Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Hear the Experts Discuss the EHR Incentive Programs


Register Now for the Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs National Provider Call: Registration and Attestation for Eligible Professionals


Hear the Experts Discuss the EHR Incentive Programs


Date: Friday, September 9 

Time: 1:30 - 3:00 p.m. ET 


Agenda: During the call, CMS experts will discuss the following topics:




  • Path to Payment

  • Highlights of Registration and Attestation Processes

  • Third Party Proxy

  • Troubleshooting

  • Helpful Resources


There will also be a Q&A session where experts will address your questions and concerns.


Registration: Register now for this informative session. Registration will close at 1:30 p.m. on September 8, or when available space has been filled. No exceptions will be made, so please register early.

Presentation Materials: The presentation will be available prior to the call on the presentations section of the CMS EHR website.


Note: Hospital-based eligible professionals (EPs) may not participate. An EP is considered hospital-based if 90 percent or more of the EP's services are performed in a hospital inpatient or emergency room setting. Medicaid EPs must meet patient volume criteria, providing services to those attributable to Medicaid or, in some cases, needy individuals. Visit the CMS EHR Incentive Program website for more information, including Medicaid patient volume requirements.

Want more information about the EHR Incentive Programs? Make sure to visit the EHR Incentive Programs website for the latest news and updates on the EHR Incentive Programs.



14 Florida Physicians Indicted in 'Pill Mill' Bust


August 30, 2011 — Fourteen physicians in southern Florida have been indicted as members of what one agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation calls "the nation's largest criminal organization" involved in illegally distributing opioid analgesics such as oxycodone.

Thirteen of the physicians, along with 19 other individuals, face federal charges ranging from conspiring to distribute a controlled substance to money laundering. The fourteenth physician, Gerald J. Klein, MD, was charged in a state court on August 18 with, among other things, first-degree murder in the death of a man who overdosed on a massive amount of hydromorphone and alprazolam that Dr. Klein had prescribed, according to authorities.










Dr. Gerald J. Klein

The 14 physicians worked in 4 pain management clinics that the federal indictment, which was made public August 23, depicts as set pieces in a gangster movie. Drug addicts and drug traffickers, most from out-of-state, packed the waiting rooms, and if they were not fighting each other, they were having drug-induced seizures. Security guards tried to maintain order. Opioid analgesics were dispensed and prescribed on an assembly line basis, and were paid for with cash and credit cards. Clinic employees hauled their money to the bank in large garbage bags. During a 2-year period, the clinics raked in more than $40 million from illegal drug sales, a federal grand jury stated.

The physicians prospered in the process, according to the indictment. The owners of the clinics paid most of them according to how many patients they saw, which ranged between 40 and 100 patients per day. The average physician earned more than $1 million a year this way.

The indictment states that the physicians prescribed opioid analgesics without a basis in medical necessity, but engaged in subterfuges to make it look otherwise. Before their visits, for example, patients were routinely directed to a mobile magnetic resonance imaging facility that operated 7 days a week past midnight in a strip club parking lot.

The clinic owners were careful to recruit physicians who supported their business plan, the indictment states. Applicants did not need any experience in pain management, only a willingness to write scripts every 10 minutes. During employment interviews, "the physicians were asked whether they would agree to prescribe large quantities of oxycodone, Xanax, and other controlled substances."

Once hired, physicians would receive instructions from the owners on the quantity of pain meds that a patient should receive. They agreed to not wean patients off high dosages or refer them to detoxification facilities or addiction experts. One unidentified physician told an investigator that the goal was to keep patients "happy."

Pain Clinic Owner a Convicted Felon

The criminal organization described in the federal indictment extended beyond the 4 pain clinics to encompass 2 drug stores, a pharmaceutical wholesaler that supplied clinic physicians with pain medications, the magnetic resonance imaging facility, illegal Internet sales of anabolic steroids, and a fraudulent time share business. Heading the enterprise, the indictment states, were 2 brothers, Jeffrey George and Christopher George, the second of whom has spent time in prison on drug charges. The George brothers also launched a pain clinic in Georgia and may have eyed expanding their operation to the Midwest, according to the indictment.

In the world of South Florida pain clinics, the George brothers played rough, the grand report alleges, directing coconspirators to vandalize competing facilities. The 2 brothers, along with 2 coconspirators, were charged with kidnapping and assaulting a suspected thief.

The federal government built its case against the George brothers and their accomplices in part by recording conversations with one of the physicians and tapping the cell phone of Christopher George.

"The significance of [the] takedown is that we have dismantled the nation's largest criminal organization involved in the illegal distribution of pain killers," said John Gillies, the bureau's special agent in charge of Miami.

Of the 32 defendants, only Christopher George and Steven Goodman, RPh, owner of the pharmaceutical wholesale company, have entered pleas as of today, according to federal court records. Both men have pleaded not guilty.

Criminal Expansion Into Pharmacies

In all, 32 individuals were indicted a federal district court in southern Florida as part of what authorities called Operation Oxy Alley. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has recently prosecuted pill mills and their physician prescribers in other parts of the country, but the Florida bust ranks near the top in terms of size.

Gary Boggs, a supervisory special agent in the Office of Diversion Control in the US Drug Enforcement Agency, told Medscape Medical News that Florida is the epicenter of "rogue pain clinics."

One possible reason why Florida is such a magnet for pill mills is the state's high proportion of elderly citizens, said David Melenkevitz, a DOJ spokesperson.

