Public Policy

SHM Public Policy Committee Chair Ron Greeno, MD, MHM, talks about policy issues facing hospitalist, and how "Hill Day 2015" works as an advocacy tool.

SHM Public Policy Committee Chair Ron Greeno, MD, MHM, talks about policy issues facing hospitalist, and how "Hill Day 2015" works as an advocacy tool.

SHM Public Policy Committee Chair Ron Greeno, MD, MHM, talks about policy issues facing hospitalist, and how "Hill Day 2015" works as an advocacy tool.

In 2015, reimbursement for physicians in large groups is subject to a value modifier that takes into account the cost and quality of services performed under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. By 2017, the modifier will apply to all physicians participating in fee-for-service Medicare.

It’s one more way the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the federal government are attempting to tip the scales on skyrocketing healthcare costs. Their end goal is a focus on better efficiency and less waste in the healthcare system.

But in an environment of top-down measures, hospitalists on the front lines are leading the charge to reduce overuse and overtreatment, slow cost growth, and improve both the quality of care and outcomes for their patients.

“I think the hospitalist movement has prided itself on quality improvement and patient safety in the hospital,” says Chris Moriates, MD, assistant clinical professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) and co-creator of the cost awareness curriculum for UCSF’s internal medicine residents. “Over the last few years…they are more focused and enthusiastic about looking at value.”

Dr. Moriates leads the UCSF hospitalist division’s High Value Care Committee and is director of implementation initiatives at Costs of Care. He’s also part of a UCSF program that invites all employees to submit ideas for cutting waste in the hospital while maintaining or improving patient care quality. Last year, the winning project tackled unnecessary blood transfusions and at the same time realized $1 million in savings due to lower transfusion rates. This year, the hospital will focus on decreasing money spent on surgical supplies, potentially saving millions of dollars, he says.

A 2012 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) estimates wasteful spending costs the U.S. healthcare system at least $600 billion and potentially more than a trillion dollars annually due to such issues as care coordination and care delivery failures and overtreatment.¹ Numerous studies also indicate overtreatment can lead to patient harm.²

“Say a patient gets a prophylactic scan for abdominal pain,” says Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP, a hospitalist on faculty in the University of Chicago’s department of medicine and director of education initiatives for Costs of Care. “The patient gets better, but an incidental finding of the scan is a renal mass. Now, there is a work-up of that mass, the patient gets a biopsy, and they have a bleed. A lot of testing leads to more testing, and more testing can lead to harm.”

Doing less is often better, says John Bulger, DO, MBA, SFHM, chief quality officer for the Geisinger Health System in Danville, Pa. Dr. Bulger, who has led SHM’s participation in the Choosing Wisely campaign, cites a September 2014 study in JAMA Internal Medicine, in which Christiana Care Health System—an 1,100-bed tertiary care center in northern Delaware—built best practice telemetry guidelines into its electronic ordering system to help physicians determine when monitoring was appropriate.³ The health system also assembled multidisciplinary teams, which identified when medications warranted telemetry, and equipped nurses with tools to determine when telemetry should be stopped.

Appropriate use of telemetry is one of SHM’s five Choosing Wisely recommendations for adult patient care.

In addition to an overall 70% reduction in telemetry use without negative impact to patient safety, Christiana Care saved $4.8 million. Throughout its inpatient units, Christiana Care utilizes a multidisciplinary team approach to coordinate patient care. Daily rounds are attended by hospitalists, nurses, pharmacists, case managers, social workers, and others to ensure timely and appropriate patient care. The health system’s Value Institute evaluates hospital efforts and assesses process design to improve efficiency and, ultimately, outcomes.

“This is preparing for war in a time of peace, essentially,” says LeRoi S. Hicks, MD, MPH, a hospitalist, researcher, and educator at Christiana Care. “The goal will be, as we move to bundled payment and population health approaches, to minimize the time patients spend in the hospitals and limit the growth curve in spending on the hospital side. We are doing this and not taking on financial risk.”

Dr. Hicks adds that in its most simple form the project “reduces variation in the care we deliver” while improving efficiency and outcomes.

For many physicians, the best way to start is to begin a dialogue with patients who might also be at risk of financial harm due to unnecessary care, Dr. Arora says. “Patients are willing to change their minds and go with the more affordable and more evidence-based treatment and forgo expensive ones if they have that conversation,” she says.

Many resources exist for physicians interested in driving the frontline charge to improve healthcare quality and value. The Costs of Care curriculum provides training and tools for physicians at teachingvalue.org, as do SHM’s Center for Quality Innovation and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Dr. Moriates and Dr. Arora also have co-authored a book, along with Neel Shah, MD, founder and executive director of Costs of Care, called “Understanding Value Based Healthcare.” The book will be available this spring.

“We shouldn’t sit by the side of the road waiting for things to pass by,” Dr. Arora says. “I think the key is, we know the needle is shifting in Washington, we know system innovation models are being tested. It would be silly for us to say we’re going to continue the status quo and not look at ways to contribute as physicians.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

References

1. Berwick DM, Hackbarth AD. Eliminating waste in US health care. JAMA. 2012;307(14):1513-1516.
2. Morgan DJ, Wright SM, Dhruva S. Update on medical overuse. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(1):120-124.
3. Dressler R, Dryer MM, Coletti C, Mahoney D, Doorey AJ. Altering overuse of cardiac telemetry in non-intensive care unit settings by hardwiring the use of American Heart Association guidelines. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(11):1852-1854.

In 2015, reimbursement for physicians in large groups is subject to a value modifier that takes into account the cost and quality of services performed under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. By 2017, the modifier will apply to all physicians participating in fee-for-service Medicare.

It’s one more way the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the federal government are attempting to tip the scales on skyrocketing healthcare costs. Their end goal is a focus on better efficiency and less waste in the healthcare system.

But in an environment of top-down measures, hospitalists on the front lines are leading the charge to reduce overuse and overtreatment, slow cost growth, and improve both the quality of care and outcomes for their patients.

“I think the hospitalist movement has prided itself on quality improvement and patient safety in the hospital,” says Chris Moriates, MD, assistant clinical professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) and co-creator of the cost awareness curriculum for UCSF’s internal medicine residents. “Over the last few years…they are more focused and enthusiastic about looking at value.”

Dr. Moriates leads the UCSF hospitalist division’s High Value Care Committee and is director of implementation initiatives at Costs of Care. He’s also part of a UCSF program that invites all employees to submit ideas for cutting waste in the hospital while maintaining or improving patient care quality. Last year, the winning project tackled unnecessary blood transfusions and at the same time realized $1 million in savings due to lower transfusion rates. This year, the hospital will focus on decreasing money spent on surgical supplies, potentially saving millions of dollars, he says.

A 2012 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) estimates wasteful spending costs the U.S. healthcare system at least $600 billion and potentially more than a trillion dollars annually due to such issues as care coordination and care delivery failures and overtreatment.¹ Numerous studies also indicate overtreatment can lead to patient harm.²

“Say a patient gets a prophylactic scan for abdominal pain,” says Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP, a hospitalist on faculty in the University of Chicago’s department of medicine and director of education initiatives for Costs of Care. “The patient gets better, but an incidental finding of the scan is a renal mass. Now, there is a work-up of that mass, the patient gets a biopsy, and they have a bleed. A lot of testing leads to more testing, and more testing can lead to harm.”

Doing less is often better, says John Bulger, DO, MBA, SFHM, chief quality officer for the Geisinger Health System in Danville, Pa. Dr. Bulger, who has led SHM’s participation in the Choosing Wisely campaign, cites a September 2014 study in JAMA Internal Medicine, in which Christiana Care Health System—an 1,100-bed tertiary care center in northern Delaware—built best practice telemetry guidelines into its electronic ordering system to help physicians determine when monitoring was appropriate.³ The health system also assembled multidisciplinary teams, which identified when medications warranted telemetry, and equipped nurses with tools to determine when telemetry should be stopped.

Appropriate use of telemetry is one of SHM’s five Choosing Wisely recommendations for adult patient care.

In addition to an overall 70% reduction in telemetry use without negative impact to patient safety, Christiana Care saved $4.8 million. Throughout its inpatient units, Christiana Care utilizes a multidisciplinary team approach to coordinate patient care. Daily rounds are attended by hospitalists, nurses, pharmacists, case managers, social workers, and others to ensure timely and appropriate patient care. The health system’s Value Institute evaluates hospital efforts and assesses process design to improve efficiency and, ultimately, outcomes.

“This is preparing for war in a time of peace, essentially,” says LeRoi S. Hicks, MD, MPH, a hospitalist, researcher, and educator at Christiana Care. “The goal will be, as we move to bundled payment and population health approaches, to minimize the time patients spend in the hospitals and limit the growth curve in spending on the hospital side. We are doing this and not taking on financial risk.”

