Public Policy

Dr. Tierza

VBP. ACO. HAC. EHR. Suddenly, Medicare-derived acronyms are everywhere, and many of them are attached to a growing set of programs aimed at boosting efficiency and quality. Some are optional; others are mandatory. Some have carrots as incentives; others have sticks. Some seem well-designed; others seemingly work at cross-purposes.

Love or hate these initiatives, the combined time, money, and resources needed to address all of them could put hospitals and hospitalists under considerable duress.

“It can either prove or dismantle the whole hospitalist movement,” says Brian Hazen, MD, medical director of the hospitalist division at Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, Va. “Hospitals expect us to be agile and adapt to the pressures to keep them alive. If we cannot adapt and provide that, then why give us a job?”

Whether or not the focus is on lowering readmission rates, decreasing the incidence of hospital-acquired conditions, or improving efficiencies, Dr. Hazen tends to lump most of the sticks and carrots together. “I throw them all into one basket because for the most part, they’re all reflective of good care,” he says.

The basket is growing, however, and the bundle of sticks could deliver a financial beating to the unwary.

It’s possible that some low-margin hospitals that are facing big penalties could actually have their solvency threatened. If hospitals that are a vital part of the community are threatened with insolvency because of these programs, we may need to take a second look at how we structure the penalties.

—Win Whitcomb, MD, MHM, medical director of healthcare quality, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Mass.; SHM Performance and Measurement Reporting Committee member; co-founder and past president of SHM; author of The Hospitalist’s “On the Horizon” column

At What Cost?

For the lowest-performing hospitals, the top readmission penalties will grow to 2% of Medicare reimbursements in fiscal year 2014 and 3% in 2015. Meanwhile, CMS’ Hospital-Acquired Conditions (HAC) program will begin assessing a 1% penalty on the worst performing hospitals in 2015, and the amount withheld under the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) program will reach 2% in 2017 (top-performing hospitals can recoup the withhold and more, depending on performance). By that year, the three programs alone could result in a 6% loss of reimbursements.

Win Whitcomb, MD, MHM, medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass., and a member of SHM’s Performance and Measurement Reporting Committee, estimates that by 2017, the total at-risk payments could reach about $10 million for a 650-bed academic medical center. The tally for a 90-bed community hospital, he estimates, might run a bit less than $1 million. Although the combined penalty is probably enough to get the attention of most hospitals, very few institutions are likely to be dinged for the entire amount.

Nevertheless, the cumulative loss of reimbursements could be a tipping point for hospitals already in dire straits. “It’s possible that some low-margin hospitals that are facing big penalties could actually have their solvency threatened,” Dr. Whitcomb says. “If hospitals that are a vital part of the community are threatened with insolvency because of these programs, we may need to take a second look at how we structure the penalties.”

The necessary investment in infrastructure, he says, could prove to be a far bigger concern—at least initially.

“What is more expensive is just putting out the effort to do the work to improve and perform well under these programs,” says Dr. Whitcomb, co-founder and past president of SHM and author of The Hospitalist’s “On the Horizon” column. “That’s a big unreported hidden expense of all of these programs.”

With the fairly rapid implementation of multiple measures mandated by the Accountable Care Act, Medicare may be disinclined to dramatically ramp up the programs in play until it has a better sense of what’s working well. Then again, analysts like Laurence Baker, PhD, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, say it’s doubtful that the agency will scale back its efforts given the widely held perception that plenty of waste can yet be wrung from the system.

“If I was a hospitalist, I would expect more of this coming,” Dr. Baker says.

Of course, rolling out new incentive programs is always a difficult balancing act in which the creators must be careful not to focus too much attention on the wrong measure or create unintended disincentives.

“That’s one of the great challenges: making a program that’s going to be successful when we know that people will do what’s measured and maybe even, without thinking about it, do less of what’s not measured. So we have to be careful about that,” Dr. Baker says.

We’re getting a lot of traction to get physicians to work together to improve care, where before there wasn’t an incentive to do this. So we see this as a good thing, and I think it has potential to reduce expenses in high-cost areas.

—Monty Duke, MD, chief physician executive, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pa.