"That population would bring about a large medical community — doctors, pharmacies, and hospitals," Melenkevitz told Medscape Medical News. "So there are a lot of medical professions for these drug dealers to corrupt."

The indictment notes that during the time frame of the alleged offenses (from 2006 to March 2010), Florida lacked a prescription drug monitoring program similar to the kind used in other states to detect drug abuse and diversion. Florida passed a law in 2009 authorizing such a program, but the DOJ states on its Web site that as of May 2011, the Florida program was not fully operational.

Another law enacted in 2010 prohibits felons from owning pain management clinics and limits clinics to dispending no more than a 72-hour supply of medications to a patient who pays in cash. The rationale here is that greenbacks are harder for law enforcement agencies to monitor than credit cards. Making it harder for Florida pill mills to dispense pain medications has caused their owners to open pharmacies, noted Gary Boggs.

The George brothers' enterprise included 2 pharmacies, according to the federal indictment.

The DOJ is cracking down on multibranched pill mill operations in other states. Four physicians, 1 psychologist, and 12 pharmacists working together with 26 pharmacies in Michigan were indicted earlier this month on Medicare and Medicaid fraud charges in connection with the illegal distribution of controlled substances.

Holding Physicians Responsible for Overdoses

The bust in South Florida further demonstrates a willingness of law enforcement authorities to hold physicians responsible for overdose deaths caused by their work in pill mills. Several weeks ago, 2 physicians who once practiced in Colorado were indicted in a federal district court of illegal prescribing that led to 4 deaths.

With the alleged pill mill operation in South Florida, a state grand jury went a step further and indicted Dr. Klein for first-degree murder on account of the overdose death of 30-year-old Joseph Bartolucci. Dr. Klein is accused of prescribing Bartolucci, a repeat patient, with 150 8-mg hydromorphone pills, 30 2-mg alprazolam pills, and 30 25-mg nortriptyline pills in 2009. Bartolucci filled the prescriptions for hydromorphone and alprazolam the same day and was found dead the following day, according to the indictment. An autopsy attributed the death to the 2 drugs.

The state grand jury charged Jeffrey George with second-degree felony murder in Bartolucci's death. George, Dr. Klein, and a third person who is also a defendant in the federal case face various drug-trafficking charges as well.

Federal and state authorities are aggressively prosecuting physicians said to be pawns of pill mill operators, but physicians who prescribe opioid analgesics in good faith to their patients have nothing to fear, said Melenkevitz.

"We're not targeting doctors who make a prescribing mistake on a bad day," he said. "We're targeting drug traffickers who are operating outside the scope of regular medicine."

"They're just drug dealers in white coats," added Boggs.

Thursday, August 25, 2011

EHR Analysis Improves Complication Tracking


August 23, 2011 — Analysis of electronic medical records (EMRs) with natural language processing shows an improved ability to identify postoperative surgical complications compared with the standard method of relying on administrative data codes, according to a new study published in the August 24/31 issue of JAMA.

In efforts to improve patient safety, hospital administrative data are typically screened for codes that may reflect potential adverse events during hospitalization, and a quality surveillance tool developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has refined that process to focus on a set of 20 patient safety indicators used in screening the data.

However, the system has some drawbacks, including some uncertainty about the validity of administrative codes and the inability of discharge codes to distinguish whether a disease existed before a patient's admission or was acquired during hospitalization, according to Harvey J. Murff, MD, MPH, lead author of the study from Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, and colleagues.

The emergence of EMRs, combined with the development of automated systems such as natural language processing, however, allows for screening of more extensive medical data and documents and extraction of specific medical concepts, as opposed to simply searching for potentially unreliable discharge codes.

In an effort to compare the 2 approaches, the researchers evaluated data on 2974 patients undergoing inpatient surgical procedures at 6 Veterans Health Administration medical centers from 1999 to 2006.

During this period, percentages of patients with postoperative acute renal failure requiring dialysis was 2% (39/1924 patients); pulmonary embolism, 0.7% (18/2327 patients); deep vein thrombosis, 1% (29/2327 patients); sepsis, 7% (61/866 patients); pneumonia, 16% (222/1405 patients); and myocardial infarction, 2% (35/1822 patients).

Natural language processing was able to correctly identify 82% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67% - 91%) of acute renal failure cases, whereas screening using patient safety indicators only correctly identified 38% (95% CI, 25% - 54%).

The results were also more accurate for natural language processing compared with patient safety indicators for venous thromboembolism (59% [95% CI, 44% - 72%] vs 46% [95% CI, 32% - 60%]), pneumonia (64% [95% CI, 58% - 70%] vs 5% [95% CI, 3% - 9%]), and sepsis (89% [95% CI, 78% - 94%] vs 34% [95% CI, 24% - 47%]). Comparison of the 2 methods for postoperative myocardial infarction, however, showed similar results (91% [95% CI, 78% - 97%] vs 89% [95% CI, 74% - 96%]).

Both approaches were highly specific for the diagnoses.

"In general, using a natural language processing–based approach had higher sensitivities and lower specificities than did the patient safety indicator," the authors write.

"The increase in sensitivity of the natural language processing–based approach compared with the patient safety indicator was more than 2-fold for acute renal failure and sepsis and over 12-fold for pneumonia. Specificities were 4% to 7% higher with the patient safety indicator method than the natural language processing approach."

The authors noted that a greater ability to refine and vary search strategies allowed for greater sensitivities with natural language processing, with only a small reduction in specificities in all areas except postoperative myocardial infarction.

"In contrast to the patient safety indicator approach, for which test characteristics are fixed, the natural language processing approach offered a wide array of search strategies with varying test characteristics," they add.