Dr. Hicks adds that in its most simple form the project “reduces variation in the care we deliver” while improving efficiency and outcomes.

For many physicians, the best way to start is to begin a dialogue with patients who might also be at risk of financial harm due to unnecessary care, Dr. Arora says. “Patients are willing to change their minds and go with the more affordable and more evidence-based treatment and forgo expensive ones if they have that conversation,” she says.

Many resources exist for physicians interested in driving the frontline charge to improve healthcare quality and value. The Costs of Care curriculum provides training and tools for physicians at teachingvalue.org, as do SHM’s Center for Quality Innovation and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Dr. Moriates and Dr. Arora also have co-authored a book, along with Neel Shah, MD, founder and executive director of Costs of Care, called “Understanding Value Based Healthcare.” The book will be available this spring.

“We shouldn’t sit by the side of the road waiting for things to pass by,” Dr. Arora says. “I think the key is, we know the needle is shifting in Washington, we know system innovation models are being tested. It would be silly for us to say we’re going to continue the status quo and not look at ways to contribute as physicians.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

References

1. Berwick DM, Hackbarth AD. Eliminating waste in US health care. JAMA. 2012;307(14):1513-1516.
2. Morgan DJ, Wright SM, Dhruva S. Update on medical overuse. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(1):120-124.
3. Dressler R, Dryer MM, Coletti C, Mahoney D, Doorey AJ. Altering overuse of cardiac telemetry in non-intensive care unit settings by hardwiring the use of American Heart Association guidelines. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(11):1852-1854.

In 2015, reimbursement for physicians in large groups is subject to a value modifier that takes into account the cost and quality of services performed under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. By 2017, the modifier will apply to all physicians participating in fee-for-service Medicare.

It’s one more way the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the federal government are attempting to tip the scales on skyrocketing healthcare costs. Their end goal is a focus on better efficiency and less waste in the healthcare system.

But in an environment of top-down measures, hospitalists on the front lines are leading the charge to reduce overuse and overtreatment, slow cost growth, and improve both the quality of care and outcomes for their patients.

“I think the hospitalist movement has prided itself on quality improvement and patient safety in the hospital,” says Chris Moriates, MD, assistant clinical professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) and co-creator of the cost awareness curriculum for UCSF’s internal medicine residents. “Over the last few years…they are more focused and enthusiastic about looking at value.”

Dr. Moriates leads the UCSF hospitalist division’s High Value Care Committee and is director of implementation initiatives at Costs of Care. He’s also part of a UCSF program that invites all employees to submit ideas for cutting waste in the hospital while maintaining or improving patient care quality. Last year, the winning project tackled unnecessary blood transfusions and at the same time realized $1 million in savings due to lower transfusion rates. This year, the hospital will focus on decreasing money spent on surgical supplies, potentially saving millions of dollars, he says.

A 2012 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) estimates wasteful spending costs the U.S. healthcare system at least $600 billion and potentially more than a trillion dollars annually due to such issues as care coordination and care delivery failures and overtreatment.¹ Numerous studies also indicate overtreatment can lead to patient harm.²

“Say a patient gets a prophylactic scan for abdominal pain,” says Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP, a hospitalist on faculty in the University of Chicago’s department of medicine and director of education initiatives for Costs of Care. “The patient gets better, but an incidental finding of the scan is a renal mass. Now, there is a work-up of that mass, the patient gets a biopsy, and they have a bleed. A lot of testing leads to more testing, and more testing can lead to harm.”

Doing less is often better, says John Bulger, DO, MBA, SFHM, chief quality officer for the Geisinger Health System in Danville, Pa. Dr. Bulger, who has led SHM’s participation in the Choosing Wisely campaign, cites a September 2014 study in JAMA Internal Medicine, in which Christiana Care Health System—an 1,100-bed tertiary care center in northern Delaware—built best practice telemetry guidelines into its electronic ordering system to help physicians determine when monitoring was appropriate.³ The health system also assembled multidisciplinary teams, which identified when medications warranted telemetry, and equipped nurses with tools to determine when telemetry should be stopped.

Appropriate use of telemetry is one of SHM’s five Choosing Wisely recommendations for adult patient care.

In addition to an overall 70% reduction in telemetry use without negative impact to patient safety, Christiana Care saved $4.8 million. Throughout its inpatient units, Christiana Care utilizes a multidisciplinary team approach to coordinate patient care. Daily rounds are attended by hospitalists, nurses, pharmacists, case managers, social workers, and others to ensure timely and appropriate patient care. The health system’s Value Institute evaluates hospital efforts and assesses process design to improve efficiency and, ultimately, outcomes.

“This is preparing for war in a time of peace, essentially,” says LeRoi S. Hicks, MD, MPH, a hospitalist, researcher, and educator at Christiana Care. “The goal will be, as we move to bundled payment and population health approaches, to minimize the time patients spend in the hospitals and limit the growth curve in spending on the hospital side. We are doing this and not taking on financial risk.”

Dr. Hicks adds that in its most simple form the project “reduces variation in the care we deliver” while improving efficiency and outcomes.

For many physicians, the best way to start is to begin a dialogue with patients who might also be at risk of financial harm due to unnecessary care, Dr. Arora says. “Patients are willing to change their minds and go with the more affordable and more evidence-based treatment and forgo expensive ones if they have that conversation,” she says.

Many resources exist for physicians interested in driving the frontline charge to improve healthcare quality and value. The Costs of Care curriculum provides training and tools for physicians at teachingvalue.org, as do SHM’s Center for Quality Innovation and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Dr. Moriates and Dr. Arora also have co-authored a book, along with Neel Shah, MD, founder and executive director of Costs of Care, called “Understanding Value Based Healthcare.” The book will be available this spring.

“We shouldn’t sit by the side of the road waiting for things to pass by,” Dr. Arora says. “I think the key is, we know the needle is shifting in Washington, we know system innovation models are being tested. It would be silly for us to say we’re going to continue the status quo and not look at ways to contribute as physicians.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

References

1. Berwick DM, Hackbarth AD. Eliminating waste in US health care. JAMA. 2012;307(14):1513-1516.
2. Morgan DJ, Wright SM, Dhruva S. Update on medical overuse. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(1):120-124.
3. Dressler R, Dryer MM, Coletti C, Mahoney D, Doorey AJ. Altering overuse of cardiac telemetry in non-intensive care unit settings by hardwiring the use of American Heart Association guidelines. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(11):1852-1854.

69%: the percentage of hospitals that had perfect compliance with the Leapfrog Group employer coalition’s safe practices for hand hygiene in its 2013 annual quality survey of 1,437 U.S. hospitals.

The CDC estimates 2 million patients annually acquire hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), often spread by contaminated hands of healthcare workers.

Urban hospitals performed better than rural hospitals in compliance with Leapfrog’s standard.

69%: the percentage of hospitals that had perfect compliance with the Leapfrog Group employer coalition’s safe practices for hand hygiene in its 2013 annual quality survey of 1,437 U.S. hospitals.

The CDC estimates 2 million patients annually acquire hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), often spread by contaminated hands of healthcare workers.

Urban hospitals performed better than rural hospitals in compliance with Leapfrog’s standard.

69%: the percentage of hospitals that had perfect compliance with the Leapfrog Group employer coalition’s safe practices for hand hygiene in its 2013 annual quality survey of 1,437 U.S. hospitals.

The CDC estimates 2 million patients annually acquire hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), often spread by contaminated hands of healthcare workers.

Urban hospitals performed better than rural hospitals in compliance with Leapfrog’s standard.

Government penalties meant to reduce COPD readmissions will unfairly impact hospitals that care for vulnerable patients, according to a report from the University of Michigan.

Beginning in January 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will add COPD to its list of medical conditions for which it penalizes hospitals for excessive readmissions and fines them up to 3% of their total Medicare reimbursement for COPD readmissions.

Researchers Michael W. Sjoding, MD, and Colin R. Cooke, MD, MSc, MS, both of the University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor, evaluated three years of data on 3,018 hospitals and found that COPD readmission rates ranged from 17% to 28% across all hospitals. Hospitals designated as major teaching hospitals, those with a high percentage of patients with low socioeconomic status, and those with a high volume of COPD patients were associated with higher COPD readmission rates (P<0.001 for all).

The findings were published last month in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

"It has been shown that there is a correlation between patients' social structures and support at home and COPD readmissions," Dr. Sjoding says. "Economic resources and education level can also drive readmissions, situations that are beyond hospital control."