Out of Alignment

Beyond cost and infrastructure, the proliferation of new measures also presents challenges for alignment. Monty Duke, MD, chief physician executive at Lancaster General Hospital in Lancaster, Pa., says the targets are changing so rapidly that tension can arise between hospitals and hospitalists in aligning expectations about priorities and considering how much time, resources, and staffing will be required to address them.

Likewise, the impetus to install new infrastructure can sometimes have unintended consequences, as Dr. Duke has seen firsthand with his hospital’s recent implementation of electronic health records (EHRs).

“In many ways, the electronic health record has changed the dynamic of rounding between physicians and nurses, and it’s really challenging communication,” he says. How so? “Because people spend more time communicating with the computer than they do talking to one another,” he says. The discordant communication, in turn, can conspire against a clear plan of care and overall goals as well as challenge efforts that emphasize a team-based approach.

Despite federal meaningful-use incentives, a recent survey also suggested that a majority of healthcare practices still may not achieve a positive return on investment for EHRs unless they can figure out how to use the systems to increase revenue.¹ A minority of providers have succeeded by seeing more patients every day or by improving their billing process so the codes are more accurate and fewer claims are rejected.

Similarly, hospitalists like Dr. Hazen contend that some patient-satisfaction measures in the HCAHPS section of the VBP program can work against good clinical care. “That one drives me crazy because we’re not waiters or waitresses in a five-star restaurant,” he says. “Health care is complicated; it’s not like sending back a bowl of cold soup the way you can in a restaurant.”

Increasing satisfaction by keeping patients in the hospital longer than warranted or leaving in a Foley catheter for patient convenience, for example, can negatively impact actual outcomes.

“Physicians and nurses get put in this catch-22 where we have to choose between patient satisfaction and by-the-book clinical care,” Dr. Hazen says. “And our job is to try to mitigate that, but you’re kind of damned if you do and damned if you don’t.”

A new study, on the other hand, suggests that HCAHPS scores reflecting lower staff responsiveness are associated with an increased risk of HACs like central line–associated bloodstream infections and that lower scores may be a symptom of hospitals “with a multitude of problems.”²

A 10-Step Program

As existing rules and metrics are revised, new ones added, and others merged or discontinued, hospitalists are likely to encounter more hiccups and headaches. So what’s the solution? Beyond establishing good personal habits like hand-washing when entering and leaving a patient’s room, hospitalist leaders and healthcare analysts point to 10 strategies that may help keep HM providers from getting squeezed by all the demands:

1) Keep everyone on the same page. Because hospitals and health systems often take a subset of CMS core measures and make them strategic priorities, Dr. Whitcomb says hospitalists must thoroughly understand their own institutions’ internal system-level quality and safety goals. He stresses the need for hospitalists to develop and maintain close working connections with their organization’s safety- and quality-improvement (QI) teams “to understand exactly what the rules of the road are.”

Dr. Whitcomb says hospitals should compensate hospitalists for time spent working with these teams on feasible solutions. Hospitalist representatives can then champion specific safety or quality issues and keep them foremost in the minds of their colleagues. “I’m a big believer in paying people to do that work,” he says.

2) Take a wider view. It’s clear that most providers wouldn’t have chosen some of the performance indicators that Medicare and other third-party payors are asking them to meet, and many physicians have been more focused on outcomes than on clinical measures. Like it or not, however, thriving in the new era of health care means accepting more benchmarks. “We’ve had to broaden our scope to say, ‘OK, these other things matter, too,’” Dr. Duke says.

3) Use visual cues. Hospitalists can’t rely on memory to keep track of the dozens of measures for which they are being held accountable. “Every hospitalist program should have a dashboard of priority measures that they’re paying attention to and that’s out in front of them on a regular basis,” Dr. Whitcomb says. “It could be presented to them at monthly meetings, or it could be in a prominent place in their office, but there needs to be a set of cues.”

4) Use bonuses for alignment. Dr. Hazen says hospitals also may find success in using bonuses as a positive reinforcement for well-aligned care. Inova Fairfax’s bonuses include a clinical component that aligns with many of CMS’s core measures, and the financial incentives ensure that discharge summaries are completed and distributed in a timely manner.