"Nevertheless in some cases, specifically postoperative myocardial infarction, the patient safety indicator algorithm had excellent test characteristics that were not improved through the natural language processing approach."

The study's limitations include that patient safety indicators were not originally designed for Veterans Health Administration data; however, the researchers noted that the patient safety indicator rates appeared similar between the Veterans Health Administration and non–Veterans Health Administration populations. In addition, institutions that have not adopted EMRs yet would obviously not benefit from the approach.

The results suggest, however, that natural language processing systems should be considered as EMRs become more widely implemented and evolve.

"As additional institutions develop fully integrated EMR, electronic chart reviews for quality purposes should be further developed and evaluated," the authors state in their conclusion.

In an accompanying editorial, Ashish K Jha, MD, MPH, from the Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Division of General Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and the VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts, states that "[d]espite the promise of [EHRs], recent data on their benefits have been disappointing." The data to date, Dr. Jha explains, have shown that EHRs can be a useful tool to help clinicians adhere to guideline-based care and to reduce medication errors. "[B]eyond these narrow benefits, there is little evidence that EHRs improve patient outcomes and even less evidence that they improve the efficiency of care," he states.

However, "in this sea of disappointing data about EHRs comes some good news."

Dr. Murff and colleagues "push beyond the traditional uses of the EHR by demonstrating that natural language processing, when applied to electronic data, can help clinicians track adverse events after surgery," writes Dr .Jha. Although this benefit may seem "esoteric," its value should not be "underestimated," according to the editorialist. "Their value as quality measurement tools will improve substantially when EHRs can automatically generate quality measures that account for the reasons guideline-driven care is adhered to or, if not, why not.

"Currently, the EHR remains a tool with vast potential but a limited set of current capabilities. Natural language process has the potential for many new applications such as automated quality assessment to assisting in the performance of comparative effectiveness research," concludes Dr. Jha. "The study by Murff et al suggests that these benefits may be closer than ever, but only if the power of computing is harnessed to understand the vast amount of written data that currently needs a pair of eyes and a human brain to comprehend." He emphasizes, however, that federal funding is needed to propel research in this area forward.

The study was supported by a grant from the Department of Veterans Affairs. One author is supported by the Veterans Health Administration Career Development Award, and 2 authors by Veterans Health Consortium for Health Informatics Research awards. Dr. Jha reports that he serves on the scientific advisory board of Humedica Inc, which pools clinical data to provide clinical intelligence to physicians and hospitals.

JAMA. 2011;306:848-855, 880-881.

Abstract

Hospitals Pay Physicians in Medicare Bundled Payment Model


August 24, 2011 — Physicians would get reimbursed by an admitting hospital instead of by Medicare for inpatient care they deliver to seniors, under 1 of 4 models of pilot projects for bundled payments that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) unveiled yesterday.

In this particular model, hospitals would receive a predetermined or prospective payment for all the services furnished during a particular kind of inpatient episode (eg, a hip replacement), and would pay physicians and other providers out of that fixed amount.

Healthcare reform legislation passed in 2010 calls for pilot projects to test the concept of bundled payments in Medicare. At this time, when a senior undergoes a course of treatment, the various providers involved are paid separately by Medicare, which, according to CMS officials, is a formula for uncoordinated, inefficient care. By letting providers divide a single payment, CMS hopes to motivate them to cooperate to improve quality and lower costs, as opposed to simply increasing the volume of services to earn more.

"Patients don't get care from just one person: it takes a team, and this initiative will help ensure the team is working together," said Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services, in a press release.

A previous Medicare pilot project for bundled payments involving coronary artery bypass graft surgeries saved $42.5 million, or 10% of the costs, over the course of 5 years, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Applicants Can Propose an Episode of Care for Bundled Payment

CMS is inviting hospitals, physicians, and other providers, including those that have formed accountable care organizations, to apply to participate in a bundled payment pilot project under 1 or more of the 4 models.

In contrast to model 4, which lets hospitals cut checks to physicians, models 1 through 3 would reimburse providers on a retrospective basis, with CMS as the sole payer. According to a fact sheet released by the US Department of Health and Human Services, CMS and the providers would set a bundled payment amount for a particular episode of care by applying a discount to what Medicare normally pays. Providers would proceed to bill Medicare as usual, but at a negotiated discount. If their total fee-for-service payments are less than the bundled payment target, the providers can share the difference.

The fact sheet does not explain what happens if fee-for-service payments exceed the bundled payment amount.

Model 1 is intended for inpatient care only, with physician fees not included in the bundled payment or subject to a discount, according to CMS. Model 2 applies to inpatient stays and postdischarge services, and model 3 to postdischarge services only.

Providers applying to participate in a pilot project must propose a clinical condition to be covered by a bundled payment, define the time frame for care and the services involved, and draft a plan for quality assurance and improvement. Applicants for model 1 must submit a letter of intent by September 22 and a completed application by October 21. Those deadlines for the other models are November 4, 2011, and March 15, 2012, respectively. The government expects the pilot projects to start on a rolling basis in 2012.

More information about the bundled payment program and about how to apply is available on the CMS Web site.

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Registration Closed for CQM Webinar


Due to the tremendous response, registration for the webinar “The CMS EHR Incentive Programs: What You Need to Know about the Clinical Quality Measures” scheduled for August 30 is full. However, the presentation materials, and a recording and transcript of the event will be available on the CMS website after the event is held. Be sure to check https://www.cms.gov/ehrincentiveprograms/ to review these materials once they are posted.