Policies that measure hospital quality, Dr. Sjoding says, are important to ensure that patients have access to quality care across the country. However, when creating policies aimed at reducing readmission rates, CMS should level the playing field, he says. For example, academic hospitals caring for complex patients should be compared against their peers.

"It's important that physicians speak up to make sure that policies do the right thing," he says.

Visit our website for more information about managing patients with COPD.

Government penalties meant to reduce COPD readmissions will unfairly impact hospitals that care for vulnerable patients, according to a report from the University of Michigan.

Beginning in January 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will add COPD to its list of medical conditions for which it penalizes hospitals for excessive readmissions and fines them up to 3% of their total Medicare reimbursement for COPD readmissions.

Researchers Michael W. Sjoding, MD, and Colin R. Cooke, MD, MSc, MS, both of the University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor, evaluated three years of data on 3,018 hospitals and found that COPD readmission rates ranged from 17% to 28% across all hospitals. Hospitals designated as major teaching hospitals, those with a high percentage of patients with low socioeconomic status, and those with a high volume of COPD patients were associated with higher COPD readmission rates (P<0.001 for all).

The findings were published last month in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

"It has been shown that there is a correlation between patients' social structures and support at home and COPD readmissions," Dr. Sjoding says. "Economic resources and education level can also drive readmissions, situations that are beyond hospital control."

Policies that measure hospital quality, Dr. Sjoding says, are important to ensure that patients have access to quality care across the country. However, when creating policies aimed at reducing readmission rates, CMS should level the playing field, he says. For example, academic hospitals caring for complex patients should be compared against their peers.

"It's important that physicians speak up to make sure that policies do the right thing," he says.

Visit our website for more information about managing patients with COPD.

Government penalties meant to reduce COPD readmissions will unfairly impact hospitals that care for vulnerable patients, according to a report from the University of Michigan.

Beginning in January 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will add COPD to its list of medical conditions for which it penalizes hospitals for excessive readmissions and fines them up to 3% of their total Medicare reimbursement for COPD readmissions.

Researchers Michael W. Sjoding, MD, and Colin R. Cooke, MD, MSc, MS, both of the University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor, evaluated three years of data on 3,018 hospitals and found that COPD readmission rates ranged from 17% to 28% across all hospitals. Hospitals designated as major teaching hospitals, those with a high percentage of patients with low socioeconomic status, and those with a high volume of COPD patients were associated with higher COPD readmission rates (P<0.001 for all).

The findings were published last month in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

"It has been shown that there is a correlation between patients' social structures and support at home and COPD readmissions," Dr. Sjoding says. "Economic resources and education level can also drive readmissions, situations that are beyond hospital control."

Policies that measure hospital quality, Dr. Sjoding says, are important to ensure that patients have access to quality care across the country. However, when creating policies aimed at reducing readmission rates, CMS should level the playing field, he says. For example, academic hospitals caring for complex patients should be compared against their peers.

"It's important that physicians speak up to make sure that policies do the right thing," he says.

Visit our website for more information about managing patients with COPD.

When the outbreak first started, and in the months that followed, Ebola virus dominated American headlines. The disease made its way from West Africa, infecting nurses in Spain and the U.S., and questions arose over how to keep healthcare providers and the public safe.

The answers to these questions are not limited to Ebola. Hospitalists and other providers work in the face of infectious disease on a routine basis, particularly in an era of widespread antibiotic resistance and emerging infections caused by such viruses as chikungunya, enterovirus D68, and MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) coronavirus.

The key to adequate preparation, says Joshua Lenchus, DO, RPh, FACP, SFHM, associate director of the Center for Patient Safety at the University of Miami-Jackson Memorial Hospital, is “information, the ability to implement relevant protocols and procedures when necessary, and, when possible, simulated exercises.”

Hospitalists can play a key role in ensuring their hospitals are prepared.

“I am constantly being reminded by my Society of Hospital Medicine colleagues that many facilities may not have an infectious disease specialist or an infectious disease program,” says Abbigail Tumpey, MPH, CHES, associate director for communications science in the CDC’s Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion.

It starts at the front door of the hospital, Tumpey and Dr. Lenchus say, with appropriate triage, screening, and isolation of potentially infectious patients.

“We diligently draft screening procedures for our frontline staff, clinic personnel, and appointment line phone operators to adequately and quickly evaluate patients so that those affected are provided the appropriate level of care,” says Dr. Lenchus, also a hospitalist and associate professor of clinical medicine and anesthesiology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.

“We diligently draft screening procedures for our frontline staff, clinic personnel, and appointment line phone operators to adequately and quickly evaluate patients so that those affected are provided the appropriate level of care.”–Dr. Lenchus

These screening and management procedures originate with the CDC and state health departments and are often informed by outbreaks occurring in other locales.

“When an outbreak occurs elsewhere in the world, it is simply a matter of time before we may be faced with it in the United States,” Dr. Lenchus says, “so it behooves us to begin the research process and work with our hospital, local, and state personnel.”

The second line of defense, says Tumpey, is having in place the proper administrative controls to ensure that providers have time to don the appropriate personal protective equipment, or PPE. This means not just having access to PPE, but also the ability to put it on and take it off appropriately.

According to The New York Times, European officials investigated whether the Spanish nurse became infected with Ebola by accidentally touching her face while removing her PPE, and officials in the U.S. investigated whether the Dallas nurse who contracted Ebola while treating an infected Liberian patient also breached protocol. In Spain, investigators determined the layout of the hospital’s cramped Ebola ward could lead to accidents. In Dallas, rapidly changing conditions and poor preparation may have played a role, according to some reports. For just these kinds of reasons, Tumpey and Dr. Lenchus suggest hospitals engage in simulations and drills of outbreak events whenever possible.

“The facilities we’ve seen do this have found information they didn’t realize or a way of handling things that was surprising to them,” Tumpey says. “Certainly, there are some things that come up in those drills that highlight potential flaws and show opportunities where you can improve.”

For instance, simulations might reveal problems with the storage or disposal of PPE, lead to changes in hand hygiene locations, or highlight the need for better communication among healthcare workers.

Calm, Cool, Collected

Proper infection control procedures—hand hygiene, injection safety, appropriate cleanup, and careful waste handling—are a third line of defense in preventing the spread of infectious disease, Tumpey says.

Dr. Lenchus says that, particularly in light of diseases like Ebola, hospitalists should present concerned patients with valid information in a “calm, cool, and collected manner” that “helps allay the fear, misconception, and hysteria from generalizations, emotional responses, and anecdotal hearsay.”

These conversations present hospitalists with an opportunity to highlight the protocols, procedures, and patient safety programs in place at their institutions. They also provide a forum to discuss common cold and influenza viruses, which spread more easily than Ebola.

Of course, in the face of new rules for admissions, packed EDs, mounting metrics, and sometimes nonintuitive electronic health records, staying abreast of the latest information and catching every patient with symptoms that may or may not be related to an infectious disease may be easier said than done.

The CDC is redoubling its outreach efforts, Tumpey says, and will offer webinars and trainings for health providers.

“Our hope is that increased awareness can improve triage, early recognition, and appropriate infection control and could help for other things like MRSA, the endemic threats we face every day in U.S. healthcare facilities, even emerging diseases like MERS and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae,” says Tumpey. “Awareness of proper infection control could help with many disease threats.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

When the outbreak first started, and in the months that followed, Ebola virus dominated American headlines. The disease made its way from West Africa, infecting nurses in Spain and the U.S., and questions arose over how to keep healthcare providers and the public safe.

The answers to these questions are not limited to Ebola. Hospitalists and other providers work in the face of infectious disease on a routine basis, particularly in an era of widespread antibiotic resistance and emerging infections caused by such viruses as chikungunya, enterovirus D68, and MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) coronavirus.

The key to adequate preparation, says Joshua Lenchus, DO, RPh, FACP, SFHM, associate director of the Center for Patient Safety at the University of Miami-Jackson Memorial Hospital, is “information, the ability to implement relevant protocols and procedures when necessary, and, when possible, simulated exercises.”

Hospitalists can play a key role in ensuring their hospitals are prepared.

“I am constantly being reminded by my Society of Hospital Medicine colleagues that many facilities may not have an infectious disease specialist or an infectious disease program,” says Abbigail Tumpey, MPH, CHES, associate director for communications science in the CDC’s Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion.

It starts at the front door of the hospital, Tumpey and Dr. Lenchus say, with appropriate triage, screening, and isolation of potentially infectious patients.

“We diligently draft screening procedures for our frontline staff, clinic personnel, and appointment line phone operators to adequately and quickly evaluate patients so that those affected are provided the appropriate level of care,” says Dr. Lenchus, also a hospitalist and associate professor of clinical medicine and anesthesiology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.