5) Emphasize a team approach. Espousing a multidisciplinary approach to care can give patients the confidence that all providers are on the same page, thereby aiding patient-satisfaction scores and easing throughput. And as Dr. Hazen points out, avoiding a silo mentality can pay dividends for improving patient safety.

Dr. Tierza

6) Offer the right information. Tierza Stephan, MD, regional hospitalist medical director for Allina Health in Minneapolis and the incoming chair of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee, says Allina has worked hard to ensure that hospitalists complete their discharge summaries within 24 hours of a patient’s release from the hospital. Beyond timeliness, the health system is emphasizing content that informs without overwhelming the patient, caregiver, or follow-up provider with unnecessary details.

The discharge summary, for example, includes a section called “Recommendations for the Outpatient Provider,” which provides a checklist of sorts so those providers don’t miss the forest for the trees. The same is true for patients. “The hospital is probably not the best place to be educating patients, so we really focus more on patient instruction at discharge and then timely follow-up,” Dr. Stephan says.

In addition to allowing better care coordination between inpatient and outpatient providers, she says, “it cuts across patient experience and readmissions, and it helps patients to be engaged because they have very clear, easy-to-read information.” Paying attention to such details may have outsized impacts: In a recent study, researchers found that patients who are actively engaged in their own health care are significantly less costly to treat, on average.³

7) Follow through after discharge. Inova Fairfax is setting up an outpatient follow-up clinic as a safety net for patients at the highest risk of being readmitted. Many of these target patients are uninsured or underinsured and battling complex medical problems like heart failure or pneumonia. Establishing a physical location for follow-ups and direct communication with primary-care providers, the hospital hopes, might reduce noncompliance among these outpatients and thereby curtail subsequent readmissions.

8) Optimize EHR. When optimized, experts say, electronic medical records can help hospitals ensure that their providers are following core measures and preventing hospital-acquired conditions while leaving channels of communication open and keeping revenue streams flowing.

“Luckily, we just switched to electronic medical records so we can monitor who has a Foley catheter in, who does or doesn’t have DVT prophylaxis, because even really good docs sometimes make these knucklehead mistakes every once in a while,” Dr. Hazen says. “So we try to use systems to back ourselves up. But for the most part, there’s just no substitute for having good docs do the right thing and documenting that.”

9) Bundle up. Although bundled payments represent yet another CMS initiative, Dr. Duke says the model has the potential to reduce waste, standardize care, and monitor outcomes. Lancaster General has been working on the approach for the past few years, with an initial focus on cardiovascular medicine, orthopedics, and neurosurgery. “We’re getting a lot of traction to get physicians to work together to improve care, where before there wasn’t an incentive to do this,” Dr. Duke says. “So we see this as a good thing, and I think it has potential to reduce expenses in high-cost areas.”

10) Connect the dots. Joane Goodroe, an independent healthcare consultant based in Atlanta, says CMS expects providers to connect the dots and combine their efforts in the separate incentive programs to maximize their resources. By providing consistent care coordination and setting patients on the right track, then, she says hospitalists might help boost savings across the board—a benefit that wouldn’t necessarily be apparent based solely on improved quality metrics in specific programs.

Even here, though, the current fee-for-service model can create awkward side effects. For example, Goodroe recommends following the path that many care groups delving into accountable care and bundled payment systems are already taking: connecting those models to efforts aimed at reducing hospital readmissions. Without the proper financial incentives, however, those efforts may be constrained due to a significant increase in expended resources and a potential decrease in overall revenues.

Some of the kinks may work themselves out of the system over time, but experts say the era of multiple metrics—and additional pressure—is just beginning. Combined, they will require providers to be much better at working as a system and coordinating care across multiple environments beyond the hospital, Dr. Stephan says.

One main question boils down to this, she says: “How do we get more efficient as a system and eliminate waste? I think the hospitalists really play a vital role, and it’s mainly through communication and transfer of information. Hospitalists have to be really well-connected with the different physicians and venues that send the patients into the hospital so that we’re not duplicating services and so that we can get right to the crux of the problem.”