Want more information about the EHR Incentive Programs? Make sure to visit the CMS EHR Incentive Programs website for the latest news and updates on the EHR Incentive Programs.



Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Hospital-Employed Physicians May Drive Up Costs


August 22, 2011 — The push by hospitals to employ physicians risks driving up healthcare services and costs without necessarily improving quality because these providers still operate in a largely fee-for-service environment, according to a new study published online August 19 by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC).

In this fee-for-service environment, hospital-employed physicians not only are paid on the basis of productivity but are also pressured to order more expensive care, write authors Ann O'Malley, MD, MPH; Amelia Bond; and Robert Berenson, MD.

"In one market," they write, "at least two cardiologists declined hospital employment offers because they perceived the pressures to drive up volume were greater than those in their mid-sized, independent cardiology group."

The authors base their assessment on interviews between March and October last year with hospital executives, physicians, insurance company officials, and other industry players in 12 metropolitan areas from coast to coast.

What they found — doing more to earn more — is exactly what healthcare reform intends to eliminate by paying providers for the quality of their work, particularly when it comes to care coordination. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act in March 2010, hospital executives have increasingly viewed physician employment as a way to prepare for a world of accountable care organizations and bundled payments.

Nevertheless, the primary motivation for hospitals to hire physicians so far has been to "gain marketshare, typically through lucrative service-line strategies encouraged by a fee-for-service payment system that rewards volume," the authors write. Two examples of service lines that hospitals want to foster through their MD and DO employees are cardiac care and cancer care.

Avoiding the Coasting Syndrome

Specialists, as well as primary care physicians, have gone to work for hospitals in greater and greater numbers, the authors write, to escape the long hours and shrinking income of private practice. For their part, hospitals have learned some lessons about managing these refuge-seekers since their last physician hiring spree in the 1990s. Back then, physicians did not work as hard once they signed a contract, which often encouraged coasting by guaranteeing them 100% of their previous year's earnings during the transition to hospital employment.

Today, fixed salaries are out, and productivity-based compensation formulas are in. Clinicians typically find themselves rewarded for how many relative value units (measures of work in the industry's resource-based relative value system) they generate, said Tony Stajduhar, president of the healthcare recruiting firm Jackson & Coker.

Stajduhar told Medscape Medical Newsthat he has not heard of hospitals going so far as leaning on employed physicians to liberally order laboratory tests, diagnostic imaging, or specialty consults to boost their bottom line. A different perspective on that issue comes from Tommy Bohannon, vice president of hospital-based recruiting at a rival firm called Merritt Hawkins.

"Whether it's overt pressure or covert pressure to order additional tests and studies, I don't think that dynamic will ever go away in the current compensation scheme we have," Bohannon told Medscape Medical News.

Hospitals Negotiate Better Insurer Contracts for Physicians

By employing physicians, hospitals can better secure their referral base and capture admissions, the authors of the HSC study write, but the alignment of these providers has the potential to increase healthcare spending at a time when policy makers and politicians alike are yelling "Whoa."

In addition to the fee-for-service incentive to drive up volume, the authors write, other cost escalators rev up when hospitals hire MDs and DOs:


  • Hospitals can negotiate more lucrative contracts on behalf of their physicians with private insurers than the physicians could negotiate independently.

  • Third-party reimbursements, especially those from Medicare, are higher when physicians practice in an office that is technically a "hospital-based facility."

  • Bidding wars over highly sought specialists in some markets result in "artificially high compensation."


"Clinical Integration" Is Not Automatic

One potential up side of hospitals hiring physicians is improved coordination of care and communication: Instead of working in their own insular practices, physicians belong to a big team. However, the authors of the HSC study discovered that this kind of "clinical integration" does not occur automatically or easily in a fee-for-service system.

"Communication between inpatient and outpatient providers, even those employed by the same hospital system, continues to be a problem," they write. They quote a hospital administrator in Michigan as saying: "Being able to bring all physicians together with a unified focus on quality, service, and access is a challenge." Employed physicians are more likely to be on the same page, however, when they use the same electronic health record system.

The key to achieving physician teamwork as well as controlling costs, the authors write, is broad payment reform that "reduces incentive to increase volume and creates incentives for providers...to achieve real efficiencies and higher quality."

Center for Studying Health System Change. "Rising Hospital Employment of Physicians: Better Quality, Higher Costs?" Published online August 19, 2011. Full text

Monday, August 22, 2011

UPDATE: Revised Registration Link for CMS EHR Incentive Program Webinar on CQMs


Some users have encountered problems registering for the webinar “The CMS EHR Incentive Programs: What You Need to Know about the Clinical Quality Measures.” Please use this revised link to register for the webinar. After successfully registering, you will be sent a confirmation message with a link to the webinar site.


The webinar will help eligible professionals (EPs) and eligible hospitals successfully record clinical quality measures (CQMs) and attest to meaningful use for the EHR Incentive Programs. The webinar will take place on August 30 from 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. EST.The presentation will include:



  • An overview of the CQMs

  • How  to report CQMs during attestation

  • Why CQMs are included in the EHR Incentive Programs

  • A thirty minute question-and-answer session with CMS subject matter experts


Want more information about the EHR Incentive Programs?
Make sure to visit the CMS EHR Incentive Programs website for the latest news and updates on the EHR Incentive Programs.