“We diligently draft screening procedures for our frontline staff, clinic personnel, and appointment line phone operators to adequately and quickly evaluate patients so that those affected are provided the appropriate level of care.”–Dr. Lenchus

These screening and management procedures originate with the CDC and state health departments and are often informed by outbreaks occurring in other locales.

“When an outbreak occurs elsewhere in the world, it is simply a matter of time before we may be faced with it in the United States,” Dr. Lenchus says, “so it behooves us to begin the research process and work with our hospital, local, and state personnel.”

The second line of defense, says Tumpey, is having in place the proper administrative controls to ensure that providers have time to don the appropriate personal protective equipment, or PPE. This means not just having access to PPE, but also the ability to put it on and take it off appropriately.

According to The New York Times, European officials investigated whether the Spanish nurse became infected with Ebola by accidentally touching her face while removing her PPE, and officials in the U.S. investigated whether the Dallas nurse who contracted Ebola while treating an infected Liberian patient also breached protocol. In Spain, investigators determined the layout of the hospital’s cramped Ebola ward could lead to accidents. In Dallas, rapidly changing conditions and poor preparation may have played a role, according to some reports. For just these kinds of reasons, Tumpey and Dr. Lenchus suggest hospitals engage in simulations and drills of outbreak events whenever possible.

“The facilities we’ve seen do this have found information they didn’t realize or a way of handling things that was surprising to them,” Tumpey says. “Certainly, there are some things that come up in those drills that highlight potential flaws and show opportunities where you can improve.”

For instance, simulations might reveal problems with the storage or disposal of PPE, lead to changes in hand hygiene locations, or highlight the need for better communication among healthcare workers.

Calm, Cool, Collected

Proper infection control procedures—hand hygiene, injection safety, appropriate cleanup, and careful waste handling—are a third line of defense in preventing the spread of infectious disease, Tumpey says.

Dr. Lenchus says that, particularly in light of diseases like Ebola, hospitalists should present concerned patients with valid information in a “calm, cool, and collected manner” that “helps allay the fear, misconception, and hysteria from generalizations, emotional responses, and anecdotal hearsay.”

These conversations present hospitalists with an opportunity to highlight the protocols, procedures, and patient safety programs in place at their institutions. They also provide a forum to discuss common cold and influenza viruses, which spread more easily than Ebola.

Of course, in the face of new rules for admissions, packed EDs, mounting metrics, and sometimes nonintuitive electronic health records, staying abreast of the latest information and catching every patient with symptoms that may or may not be related to an infectious disease may be easier said than done.

The CDC is redoubling its outreach efforts, Tumpey says, and will offer webinars and trainings for health providers.

“Our hope is that increased awareness can improve triage, early recognition, and appropriate infection control and could help for other things like MRSA, the endemic threats we face every day in U.S. healthcare facilities, even emerging diseases like MERS and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae,” says Tumpey. “Awareness of proper infection control could help with many disease threats.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

When the outbreak first started, and in the months that followed, Ebola virus dominated American headlines. The disease made its way from West Africa, infecting nurses in Spain and the U.S., and questions arose over how to keep healthcare providers and the public safe.

The answers to these questions are not limited to Ebola. Hospitalists and other providers work in the face of infectious disease on a routine basis, particularly in an era of widespread antibiotic resistance and emerging infections caused by such viruses as chikungunya, enterovirus D68, and MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) coronavirus.

The key to adequate preparation, says Joshua Lenchus, DO, RPh, FACP, SFHM, associate director of the Center for Patient Safety at the University of Miami-Jackson Memorial Hospital, is “information, the ability to implement relevant protocols and procedures when necessary, and, when possible, simulated exercises.”

Hospitalists can play a key role in ensuring their hospitals are prepared.

“I am constantly being reminded by my Society of Hospital Medicine colleagues that many facilities may not have an infectious disease specialist or an infectious disease program,” says Abbigail Tumpey, MPH, CHES, associate director for communications science in the CDC’s Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion.

It starts at the front door of the hospital, Tumpey and Dr. Lenchus say, with appropriate triage, screening, and isolation of potentially infectious patients.

“We diligently draft screening procedures for our frontline staff, clinic personnel, and appointment line phone operators to adequately and quickly evaluate patients so that those affected are provided the appropriate level of care,” says Dr. Lenchus, also a hospitalist and associate professor of clinical medicine and anesthesiology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.

“We diligently draft screening procedures for our frontline staff, clinic personnel, and appointment line phone operators to adequately and quickly evaluate patients so that those affected are provided the appropriate level of care.”–Dr. Lenchus

These screening and management procedures originate with the CDC and state health departments and are often informed by outbreaks occurring in other locales.

“When an outbreak occurs elsewhere in the world, it is simply a matter of time before we may be faced with it in the United States,” Dr. Lenchus says, “so it behooves us to begin the research process and work with our hospital, local, and state personnel.”

The second line of defense, says Tumpey, is having in place the proper administrative controls to ensure that providers have time to don the appropriate personal protective equipment, or PPE. This means not just having access to PPE, but also the ability to put it on and take it off appropriately.

According to The New York Times, European officials investigated whether the Spanish nurse became infected with Ebola by accidentally touching her face while removing her PPE, and officials in the U.S. investigated whether the Dallas nurse who contracted Ebola while treating an infected Liberian patient also breached protocol. In Spain, investigators determined the layout of the hospital’s cramped Ebola ward could lead to accidents. In Dallas, rapidly changing conditions and poor preparation may have played a role, according to some reports. For just these kinds of reasons, Tumpey and Dr. Lenchus suggest hospitals engage in simulations and drills of outbreak events whenever possible.

“The facilities we’ve seen do this have found information they didn’t realize or a way of handling things that was surprising to them,” Tumpey says. “Certainly, there are some things that come up in those drills that highlight potential flaws and show opportunities where you can improve.”

For instance, simulations might reveal problems with the storage or disposal of PPE, lead to changes in hand hygiene locations, or highlight the need for better communication among healthcare workers.

Calm, Cool, Collected

Proper infection control procedures—hand hygiene, injection safety, appropriate cleanup, and careful waste handling—are a third line of defense in preventing the spread of infectious disease, Tumpey says.

Dr. Lenchus says that, particularly in light of diseases like Ebola, hospitalists should present concerned patients with valid information in a “calm, cool, and collected manner” that “helps allay the fear, misconception, and hysteria from generalizations, emotional responses, and anecdotal hearsay.”

These conversations present hospitalists with an opportunity to highlight the protocols, procedures, and patient safety programs in place at their institutions. They also provide a forum to discuss common cold and influenza viruses, which spread more easily than Ebola.

Of course, in the face of new rules for admissions, packed EDs, mounting metrics, and sometimes nonintuitive electronic health records, staying abreast of the latest information and catching every patient with symptoms that may or may not be related to an infectious disease may be easier said than done.

The CDC is redoubling its outreach efforts, Tumpey says, and will offer webinars and trainings for health providers.

“Our hope is that increased awareness can improve triage, early recognition, and appropriate infection control and could help for other things like MRSA, the endemic threats we face every day in U.S. healthcare facilities, even emerging diseases like MERS and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae,” says Tumpey. “Awareness of proper infection control could help with many disease threats.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

CMS started the third year of its Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program on October 1, with 2,610 U.S. hospitals—slightly more than in previous years—on the hook for penalties of up to 3% of their Medicare diagnosis-related grouping payments based on 30-day readmissions rates for diagnoses of myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, COPD, and elective total hip and total knee arthroplasty posted between July 2010 and June 2013.

According to analysis by Kaiser Health News, 39 hospitals will incur the maximum penalty, and hospitals collectively will pay an estimated $428 million in penalties in the current fiscal year for readmission rates deemed higher than expected by CMS formulas.

Medicare’s overall readmission rate in 2013 was 18%, which was down slightly from previous years but still amounted to two million patients. CMS estimates that these readmissions cost $26 billion, 65% of which was attributed to avoidable readmissions. CMS’ fiscal year 2015 final rule for reimbursement under the Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System, first published in the Federal Register, spells out fiscal year 2015 penalties and readmissions payment adjustment factors.

CMS started the third year of its Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program on October 1, with 2,610 U.S. hospitals—slightly more than in previous years—on the hook for penalties of up to 3% of their Medicare diagnosis-related grouping payments based on 30-day readmissions rates for diagnoses of myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, COPD, and elective total hip and total knee arthroplasty posted between July 2010 and June 2013.

According to analysis by Kaiser Health News, 39 hospitals will incur the maximum penalty, and hospitals collectively will pay an estimated $428 million in penalties in the current fiscal year for readmission rates deemed higher than expected by CMS formulas.

