affect all professionals who file Medicare claims, not just hospitals. Contractors have had the flexibility to develop their own coverage decisions in this area, and agency spokeswoman Ellen B. Griffith said most if not all contractors probably already refuse to pay physicians or hospitals for surgeries involving these errors.
"What we're looking for here is uniformity in terms of the national policy," Griffith said. CMS does not have statistics on how often these errors happen.
Few, if any, hospitals seek payment for surgeries with these errors, said Nancy Foster, vice president for quality and patient safety policy for the American Hospital Assn. "It's hard to find fault in Medicare wanting to make explicit the fact they don't expect to pay for such events."
The AHA has encouraged hospitals to consider not seeking pay for services involving the National Quality Forum's full list of 28 serious reportable events, but the association has not made this a national policy, Foster said.
Unanswered questions
The American Medical Association supports improving quality, safety and efficiency for patients by developing systems and tools to prevent errors from occurring. However, CMS should not use the national coverage determination process to implement this Medicare pay policy, according to an Aug. 27 letter to CMS from AMA Executive Vice President and CEO Michael D. Maves, MD, MBA. "The issue at question is not whether surgical procedures will be covered by the Medicare program, but rather under what circumstances the payment for covered surgical procedures will be denied or reduced.
"It would make more sense to develop a clear payment policy outlining the circumstances under which surgery claims would not be payable by Medicare," Dr. Maves wrote. "CMS could, for example, instruct Medicare carriers to deny payment claims for these major surgical errors if a physician failed to use commonly accepted patient safety practices."
CMS must be sure to articulate these rules clearly, Foster said. For example, should an anesthesiologist who participates in a surgery involving one of these three errors also lose pay even if that person made no error? "I'm not sure I know how to draw the right line between those that should have payment affected and those who shouldn't," she said.
Likewise, two of the three surgical errors in the proposed determinations have a scope that could prove to be a bit fuzzy, said Elizabeth W. Hoy, assistant director for regulatory affairs and quality improvement programs for the American College of Surgeons. Operating on the wrong patient is a clearly definable error, but "wrong procedure or wrong body part does get a little trickier," she said.
Would Medicare, Hoy asked, not pay for surgeries on certain patients -- such as the morbidly obese -- for whom it can be difficult to determine the exact site requiring a procedure?
CMS is seeking input on these issues, said Griffith, the agency spokeswoman. "Those are questions that ought to be addressed in comments to the national coverage determinations," she said. The public has until Jan. 1, 2009, to submit comments.
Hoy suggested CMS should work with physicians who follow quality standards and use safeguards. "Somewhere there has got to be some accommodation for people who are doing everything right and something still happens."
Permalink
Comments off
Posted in Uncategorized at 1:10 pm by chicken
A New Jersey federal judge in November tossed out the state's lawsuit challenging limits on federal funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. But state officials and policy experts said some good still came out of the case, part of a nationwide outcry against the new policy that led the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to delay enforcement of the limits, at least temporarily.
The CMS directive -- which was first announced Aug. 17, 2007, and took effect a year later -- prohibits states from using federal funds to cover uninsured children in families earning more than 250% of the federal poverty level. States can avoid the restriction only if they can prove that at least 95% of eligible children at or below 200% of the poverty level are enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP, as well as meet other standards. They also can cover kids at higher family incomes using state dollars alone.
In October 2007, Gov. Jon S. Corzine sued CMS to block the rules, alleging that the government violated federal law by issuing such a significant policy change without any notice or public comment period. New Jersey received the government's approval in 1999 to expand its SCHIP program to children in families earning up to 350% of the federal poverty level.
The changes threatened coverage for as many as 10,000 children enrolled in the state program, known as FamilyCare, according to a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the New Jersey Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and other patient advocates. That figure did not include the thousands of other eligible children in the state not yet covered by SCHIP.
The rules -- which were deemed to affect at least 17 states -- also drew widespread criticism from a number of other states, federal lawmakers and physician organizations, including the American Medical Association.
At least 17 states are affected by CMS' SCHIP limits.
But because CMS announced in August that it would delay enforcement of its directive indefinitely, New Jersey District Judge Joel Pisano concluded Nov. 17 that the state's lawsuit was premature.
If the agency eventually decides to take action against New Jersey for noncompliance, the state has several remedies. Those options include negotiating with CMS or seeking legal recourse in court at that time, Pisano wrote.
The impact that the ruling could have on a separate, similar lawsuit filed by several other states remains unclear. That case remains pending in New York district court.
A fresh start
Despite the legal setback, New Jersey and other states are anticipating changes under the incoming administration that would allow them to continue planned expansions of child health coverage.
"Since we sued to assure our most vulnerable remain eligible to receive SCHIP benefits, the Bush administration backed off," said Corzine spokesman Robert Corrales. "We look forward to the fresh ideas and approaches of the incoming administration of President-elect Obama."
New Jersey's SCHIP had earlier approval to expand coverage to families earning up to 350% of the federal poverty level.
CMS also had made the announcement that it would delay enforcement of the federal funding limits after California said it would not comply with what it considered a violation of state law. The Bush administration gave no indication that it had made its decision based on that challenge or on pressure from other quarters.
Physicians also await SCHIP improvements soon after Obama takes office. The program is set to expire March 31, 2009, and congressional Democrats aim to expand the size of the program at the same time that they reauthorize it.
Children remain "one of the most underinsured, underserved groups in the community," said Michael L. Segarra, MD, president of the AAP's New Jersey chapter.
Expansions halted
The threat of the CMS directive had forced a number of states to halt planned SCHIP expansions or rely on state funds alone to augment their programs, said Rachel Klein, deputy director of health policy for the advocacy group Families USA. Her organization supported the state lawsuits, which Klein agreed have been successful in keeping the federal directive at bay thus far.
But in the meantime, many states already offering coverage beyond 250% of the federal poverty level have yet to roll back these expansions. "That's an indication states are hopeful for quick action" to lift the limits in 2009, Klein said. Families USA has filed comments asking the Obama administration immediately to rescind the CMS directive.
Other states have legislation ready to move that would grow their uninsured programs under SCHIP in the coming year.
CMS spokesman Jeff Nelligan said the agency was pleased with the New Jersey federal court decision, which allows the administration "to move forward with its goal of placing the poor and uninsured first in line to receive health care."
Despite the enforcement delay on the directive, CMS has been working with states to get them in compliance voluntarily. By the time the new policy took effect, the agency was indicating that more than half of the roughly 17 affected states already may have been in line with the requirements.
Nelligan declined to say whether the agency eventually intends to enforce the rules.
Permalink
Comments off
« Previous entries ·