Friday, August 19, 2011

Sign up for the CMS CQM Webinar


CMS is Holding a Webinar on the CQMs and the EHR Incentive Programs


The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is holding a webinar to help eligible professionals (EPs) and eligible hospitals successfully record clinical quality measures (CQMs) and attest to meaningful use for the EHR Incentive Programs. The webinar, titled “The CMS EHR Incentive Programs: What You Need to Know about the Clinical Quality Measures”, will take place on August 30 from 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. EST.

The presentation will include:


  • An overview of the CQMs

  • How  to report CQMs during attestation

  • Why CQMs are included in the EHR Incentive Programs

  • A thirty minute question-and-answer session with CMS subject matter experts


Registration:

You can register online for the webinar. After successfully registering, you will be sent a confirmation message with a link to the webinar site. Space is limited, so register now to secure your place. 



Want more information about the EHR Incentive Programs?

Make sure to visit the CMS EHR Incentive Programs website for the latest news and updates on the EHR Incentive Programs.

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Physicians in Big Groups Beat Inflation in 2010


August 17, 2011 — Physicians who practice in large groups, most of which are associated with hospitals, health systems, and universities, received a 2.4% raise on average in 2010, thanks in part to subsidies from their parent organizations, according to the latest compensation survey by the American Medical Group Association (AMGA).

Broken down by broad categories, earnings rose 2.6% for primary care physicians in AMGA groups and 2.5% for other medical specialists, but only 0.44% for surgical specialists, who fell behind last year's inflation rate of 1.5%, as measured by the US Department of Labor between December 2009 and December 2010.

By individual specialty, physicians who recorded the biggest gains were endocrinologists (6.5%), allergists (6.4%), emergency physicians (6.4%), and internal medicine hospitalists (6.3%).

Those whose incomes edged downward on average were pulmonologists (−1.2%), infectious disease physicians (−1%), family physicians (−0.1%), cardiac and thoracic surgeons (0.1%), and urologists (0.05%).

In a press release, AMGA president and chief executive officer Donald Fisher, PhD, chalked up the mostly modest income gains to "the negative impact of declining reimbursements, competition for specialists, the cost of new technology, and other factors."

The same economic forces are adding stress to the overall financial operations of AMGA medical groups. On average, they lost roughly $2000 per physician in terms of their median operating margin — which is the difference between patient care revenue and expenses — even though 30% of them reported receiving a median subsidy of $48,577 per physician from their parent organizations. Offsetting these operational losses was medical revenue from nonclinical activities such as teaching and directorships, as well as nonmedical revenue from investments, rental properties, and the like.

More than 117,000 physicians work in AMGA member organizations, which include the Mayo Clinic, the Henry Ford Health System, and Intermountain Healthcare. The average member group has 300 physicians.

Median Physician Compensation in AMGA Groups by Selected Specialties




































SpecialtyMedian Compensation in 2010
Family Medicine$208,658
Psychiatry$217,169
Neurology$246,500
General Surgery$367,315
Cardiology$422,921
Cardiology-Cath Lab$504,099
Cardiac and Thoracic Surgery$532,567

Source: American Medical Group Association

Most Physicians Will Be Sued for Malpractice by Age 65


August 17, 2011 — The risk of getting sued for malpractice in any given year ranges from 2.6% for psychiatrists to 19.1% for neurosurgeons, but over a medical lifetime, most physicians across all specialities can expect to face at least 1 lawsuit, according to an article published today in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

The findings, drawn from the files of a major malpractice insurance carrier with clients across the country, represent more fodder for the ongoing debate on tort reform, a subject dear to organized medicine.

Physicians in the 5 least-sued specialties — psychiatry, pediatrics, a category called "other specialties" in the study, family medicine, and dermatology — have a 75% chance of getting sued by age 65. The odds increase to 99% for physicians in the 5 most-sued specialties: neurosurgery, thoracic cardiovascular surgery, general surgery, orthopaedic surgery, and plastic surgery.

Despite physicians having a high lifetime risk for malpractice litigation, most plaintiffs do not receive a payment in the form of a settlement or jury award, write lead author Anupam Jena, MD, PhD, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, and coauthors, echoing what other students of medical liability have found. On a yearly basis, 7.4% of all physicians are hit with a malpractice claim, but only 22% of these claims lead to a payment. Through age 65, physicians in the low-risk specialties run a 19% risk of facing a suit that pays off for the plaintiff, compared with a 71% risk for the high-risk specialties.

The size of average payments across specialties also was all over the map, ranging from $117,832 for dermatologists to $520,923 for pediatricians. However, this variability does not appear related to how often a particular specialty is sued. Neurosurgeons, for example, are roughly 6 times more likely to face a malpractice suit than pediatricians, but their average payment of $344,811 is substantially lower.

Raw Fear

The high likelihood of a malpractice suit at some point in a medical career, whether or not it results in a payment, helps explain physicians’ persistent worries about litigation, according to the authors. Simply put, physicians fear the sheer fact of being sued, and not just having a jury award or settlement on their record.

"Physicians can insure against indemnity payments through malpractice insurance," write Dr. Jena and coauthors, "but they cannot insure against the indirect costs of litigation, such as time, stress, added work, and reputational damage."

Tom Baker, JD, a professor of law and health sciences at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, said theNEJM study sheds light on why physicians feel under siege.

"I have always maintained that there is nothing short of prohibiting lawsuits that will eliminate the fear of a medical malpractice suit," Baker told Medscape Medical News. "A claim without a payment is just as disturbing as a claim with one."

Nonmeritous vs Frivolous

To an association representing malpractice insurance carriers, the NEJM study is a call not to prohibit malpractice lawsuits but instead to reduce their number by placing caps on noneconomic (pain and suffering) damages and enacting other tough restrictions on plaintiffs and their lawyers.