Medicare’s overall readmission rate in 2013 was 18%, which was down slightly from previous years but still amounted to two million patients. CMS estimates that these readmissions cost $26 billion, 65% of which was attributed to avoidable readmissions. CMS’ fiscal year 2015 final rule for reimbursement under the Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System, first published in the Federal Register, spells out fiscal year 2015 penalties and readmissions payment adjustment factors.

CMS started the third year of its Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program on October 1, with 2,610 U.S. hospitals—slightly more than in previous years—on the hook for penalties of up to 3% of their Medicare diagnosis-related grouping payments based on 30-day readmissions rates for diagnoses of myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, COPD, and elective total hip and total knee arthroplasty posted between July 2010 and June 2013.

According to analysis by Kaiser Health News, 39 hospitals will incur the maximum penalty, and hospitals collectively will pay an estimated $428 million in penalties in the current fiscal year for readmission rates deemed higher than expected by CMS formulas.

Medicare’s overall readmission rate in 2013 was 18%, which was down slightly from previous years but still amounted to two million patients. CMS estimates that these readmissions cost $26 billion, 65% of which was attributed to avoidable readmissions. CMS’ fiscal year 2015 final rule for reimbursement under the Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System, first published in the Federal Register, spells out fiscal year 2015 penalties and readmissions payment adjustment factors.

HM pioneer says hospitalists who have flown under radar soon will be counted on to produce cost, waste reduction.

HM pioneer says hospitalists who have flown under radar soon will be counted on to produce cost, waste reduction.

HM pioneer says hospitalists who have flown under radar soon will be counted on to produce cost, waste reduction.

Why is it that there are no focused looks into the ED? We all know, as hospitalists, that the ED locks us into many admissions. Yet I see no initiatives through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) going after the ED for wanting patients admitted rather than trying to get these patients sent home for outpatient therapy.

–Ray Nowaczyk, DO

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Au contraire, my fellow hospitalist! The ED is monitored and investigated by many hospital committees and governmental agencies. Although we physicians, and I’m sure most hospitals, have always acknowledged our responsibilities to take care of patients during an emergency, this responsibility was enshrined in legalese in 1986 with the passage of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), also known as the “antidumping law.” Since its passage, any hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding, which includes almost all of them, is at risk of being fined or losing this vital source of funding if this law is violated.

EMTALA essentially states that any patient who presents to the ED must be provided a screening exam and treatment for any “emergent medical condition” (including labor), regardless of the individual’s ability to pay. The hospital is then required to provide “stabilizing” treatment for these patients or transfer them to another facility where this treatment can be provided. Furthermore, hospitals that refuse to accept these patients in transfer without valid reasons (e.g. no open beds) can be charged with an EMTALA violation.

As you well know, what is considered stabilized or at baseline by one clinician can be seen as unstable or requiring urgent care by another. The real day-to-day practice of medicine often defies evidence-based logic and forces us to make decisions based on many clinical and nonclinical variables.

These situations are further compounded by recent CMS attempts to hold hospitals publicly accountable for ED throughput by posting these measures on its website. Along with other metrics, the citizenry can now see how long it takes an ED patient to be seen by a health professional, receive pain medication if they have a broken bone, receive appropriate treatment and be sent home, or, if admitted, how long it takes to get into a bed.

This information makes it clearer that in situations of clinical uncertainty, it may be easier for many ED physicians to admit than to discharge. The “treat-‘em or street-‘em” mentality of triaging patients, of course, varies from doc to doc and can definitely create antipathy towards physicians in the ED. As much as I may disagree with some of our ED doc’s admissions, I always—OK, maybe not always—try to assume they have the patient’s best interest at heart.

Once admitted, the onus is placed on us, as hospitalists, to determine whether the patient requires ongoing inpatient care, can be cared for in an “observation” capacity, or should be discharged. We all have received calls from a nurse informing us that the patient “does not meet inpatient criteria”—even if the patient is hypotensive with systemic inflammatory response syndrome and lactic acidosis. Oh, if we could only send them back to the ED!

Do you have a problem or concern that you’d like Dr. Hospitalist to address? Email your questions to [email protected].

Why is it that there are no focused looks into the ED? We all know, as hospitalists, that the ED locks us into many admissions. Yet I see no initiatives through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) going after the ED for wanting patients admitted rather than trying to get these patients sent home for outpatient therapy.

–Ray Nowaczyk, DO

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Au contraire, my fellow hospitalist! The ED is monitored and investigated by many hospital committees and governmental agencies. Although we physicians, and I’m sure most hospitals, have always acknowledged our responsibilities to take care of patients during an emergency, this responsibility was enshrined in legalese in 1986 with the passage of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), also known as the “antidumping law.” Since its passage, any hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding, which includes almost all of them, is at risk of being fined or losing this vital source of funding if this law is violated.

EMTALA essentially states that any patient who presents to the ED must be provided a screening exam and treatment for any “emergent medical condition” (including labor), regardless of the individual’s ability to pay. The hospital is then required to provide “stabilizing” treatment for these patients or transfer them to another facility where this treatment can be provided. Furthermore, hospitals that refuse to accept these patients in transfer without valid reasons (e.g. no open beds) can be charged with an EMTALA violation.

As you well know, what is considered stabilized or at baseline by one clinician can be seen as unstable or requiring urgent care by another. The real day-to-day practice of medicine often defies evidence-based logic and forces us to make decisions based on many clinical and nonclinical variables.

These situations are further compounded by recent CMS attempts to hold hospitals publicly accountable for ED throughput by posting these measures on its website. Along with other metrics, the citizenry can now see how long it takes an ED patient to be seen by a health professional, receive pain medication if they have a broken bone, receive appropriate treatment and be sent home, or, if admitted, how long it takes to get into a bed.

This information makes it clearer that in situations of clinical uncertainty, it may be easier for many ED physicians to admit than to discharge. The “treat-‘em or street-‘em” mentality of triaging patients, of course, varies from doc to doc and can definitely create antipathy towards physicians in the ED. As much as I may disagree with some of our ED doc’s admissions, I always—OK, maybe not always—try to assume they have the patient’s best interest at heart.

Once admitted, the onus is placed on us, as hospitalists, to determine whether the patient requires ongoing inpatient care, can be cared for in an “observation” capacity, or should be discharged. We all have received calls from a nurse informing us that the patient “does not meet inpatient criteria”—even if the patient is hypotensive with systemic inflammatory response syndrome and lactic acidosis. Oh, if we could only send them back to the ED!

Do you have a problem or concern that you’d like Dr. Hospitalist to address? Email your questions to [email protected].

Why is it that there are no focused looks into the ED? We all know, as hospitalists, that the ED locks us into many admissions. Yet I see no initiatives through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) going after the ED for wanting patients admitted rather than trying to get these patients sent home for outpatient therapy.

–Ray Nowaczyk, DO

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Au contraire, my fellow hospitalist! The ED is monitored and investigated by many hospital committees and governmental agencies. Although we physicians, and I’m sure most hospitals, have always acknowledged our responsibilities to take care of patients during an emergency, this responsibility was enshrined in legalese in 1986 with the passage of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), also known as the “antidumping law.” Since its passage, any hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding, which includes almost all of them, is at risk of being fined or losing this vital source of funding if this law is violated.

EMTALA essentially states that any patient who presents to the ED must be provided a screening exam and treatment for any “emergent medical condition” (including labor), regardless of the individual’s ability to pay. The hospital is then required to provide “stabilizing” treatment for these patients or transfer them to another facility where this treatment can be provided. Furthermore, hospitals that refuse to accept these patients in transfer without valid reasons (e.g. no open beds) can be charged with an EMTALA violation.

As you well know, what is considered stabilized or at baseline by one clinician can be seen as unstable or requiring urgent care by another. The real day-to-day practice of medicine often defies evidence-based logic and forces us to make decisions based on many clinical and nonclinical variables.

These situations are further compounded by recent CMS attempts to hold hospitals publicly accountable for ED throughput by posting these measures on its website. Along with other metrics, the citizenry can now see how long it takes an ED patient to be seen by a health professional, receive pain medication if they have a broken bone, receive appropriate treatment and be sent home, or, if admitted, how long it takes to get into a bed.

This information makes it clearer that in situations of clinical uncertainty, it may be easier for many ED physicians to admit than to discharge. The “treat-‘em or street-‘em” mentality of triaging patients, of course, varies from doc to doc and can definitely create antipathy towards physicians in the ED. As much as I may disagree with some of our ED doc’s admissions, I always—OK, maybe not always—try to assume they have the patient’s best interest at heart.