"This study validates what the PIAA [Physician Insurers Association of American] has reported for decades — that the vast majority of claims and suits brought against healthcare providers have no merit," said Brian Atchinson, president of the PIAA, in a statement issued to Medscape Medical News.

"Our figures show that 70% of the claims and suits brought against doctors do not result in payments to patients. Furthermore, for claims resolved at verdict, the defense prevails 80% of the time. Despite these facts, as a result of our flawed and inefficient medical liability system, healthcare providers continue to be subjected to unnecessary stress and time away from caring for patients, as the study noted. The PIAA will remain diligent in working for reform in the best interests of both patients and physicians alike."

Legal experts note that nonmeritous claims are not the same thing as frivolous claims — "frivolous" being a war cry in the tort-reform debate.

"Frivolous implies there’s no serious injury," said study coauthor and economist Amitabh Chandra, PhD, a professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, in an interview with Medscape Medical News. "Many cases involve an injury when there is no malpractice. That doesn’t make them frivolous."

Tom Baker agrees.

"People who bring a lawsuit have an outcome that wasn’t supposed to happen," he said. "It’s exceedingly difficult to find out why. When I read [the NEJM study], it confirms to me that the nonmeritous claims are being weeded out. The system works."

Physicians are understandably upset, said Dr. Chandra, about the hassle factor of malpractice claims, even when they prevail. However, they err in advocating purported solutions such as a limit on noneconomic damages, the key provision of a bill pending in Congress called the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-Cost, Timely Healthcare Act. Passage of this bill in a Democrat-controlled Senate is considered unlikely.

"It’s the wrong policy lever," said Dr. Chandra, contending that it does nothing to address the problem of too few malpractice victims receiving justice. Ninety-seven percent of patients who are injured by medical malpractice never file a claim, he said.

Dr. Chandra favors alternative reforms such as a no-fault system for certain classes of injuries, special medical malpractice courts, and policies that encourage healthcare providers to voluntarily disclose errors, apologize, and make good on injuries outside of court.

The study was supported by the RAND Institute for Civil Justice, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Institute on Aging Roybal Center at the University of Southern California. Coauthor Seth Seabury, PhD, reports receiving grant support from the RAND Institute for Civil Justice. The authors have disclosed no other relevant financial relationships.

N Engl J Med. 2011;365:629-636. Abstract

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Policy analysts see big ACO challenges


Hospitals and doctors may underestimate the complexity, cost and time required to establish successful accountable care organizations, a scenario that would set providers up to fail, two health policy experts argue in the Journal of the American Medical Association.


Stephen Shortell, dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Public Health, and Sara Singer, a Harvard University assistant professor of health policy and management, said a “constellation of potential shortcomings” could leave newly formed accountable care organizations unable to improve health care quality.

Hospitals and doctors have limited experience managing care and costs for all the care patients' receive, regardless of the setting, the authors said. Healthcare information technology can vary from one provider to another and providers need time to adapt to newly adopted IT systems, the article continued.


Shortell and Singer said providers risk overestimating their ability to handle such substantial challenges, as well as others, such as performance reporting and reducing variation in medical care. That would compromise timely access to information. It could also undermine efforts to engage patients; develop needed contracts with specialists; avoid legal pitfalls; and change healthcare delivery to improve quality, the authors wrote.


To avoid such potential problems will require leadership across the public and private sector and well-developed performance measurement, the article said.




Tuesday, August 16, 2011

U.S. Lays out Incentives in Health Reform Law


WASHINGTON (Reuters Health) Aug 12 - The U.S. government on Friday laid out incentives for states and people to participate in health insurance exchanges, including tax credits and funding grants for the states.

The health regulators also clarified how they will decide who is eligible to participate in the exchanges, a key program under President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul.

The exchanges are envisioned as open marketplaces of competing insurance plans that allow uninsured people and small businesses to band together to negotiate cheaper rates.

In the guidelines released on Friday, the U.S. Health and Human Services and Treasury departments outlined the premium tax credits to help Americans afford private insurance. They also detailed processes to check income and determine eligibility for federal subsidies such as Medicaid, the state insurance program for the poor.

States, insurance companies and patient groups have been awaiting these details because they are critical to establishing the exchanges.

The HHS on Friday also awarded 13 states and the District of Columbia $185 million in grants to help them build the exchanges. Last year, HHS gave $50 million in planning grants to nearly all states and $241 million in "early innovator" grants to help seven states establish exchanges that other local governments could use as a model.

States are facing a deadline of Jan. 1, 2013 to submit detailed plans for how their exchanges will work, or the HHS would come in and do the work to ensure the exchanges are operational by 2014.

HHS and the Treasury department are soliciting comments on the guidelines, which are here:http://r.reuters.com/zut23s.

Monday, August 15, 2011

Medicaid Cuts May Limit Care for New 2014 Enrollees


By David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters Health) Aug 11 - Three years before Medicaid is due to cover millions of uninsured Americans, state funding cuts may be undermining how much care the government-run health insurance program for the poor will offer new enrollees.

Two dozen states across the country plan to slash at least $4.7 billion from their Medicaid plans following four straight years of budget shortfalls, according to data provided separately by the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the consumer advocacy group Families USA.

The cuts would include reductions of up to 15% in reimbursement rates for doctors, hospitals and other care providers, higher co-pays for beneficiaries, including children, and the loss of optional benefits such as preventive care and dental and vision services.

Several states hope to restrict eligibility under enhanced Medicaid plans that offer services beyond the basic mandate.

Arizona is leading that charge. It suspended new enrollments for adults without children as part of a $500 million savings package. The freeze bars access for the next three years to an estimated 100,000 people.

As Congress seeks new ways to cut the U.S. deficit ahead of a November deadline, further cuts to the $427 billion Medicaid program also are more likely at the federal level.

Medicaid is funded jointly by federal and state governments but administered by the states with federal oversight.

The growing pressures mean access to healthcare services under Medicaid may be restricted, despite its role in expanding health coverage to 32 million more people under President Barack Obama's healthcare restructuring law.

Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, which covers children who do not qualify for Medicaid, are due to add 17 million currently uninsured Americans beginning in 2014, when the law requires that most people have health insurance.

The reimbursement cuts may prompt doctors, clinics and hospitals to restrict or eliminate access for Medicaid beneficiaries.

"The provider rate cuts are going to mean that fewer providers will offer Medicaid services by the time we get to 2014, and that's bad. It pulls in the opposite direction of where healthcare reform's trying to go," said Mike Leachman of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

CONTROLLING COSTS

It is difficult to measure the effects cuts are having on the 60 million people who already rely on Medicaid.

However, the volume of state cuts to Medicaid providers this year prompted the Obama administration in May to publish new guidelines for safeguarding federally mandated healthcare access levels while reducing costs.

"We do see a lot of rate cuts," said a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Some of them are going to be more temporary, some of them are going to be more permanent. Some of them are going to hold and some of them may not hold based on access concerns."

"We ought to proceed in a thoughtful way, both we at the federal level and states at the state level," the official said.

The Obama administration is working with more than a dozen states on plans to control costs and eliminate inefficiencies, with a focus on the 28% of Medicaid recipients whose chronic ailments generate a huge share of the costs.

Administration officials point out Medicaid's expansion will send a flood of new federal money into state budgets. Washington will pay for more than 90% of Medicaid's expansion, with additional funding for primary care physicians and public health centers.

But skeptics question whether those efforts can fully compensate for reductions that could be felt years away.

A fight over California's plan to cut provider payment rates by up to 10% will be the subject of oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the fall, in a case over whether Medicaid providers and beneficiaries can use the courts to block state cuts. A ruling is expected early in 2012.

Expansion of Medicaid is also expected to provide a significant growth opportunity for managed care companies.

Those companies include Medicaid specialists, such as Amerigroup and Centene , as well as large insurers with Medicaid businesses, such as UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint .

But state rate cuts could prompt the insurers to pull out of states if the accounts become money-losers.

BUDGET CROSS-FIRE

Deep cuts have also been imposed in Texas, Florida, Massachusetts and Maryland, and they can carry a double-whammy for Medicaid providers and beneficiaries because federal disbursements are tied to state spending levels.

"You're getting close to the bone," said Dr. Gary Kalkut, chief medical officer at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, the New York City borough that is home to one of the poorest congressional districts in the United States.

"At some point, more cuts will impair the delivery of services," he added. State advocates say governors and legislatures have little choice, given that total state budget shortfalls since 2008 now top $500 billion.

Assistance from the Obama administration's federal stimulus package has nearly dried up after having covered up to one-third of state shortfalls. Medicaid is a prime target for cuts, as it represents 22% of state budgets on average, according to Moody's Investors Service.

There are signs that next year will bring new funding gaps, driven by low revenues, rising healthcare costs, growing numbers of Medicaid-eligible residents, balanced-budget requirements and a political aversion to raising taxes.

Matt Salo, executive director at the National Association of Medicaid Directors, warns that healthcare reform could mean hidden costs as well as benefits for states.

He says government efforts to encourage participation in the Medicaid expansion could also bring in an estimated 13 million people who currently qualify for the program but are not enrolled due to challenges, including homelessness.

If they joined Medicaid, Salo says, they would not be covered by federal funding for new enrollees under the health law. Instead, the cost would be covered by federal and state funds under the conventional Medicaid formula.

Friday, August 12, 2011

US Gets Less for Its Healthcare Buck Than Other Nations


August 11, 2011 — Despite outspending 18 other developed nations on healthcare as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2005, the United States posted the highest mortality rate among its peers, according to a study published online last month in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Short Reports.

Although the United States reduced its mortality rate from 1979 to 2005, 15 of the other developed countries, including the United Kingdom, did the same thing at a faster clip.

In short, the American healthcare system is one of the least cost-effective, whereas the system in the United Kingdom is the second most cost-effective, doing more with less, write Colin Pritchard, PhD, a professor of psychiatric social work at Bournemouth University in Bournemouth, United Kingdom; and Mark Wallace, BSc, who teaches economics, politics, and philosophy at the Latymer School in London.

Pritchard and Wallace paid particular attention to the United Kingdom's performance because they conducted their study in response to frequent references to the "apparent failings" of the National Health Service during the ongoing healthcare reform debate in the United States.

The other countries in the study are Austria, Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.

In 1980, public and private healthcare expenditures in the United States as a percent of GDP amounted to 8.8%, ranking it second behind Sweden at 9%. By 2005, the United States had vaulted to first place with 15.3%, Switzerland placing a distant second at 11.6%. The United States also ranked number 1 in average GDP healthcare expenditures — 12.2% — during the entire 25-year time frame.

The authors extrapolated mortality rates per million (PM) from data compiled by the World Health Organization for 2 time frames — 1979 to 1981, and 2003 to 2005 — with separate rates for individuals aged 15 to 74 years, 15 to 34 years, 35 to 54 years, and 55 to 74 years.