Once admitted, the onus is placed on us, as hospitalists, to determine whether the patient requires ongoing inpatient care, can be cared for in an “observation” capacity, or should be discharged. We all have received calls from a nurse informing us that the patient “does not meet inpatient criteria”—even if the patient is hypotensive with systemic inflammatory response syndrome and lactic acidosis. Oh, if we could only send them back to the ED!

Do you have a problem or concern that you’d like Dr. Hospitalist to address? Email your questions to [email protected].

I’m convinced that observation status is rapidly becoming a meaningful factor in patients’ decision to file a malpractice lawsuit.

First, let me concede that I don’t know of any hard data to support my claim. I even asked the nation’s largest malpractice insurer about this, and they didn’t have any data on it. I think that is because observation status has only become a really big issue in the last couple of years, and since it typically takes several years for a malpractice suit to conclude, it just hasn’t found its way onto their radar yet.

But I’m pretty sure that will change within the next few years.

Implications

As any seasoned practitioner in our field knows, all outpatient and inpatient physician charges for Medicare patients, along with those of other licensed practitioners, are billed through Medicare Part B. After meeting a deductible, patients with traditional fee-for-service Medicare are generally responsible for 20% of all approved Part B charges, with no upper limit. For patients seen by a large number of providers while hospitalized, this 20% can really add up. Some patients have a secondary insurance that pays for this.

Hospital charges for patients on inpatient status are billed through Medicare Part A. Patients have an annual Part A deductible, and only in the case of very long inpatient stays will they have to pay more than that for inpatient care each year.

But hospital charges for patients on observation status are billed through Part B. And because hospital charges add up so quickly, the 20% of this that the patient is responsible for can be a lot of money—thousands of dollars, even for stays of less than 24 hours. Understandably, patients are not at all happy about this.

Let’s say you’re admitted overnight on observation status and your doctor orders your usual Advair inhaler. You use it once. Most hospitals aren’t able to ensure compliance with regulations around dispensing medications for home use like a pharmacy, so they won’t let you take the inhaler home. A few weeks later you’re stunned to learn that the hospital charged $10,000 for all services provided, and you’re responsible for 20% of the allowable amount PLUS the cost of all “self administered” drugs, like inhalers, eye drops, and calcitonin nasal spray. You look over your bill to see that you’re asked to pay $350 for the inhaler you used once and couldn’t even take home with you! Many self-administered medications, including eye drops and calcitonin nasal spray, result in similarly alarming charges to patients.

On top of the unpleasant surprise of a large hospital bill, Medicare won’t pay for skilled nursing facility (SNF) care for patients who are on observation status. That is, observation is not a “qualifying” stay for beneficiaries to access their SNF benefit.

It is easy to see why patients are unhappy about observation status.

The Media Message

News media are making the public aware of the potentially high financial costs they face if placed on observation status. But, too often, they oversimplify the issue, making it seem as though the choice of observation vs. inpatient status is entirely up to the treating doctor.

Saying that this decision is entirely up to the doctor is a lot like saying it is entirely up to you to determine how fast you drive on a freeway. In a sense that is correct, because no one else is in your car to control how fast you go and, in theory, you could choose to go 100 mph or 30 mph. The only problem is that it wouldn’t be long before you’d be in trouble with the law. So you don’t have complete autonomy to choose your speed; you have to comply with the laws. The same is true for doctors choosing observation status. We must comply with regulations in choosing the status or face legal consequences like fines or accusations of fraud.

Most news stories, like this one from NBC news (www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/54511352#54511352) in February, are generally accurate but leave out the important fact that hospitals and doctors have little autonomy to choose the status the patient prefers. Instead, media often simply encourage patients on observation status to argue for a change to inpatient status and “be persistent.” More and more often, patients and families are arguing with the treating doctor; in many cases, that is a hospitalist.

Complaints Surge

At the 2014 SHM annual meeting last spring in Las Vegas, I spoke with many hospitalists who said that, increasingly, they are targets of observation-status complaints. One hospitalist group recently had each doctor list his or her top three frustrations with work; difficult and stressful conversations about observation status topped the list.

Patient anger regarding observation status can turn a satisfied patient into an angry one. We all know that unhappy patients are the ones most likely to pursue malpractice lawsuits. While anger over observation status doesn’t equal medical malpractice, it can change a patient’s opinion of our care, which may in some cases result in a malpractice claim.

Solutions

Medicare is unlikely to do away with observation status, so the best way to prevent complaints is to ensure that all its implications are explained to patients and families, ideally before they’re put into the hospital (e.g., while still in the ED). I think it is best if this message is delivered by someone other than the treating doctor(s): For example, a case manager might handle the discussion. Of course, patients and families are often too overwhelmed in the ED to absorb this information, so the message may need to be repeated later.

Maybe everyone should tell observation patients, “We’re going to observe you” without using any form of the word “admission.” And having these patients stay in distinct observation units probably reduces misunderstandings and complaints compared to the common practice of mixing these patients in “regular” hospital floors housing those on inpatient status.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t find research data to support this idea.

I bet some hospitals have even more elegant and effective ways to reduce misunderstandings and complaints around observation status. I’d love to hear from you if you know of any. E-mail me at [email protected].

I’m convinced that observation status is rapidly becoming a meaningful factor in patients’ decision to file a malpractice lawsuit.

First, let me concede that I don’t know of any hard data to support my claim. I even asked the nation’s largest malpractice insurer about this, and they didn’t have any data on it. I think that is because observation status has only become a really big issue in the last couple of years, and since it typically takes several years for a malpractice suit to conclude, it just hasn’t found its way onto their radar yet.

But I’m pretty sure that will change within the next few years.

Implications

As any seasoned practitioner in our field knows, all outpatient and inpatient physician charges for Medicare patients, along with those of other licensed practitioners, are billed through Medicare Part B. After meeting a deductible, patients with traditional fee-for-service Medicare are generally responsible for 20% of all approved Part B charges, with no upper limit. For patients seen by a large number of providers while hospitalized, this 20% can really add up. Some patients have a secondary insurance that pays for this.

Hospital charges for patients on inpatient status are billed through Medicare Part A. Patients have an annual Part A deductible, and only in the case of very long inpatient stays will they have to pay more than that for inpatient care each year.

But hospital charges for patients on observation status are billed through Part B. And because hospital charges add up so quickly, the 20% of this that the patient is responsible for can be a lot of money—thousands of dollars, even for stays of less than 24 hours. Understandably, patients are not at all happy about this.

Let’s say you’re admitted overnight on observation status and your doctor orders your usual Advair inhaler. You use it once. Most hospitals aren’t able to ensure compliance with regulations around dispensing medications for home use like a pharmacy, so they won’t let you take the inhaler home. A few weeks later you’re stunned to learn that the hospital charged $10,000 for all services provided, and you’re responsible for 20% of the allowable amount PLUS the cost of all “self administered” drugs, like inhalers, eye drops, and calcitonin nasal spray. You look over your bill to see that you’re asked to pay $350 for the inhaler you used once and couldn’t even take home with you! Many self-administered medications, including eye drops and calcitonin nasal spray, result in similarly alarming charges to patients.

On top of the unpleasant surprise of a large hospital bill, Medicare won’t pay for skilled nursing facility (SNF) care for patients who are on observation status. That is, observation is not a “qualifying” stay for beneficiaries to access their SNF benefit.

It is easy to see why patients are unhappy about observation status.

The Media Message

News media are making the public aware of the potentially high financial costs they face if placed on observation status. But, too often, they oversimplify the issue, making it seem as though the choice of observation vs. inpatient status is entirely up to the treating doctor.

Saying that this decision is entirely up to the doctor is a lot like saying it is entirely up to you to determine how fast you drive on a freeway. In a sense that is correct, because no one else is in your car to control how fast you go and, in theory, you could choose to go 100 mph or 30 mph. The only problem is that it wouldn’t be long before you’d be in trouble with the law. So you don’t have complete autonomy to choose your speed; you have to comply with the laws. The same is true for doctors choosing observation status. We must comply with regulations in choosing the status or face legal consequences like fines or accusations of fraud.

Most news stories, like this one from NBC news (www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/54511352#54511352) in February, are generally accurate but leave out the important fact that hospitals and doctors have little autonomy to choose the status the patient prefers. Instead, media often simply encourage patients on observation status to argue for a change to inpatient status and “be persistent.” More and more often, patients and families are arguing with the treating doctor; in many cases, that is a hospitalist.

Complaints Surge

At the 2014 SHM annual meeting last spring in Las Vegas, I spoke with many hospitalists who said that, increasingly, they are targets of observation-status complaints. One hospitalist group recently had each doctor list his or her top three frustrations with work; difficult and stressful conversations about observation status topped the list.