The mortality rate in the United States for the comprehensive 15- to 74-year-old age group decreased from 9158 deaths PM to 6660 PM, or by 27% during the roughly quarter-century span, but the nation nevertheless posted the highest mortality rate in 2005 among the 19 developed nations. All but Portugal, Spain, and Switzerland saw their mortality rate decrease at a slower pace. The United Kingdom had the fifth highest mortality rate — 5471 PM.

Likewise, the United States topped the mortality-rate list for the 55- to 74-year-old age groups, whereas the United Kingdom came in at number 6.

Too Many Guns in the United States?

The authors calculated a cost-effectiveness ratio for each country by dividing the level of reduced mortality rates — in the case of the United States, 9158 PM minus 6660 PM or 2498 PM — by average GDP healthcare spending from 1980 to 2005. According to this measure, the United States ranked third from the bottom for the 15- to 74-year-old age group with a ratio of 1:205 vs 1:557 for the United Kingdom, which ranked second behind Ireland. The same pecking order for the 3 countries held true in the 55- to 74-year-old age group.

Several characteristics of the United States might help explain the country's high mortality rate among the 19 nations, according to Pritchard and Wallace. They point to the country's "considerable variation" on a range of socioeconomic and health factors, especially regarding ethnic groups. In addition, the availability of firearms here "impacts upon mortality rates such as homicide and suicide, far more than any other Western country."

The authors attempt to answer the question of why the United States performs so poorly on healthcare cost-effectiveness when the market forces of a largely private healthcare system are assumed to foster efficiency. The US system, Pritchard and Wallace write, has "inherent market failures" such as adverse selection, in which individuals with greater health risks are more likely to obtain coverage from private insurers than individuals with lesser risks, driving premiums upward and discouraging the "better bets" from getting coverage in the first place. Another market failure stems from private insurers charging everyone higher premiums to hedge against "a few individuals that require unexpectedly very expensive medical treatment."

Nations with mostly public healthcare systems, such as the United Kingdom, avoid these pitfalls, according to the authors.

The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

J R Soc Med Sh Rep. 2011;2:60. Full text

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Join CMS' National Provider Call on Meaningful Use


Register for the CMS National Provider call on Understanding Meaningful Use


Registration is now open for the CMS National Provider Call titled, “Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs:  Understanding Meaningful Use.” The call will be held Thursday, August 18, from 1:30-3:00 p.m. ET.


As of July 31, providers have received more than $397 million in Medicare and Medicaid EHR incentive payments. This call will help you learn more about meaningful use so that you can get on the path to receiving an EHR incentive payment. The call will cover the following topics:


You can register online for the call . In order to receive the call-in information, you must register for the call.  Registration will close at 1:30 p.m. ET on Wednesday, August 17, or when available space has been filled. No exceptions will be made, so please register early. 

Want more information about the EHR Incentive Programs?
Make sure to visit the EHR Incentive Programs website for the latest news and updates on the EHR Incentive Programs.



Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Physician Groups Comment on Medicare Plan to Release Claims Data

The American Medical Association and 81 other physician organizations have submitted comments on a proposed rule published on June 8 to make available standardized extracts of Medicare claims data to measure the performance of providers and suppliers.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' rule, covering Medicare Parts A, B and D, is mandated under the Affordable Care Act. Qualified entities may receive the data for the sole purpose of evaluating providers and suppliers and to generate specified public reports, according to the proposed rule. The entities must pay a fee equal to the cost of making the data available, and must combine it with claims data from other sources when conducting evaluations.


The medical associations support much of the proposed rule, but ask for numerous clarifications. For instance, "It is critical that CMS provide standardized specifications for the measures that may be used with Medicare and non-Medicare, private health plan data," according to the comment letter. "This is to ensure that consistent measures and analytics are used in developing public reports that are valid, reliable and actionable." The organizations also urge CMS to consult with key industry stakeholders, including the physician community, to develop standardized and user-friendly formats for public reports on the performance measures.

The associations also call on CMS to ensure physicians can review their data for accuracy and appeal any errors before the information is made public. The complete comment letter is available here.



Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Certified EHR Technology and the EHR Incentive Programs


Eligible professionals (EPs) and eligible hospitals participating in the Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs are required to use certified EHR technology in order to receive incentive payments. To get an incentive payment, you must use an EHR that is certified specifically for the EHR Incentive Programs. EHRs certified or qualified for other Medicare or Medicaid incentive programs may not be certified for this program.

 

To qualify as certified EHR technology for the EHR Incentive Programs, an EHR needs to be tested by one of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology-Authorized Testing and Certification Bodies, otherwise known as the ONC-ATCBs. If an EHR technology has been certified by an ONC-ATCB, it indicates to EPs and eligible hospitals that an EHR technology has the capacities necessary to support their efforts to meet meaningful use goals and objectives.

 

Note: You do not need to already have certified EHR technology in place when you register for the EHR Incentive Programs. However, you will need to have meaningfully used your certified EHR technology to receive your first year Medicare incentive payment. Under the Medicaid EHR Incentive Program, you will need to have at least adopted (i.e., purchased or acquired) certified EHR technology in order to receive your first year incentive payment.

To see more details on certified EHR technology, visit the CMS website. If you would like to find a list of certified EHR technologies, see ONC's Certified Health IT Product List.

Want more information about the EHR Incentive Programs?
Make sure to visit the EHR Incentive Programs website for the latest news and updates on the EHR Incentive Programs.