Patient anger regarding observation status can turn a satisfied patient into an angry one. We all know that unhappy patients are the ones most likely to pursue malpractice lawsuits. While anger over observation status doesn’t equal medical malpractice, it can change a patient’s opinion of our care, which may in some cases result in a malpractice claim.

Solutions

Medicare is unlikely to do away with observation status, so the best way to prevent complaints is to ensure that all its implications are explained to patients and families, ideally before they’re put into the hospital (e.g., while still in the ED). I think it is best if this message is delivered by someone other than the treating doctor(s): For example, a case manager might handle the discussion. Of course, patients and families are often too overwhelmed in the ED to absorb this information, so the message may need to be repeated later.

Maybe everyone should tell observation patients, “We’re going to observe you” without using any form of the word “admission.” And having these patients stay in distinct observation units probably reduces misunderstandings and complaints compared to the common practice of mixing these patients in “regular” hospital floors housing those on inpatient status.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t find research data to support this idea.

I bet some hospitals have even more elegant and effective ways to reduce misunderstandings and complaints around observation status. I’d love to hear from you if you know of any. E-mail me at [email protected].

I’m convinced that observation status is rapidly becoming a meaningful factor in patients’ decision to file a malpractice lawsuit.

First, let me concede that I don’t know of any hard data to support my claim. I even asked the nation’s largest malpractice insurer about this, and they didn’t have any data on it. I think that is because observation status has only become a really big issue in the last couple of years, and since it typically takes several years for a malpractice suit to conclude, it just hasn’t found its way onto their radar yet.

But I’m pretty sure that will change within the next few years.

Implications

As any seasoned practitioner in our field knows, all outpatient and inpatient physician charges for Medicare patients, along with those of other licensed practitioners, are billed through Medicare Part B. After meeting a deductible, patients with traditional fee-for-service Medicare are generally responsible for 20% of all approved Part B charges, with no upper limit. For patients seen by a large number of providers while hospitalized, this 20% can really add up. Some patients have a secondary insurance that pays for this.

Hospital charges for patients on inpatient status are billed through Medicare Part A. Patients have an annual Part A deductible, and only in the case of very long inpatient stays will they have to pay more than that for inpatient care each year.

But hospital charges for patients on observation status are billed through Part B. And because hospital charges add up so quickly, the 20% of this that the patient is responsible for can be a lot of money—thousands of dollars, even for stays of less than 24 hours. Understandably, patients are not at all happy about this.

Let’s say you’re admitted overnight on observation status and your doctor orders your usual Advair inhaler. You use it once. Most hospitals aren’t able to ensure compliance with regulations around dispensing medications for home use like a pharmacy, so they won’t let you take the inhaler home. A few weeks later you’re stunned to learn that the hospital charged $10,000 for all services provided, and you’re responsible for 20% of the allowable amount PLUS the cost of all “self administered” drugs, like inhalers, eye drops, and calcitonin nasal spray. You look over your bill to see that you’re asked to pay $350 for the inhaler you used once and couldn’t even take home with you! Many self-administered medications, including eye drops and calcitonin nasal spray, result in similarly alarming charges to patients.

On top of the unpleasant surprise of a large hospital bill, Medicare won’t pay for skilled nursing facility (SNF) care for patients who are on observation status. That is, observation is not a “qualifying” stay for beneficiaries to access their SNF benefit.

It is easy to see why patients are unhappy about observation status.

The Media Message

News media are making the public aware of the potentially high financial costs they face if placed on observation status. But, too often, they oversimplify the issue, making it seem as though the choice of observation vs. inpatient status is entirely up to the treating doctor.

Saying that this decision is entirely up to the doctor is a lot like saying it is entirely up to you to determine how fast you drive on a freeway. In a sense that is correct, because no one else is in your car to control how fast you go and, in theory, you could choose to go 100 mph or 30 mph. The only problem is that it wouldn’t be long before you’d be in trouble with the law. So you don’t have complete autonomy to choose your speed; you have to comply with the laws. The same is true for doctors choosing observation status. We must comply with regulations in choosing the status or face legal consequences like fines or accusations of fraud.

Most news stories, like this one from NBC news (www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/54511352#54511352) in February, are generally accurate but leave out the important fact that hospitals and doctors have little autonomy to choose the status the patient prefers. Instead, media often simply encourage patients on observation status to argue for a change to inpatient status and “be persistent.” More and more often, patients and families are arguing with the treating doctor; in many cases, that is a hospitalist.

Complaints Surge

At the 2014 SHM annual meeting last spring in Las Vegas, I spoke with many hospitalists who said that, increasingly, they are targets of observation-status complaints. One hospitalist group recently had each doctor list his or her top three frustrations with work; difficult and stressful conversations about observation status topped the list.

Patient anger regarding observation status can turn a satisfied patient into an angry one. We all know that unhappy patients are the ones most likely to pursue malpractice lawsuits. While anger over observation status doesn’t equal medical malpractice, it can change a patient’s opinion of our care, which may in some cases result in a malpractice claim.

Solutions

Medicare is unlikely to do away with observation status, so the best way to prevent complaints is to ensure that all its implications are explained to patients and families, ideally before they’re put into the hospital (e.g., while still in the ED). I think it is best if this message is delivered by someone other than the treating doctor(s): For example, a case manager might handle the discussion. Of course, patients and families are often too overwhelmed in the ED to absorb this information, so the message may need to be repeated later.

Maybe everyone should tell observation patients, “We’re going to observe you” without using any form of the word “admission.” And having these patients stay in distinct observation units probably reduces misunderstandings and complaints compared to the common practice of mixing these patients in “regular” hospital floors housing those on inpatient status.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t find research data to support this idea.

I bet some hospitals have even more elegant and effective ways to reduce misunderstandings and complaints around observation status. I’d love to hear from you if you know of any. E-mail me at [email protected].

Hospitals with the highest rates of preventable adverse events will soon see their Medicare reimbursements cut by 1%.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) is a product of the Affordable Care Act, implemented to tackle the high number of patients who experience avoidable, adverse—and too often fatal—medical events in the hospital; however, while patient safety has been a crucial issue for years, and one largely ignored by Congress until recently, some experts say the new metrics used to evaluate safety and penalize the bottom 25% of hospitals are imprecise and stand to punish those that serve the sickest patients and those that are among the most diligent about tracking patient safety.

“The biggest surprise was how big of a difference there was between academic medical centers and safety-net hospitals and everybody else,” says Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, hospitalist at the VA Boston Healthcare System, professor of health policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, and part of a team that recently used the CMS measures—patient safety indicators (PSI), central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI), and catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI)—to evaluate where the nation’s hospitals might fall under HACRP.

In its analysis, Dr. Jha’s team found that major teaching hospitals are 2.9% more likely to be penalized under the program than nonteaching hospitals. Large, urban, public, teaching hospitals in the Northeast, with lots of poor patients, have a 62% chance of being penalized, compared to just a 9% chance for small, rural, for-profit, nonteaching hospitals in the South.

In 1998, the Institutes of Medicine estimated that nearly 100,000 patients die every year due to preventable medical errors. A recent estimate in the Journal of Patient Safety says this number may now be as high as 440,000.

In 2012, CMS reported that one in eight Medicare patients incurred a potentially avoidable complication while in the hospital, a 9% reduction from the previous baseline in 2010.

Patient safety clearly is an issue in the United States. But whether all of the HACRP metrics decided upon by CMS are appropriate is up for debate.

“PSI scores…were initially developed to look at healthcare trends broadly and not for comparing institutional performance,” says Ken Sands, MD, MPH, senior vice president of healthcare quality and chief quality officer at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. “They were hijacked for that purpose, and a lot of the measures are based on administrative data.”

Dr. Sands, like Dr. Jha, is concerned that variation in the way hospitals code can influence the rate of adverse events reported through PSIs—which scan billing codes for hospital complications—without a clearly defined set of rules and without clearly defined language. Hospitals vary in how hard they look for complications and in how diligently they code, Dr. Jha says. Hospitals looking for safety issues are more likely to find and code for them, compared to less attentive institutions.

“It’s an inexpensive way to collect data nationally,” Dr. Sands says. “But whether we’re discriminating on quality is not that clear.”

Beth Israel ranks better than most U.S. hospitals on measures of mortality yet falls to the bottom quartile of the hospital-acquired condition (HAC) measures. The medical center may be penalized starting in October.

Although Dr. Sands says his colleagues continue to work to improve their CAUTI rates, an endeavor that preceded the CMS program, he is seeking better training for his coding staff and is working within the medical center’s electronic health record (EHR) to ensure accurate and consistent reporting.

At small, rural Nanticoke Memorial Hospital in southern Delaware, which is not at risk of HAC penalties next year, chief operating officer and chief nursing officer Penny Short says the hospital is currently adopting a “pretty robust” EHR to assist clinicians with early identification of sepsis and other risks. She says there is a lot more that EHRs can do to assist in patient safety, and hospitalists at her institution have been at the helm, driving progress.

It’s an approach Dr. Jha advocates for moving the needle forward in identifying better patient safety metrics. Meaningful use of EHRs provides clinically based, high quality metrics that can be captured far more effectively than the billing record, he says, offering an “automated approach as a routine part of the delivery of health care for tracking and potentially identifying adverse events.”

It’s up to physician leaders, Dr. Jha says—indeed, it is their moral responsibility—to encourage their CEOs to make these investments. And it’s something he believes CMS should get behind as well.

“Is this going to be cheap and easy? No,” Dr. Jha says. “Does CMS have the capacity to say hospitals have to invest? I think they do.

“I think we can do so much better. The opportunity to do so much better is right now.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

Hospitals with the highest rates of preventable adverse events will soon see their Medicare reimbursements cut by 1%.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) is a product of the Affordable Care Act, implemented to tackle the high number of patients who experience avoidable, adverse—and too often fatal—medical events in the hospital; however, while patient safety has been a crucial issue for years, and one largely ignored by Congress until recently, some experts say the new metrics used to evaluate safety and penalize the bottom 25% of hospitals are imprecise and stand to punish those that serve the sickest patients and those that are among the most diligent about tracking patient safety.

“The biggest surprise was how big of a difference there was between academic medical centers and safety-net hospitals and everybody else,” says Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, hospitalist at the VA Boston Healthcare System, professor of health policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, and part of a team that recently used the CMS measures—patient safety indicators (PSI), central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI), and catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI)—to evaluate where the nation’s hospitals might fall under HACRP.

In its analysis, Dr. Jha’s team found that major teaching hospitals are 2.9% more likely to be penalized under the program than nonteaching hospitals. Large, urban, public, teaching hospitals in the Northeast, with lots of poor patients, have a 62% chance of being penalized, compared to just a 9% chance for small, rural, for-profit, nonteaching hospitals in the South.

In 1998, the Institutes of Medicine estimated that nearly 100,000 patients die every year due to preventable medical errors. A recent estimate in the Journal of Patient Safety says this number may now be as high as 440,000.

In 2012, CMS reported that one in eight Medicare patients incurred a potentially avoidable complication while in the hospital, a 9% reduction from the previous baseline in 2010.

Patient safety clearly is an issue in the United States. But whether all of the HACRP metrics decided upon by CMS are appropriate is up for debate.

“PSI scores…were initially developed to look at healthcare trends broadly and not for comparing institutional performance,” says Ken Sands, MD, MPH, senior vice president of healthcare quality and chief quality officer at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. “They were hijacked for that purpose, and a lot of the measures are based on administrative data.”

Dr. Sands, like Dr. Jha, is concerned that variation in the way hospitals code can influence the rate of adverse events reported through PSIs—which scan billing codes for hospital complications—without a clearly defined set of rules and without clearly defined language. Hospitals vary in how hard they look for complications and in how diligently they code, Dr. Jha says. Hospitals looking for safety issues are more likely to find and code for them, compared to less attentive institutions.

“It’s an inexpensive way to collect data nationally,” Dr. Sands says. “But whether we’re discriminating on quality is not that clear.”

Beth Israel ranks better than most U.S. hospitals on measures of mortality yet falls to the bottom quartile of the hospital-acquired condition (HAC) measures. The medical center may be penalized starting in October.

Although Dr. Sands says his colleagues continue to work to improve their CAUTI rates, an endeavor that preceded the CMS program, he is seeking better training for his coding staff and is working within the medical center’s electronic health record (EHR) to ensure accurate and consistent reporting.

At small, rural Nanticoke Memorial Hospital in southern Delaware, which is not at risk of HAC penalties next year, chief operating officer and chief nursing officer Penny Short says the hospital is currently adopting a “pretty robust” EHR to assist clinicians with early identification of sepsis and other risks. She says there is a lot more that EHRs can do to assist in patient safety, and hospitalists at her institution have been at the helm, driving progress.

It’s an approach Dr. Jha advocates for moving the needle forward in identifying better patient safety metrics. Meaningful use of EHRs provides clinically based, high quality metrics that can be captured far more effectively than the billing record, he says, offering an “automated approach as a routine part of the delivery of health care for tracking and potentially identifying adverse events.”

It’s up to physician leaders, Dr. Jha says—indeed, it is their moral responsibility—to encourage their CEOs to make these investments. And it’s something he believes CMS should get behind as well.

“Is this going to be cheap and easy? No,” Dr. Jha says. “Does CMS have the capacity to say hospitals have to invest? I think they do.

“I think we can do so much better. The opportunity to do so much better is right now.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

Hospitals with the highest rates of preventable adverse events will soon see their Medicare reimbursements cut by 1%.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) is a product of the Affordable Care Act, implemented to tackle the high number of patients who experience avoidable, adverse—and too often fatal—medical events in the hospital; however, while patient safety has been a crucial issue for years, and one largely ignored by Congress until recently, some experts say the new metrics used to evaluate safety and penalize the bottom 25% of hospitals are imprecise and stand to punish those that serve the sickest patients and those that are among the most diligent about tracking patient safety.

“The biggest surprise was how big of a difference there was between academic medical centers and safety-net hospitals and everybody else,” says Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, hospitalist at the VA Boston Healthcare System, professor of health policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, and part of a team that recently used the CMS measures—patient safety indicators (PSI), central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI), and catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI)—to evaluate where the nation’s hospitals might fall under HACRP.

In its analysis, Dr. Jha’s team found that major teaching hospitals are 2.9% more likely to be penalized under the program than nonteaching hospitals. Large, urban, public, teaching hospitals in the Northeast, with lots of poor patients, have a 62% chance of being penalized, compared to just a 9% chance for small, rural, for-profit, nonteaching hospitals in the South.

In 1998, the Institutes of Medicine estimated that nearly 100,000 patients die every year due to preventable medical errors. A recent estimate in the Journal of Patient Safety says this number may now be as high as 440,000.

In 2012, CMS reported that one in eight Medicare patients incurred a potentially avoidable complication while in the hospital, a 9% reduction from the previous baseline in 2010.

Patient safety clearly is an issue in the United States. But whether all of the HACRP metrics decided upon by CMS are appropriate is up for debate.

“PSI scores…were initially developed to look at healthcare trends broadly and not for comparing institutional performance,” says Ken Sands, MD, MPH, senior vice president of healthcare quality and chief quality officer at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. “They were hijacked for that purpose, and a lot of the measures are based on administrative data.”

Dr. Sands, like Dr. Jha, is concerned that variation in the way hospitals code can influence the rate of adverse events reported through PSIs—which scan billing codes for hospital complications—without a clearly defined set of rules and without clearly defined language. Hospitals vary in how hard they look for complications and in how diligently they code, Dr. Jha says. Hospitals looking for safety issues are more likely to find and code for them, compared to less attentive institutions.

“It’s an inexpensive way to collect data nationally,” Dr. Sands says. “But whether we’re discriminating on quality is not that clear.”

Beth Israel ranks better than most U.S. hospitals on measures of mortality yet falls to the bottom quartile of the hospital-acquired condition (HAC) measures. The medical center may be penalized starting in October.

Although Dr. Sands says his colleagues continue to work to improve their CAUTI rates, an endeavor that preceded the CMS program, he is seeking better training for his coding staff and is working within the medical center’s electronic health record (EHR) to ensure accurate and consistent reporting.

At small, rural Nanticoke Memorial Hospital in southern Delaware, which is not at risk of HAC penalties next year, chief operating officer and chief nursing officer Penny Short says the hospital is currently adopting a “pretty robust” EHR to assist clinicians with early identification of sepsis and other risks. She says there is a lot more that EHRs can do to assist in patient safety, and hospitalists at her institution have been at the helm, driving progress.

It’s an approach Dr. Jha advocates for moving the needle forward in identifying better patient safety metrics. Meaningful use of EHRs provides clinically based, high quality metrics that can be captured far more effectively than the billing record, he says, offering an “automated approach as a routine part of the delivery of health care for tracking and potentially identifying adverse events.”

It’s up to physician leaders, Dr. Jha says—indeed, it is their moral responsibility—to encourage their CEOs to make these investments. And it’s something he believes CMS should get behind as well.

“Is this going to be cheap and easy? No,” Dr. Jha says. “Does CMS have the capacity to say hospitals have to invest? I think they do.

“I think we can do so much better. The opportunity to do so much better is right now.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.