Doing so, regardless of which CMS program is on tap, may be the very best way to avoid getting squeezed.

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer in Seattle.

References

1. Adler-Milstein J, Green CE, Bates DW. A survey analysis suggests that electronic health records will yield revenue gains for some practices and losses for many. Health Affairs. 2013;32(3):562-570.
2. Saman DM, Kavanagh KT, Johnson B, Lutfiyya MN. Can inpatient hospital experiences predict central line-associated bloodstream infections? PLoS ONE. 2013;8(4):e61097.
3. Hibbard JH, Greene J, Overton V. Patients with lower activation associated with higher costs; delivery systems should know their patients’ ‘scores.’ Health Affairs. 2013; 32(2):216-222.

Dr. Tierza

VBP. ACO. HAC. EHR. Suddenly, Medicare-derived acronyms are everywhere, and many of them are attached to a growing set of programs aimed at boosting efficiency and quality. Some are optional; others are mandatory. Some have carrots as incentives; others have sticks. Some seem well-designed; others seemingly work at cross-purposes.

Love or hate these initiatives, the combined time, money, and resources needed to address all of them could put hospitals and hospitalists under considerable duress.

“It can either prove or dismantle the whole hospitalist movement,” says Brian Hazen, MD, medical director of the hospitalist division at Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, Va. “Hospitals expect us to be agile and adapt to the pressures to keep them alive. If we cannot adapt and provide that, then why give us a job?”

Whether or not the focus is on lowering readmission rates, decreasing the incidence of hospital-acquired conditions, or improving efficiencies, Dr. Hazen tends to lump most of the sticks and carrots together. “I throw them all into one basket because for the most part, they’re all reflective of good care,” he says.

The basket is growing, however, and the bundle of sticks could deliver a financial beating to the unwary.

It’s possible that some low-margin hospitals that are facing big penalties could actually have their solvency threatened. If hospitals that are a vital part of the community are threatened with insolvency because of these programs, we may need to take a second look at how we structure the penalties.

—Win Whitcomb, MD, MHM, medical director of healthcare quality, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Mass.; SHM Performance and Measurement Reporting Committee member; co-founder and past president of SHM; author of The Hospitalist’s “On the Horizon” column

At What Cost?

For the lowest-performing hospitals, the top readmission penalties will grow to 2% of Medicare reimbursements in fiscal year 2014 and 3% in 2015. Meanwhile, CMS’ Hospital-Acquired Conditions (HAC) program will begin assessing a 1% penalty on the worst performing hospitals in 2015, and the amount withheld under the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) program will reach 2% in 2017 (top-performing hospitals can recoup the withhold and more, depending on performance). By that year, the three programs alone could result in a 6% loss of reimbursements.

Win Whitcomb, MD, MHM, medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass., and a member of SHM’s Performance and Measurement Reporting Committee, estimates that by 2017, the total at-risk payments could reach about $10 million for a 650-bed academic medical center. The tally for a 90-bed community hospital, he estimates, might run a bit less than $1 million. Although the combined penalty is probably enough to get the attention of most hospitals, very few institutions are likely to be dinged for the entire amount.

Nevertheless, the cumulative loss of reimbursements could be a tipping point for hospitals already in dire straits. “It’s possible that some low-margin hospitals that are facing big penalties could actually have their solvency threatened,” Dr. Whitcomb says. “If hospitals that are a vital part of the community are threatened with insolvency because of these programs, we may need to take a second look at how we structure the penalties.”

The necessary investment in infrastructure, he says, could prove to be a far bigger concern—at least initially.

“What is more expensive is just putting out the effort to do the work to improve and perform well under these programs,” says Dr. Whitcomb, co-founder and past president of SHM and author of The Hospitalist’s “On the Horizon” column. “That’s a big unreported hidden expense of all of these programs.”

With the fairly rapid implementation of multiple measures mandated by the Accountable Care Act, Medicare may be disinclined to dramatically ramp up the programs in play until it has a better sense of what’s working well. Then again, analysts like Laurence Baker, PhD, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, say it’s doubtful that the agency will scale back its efforts given the widely held perception that plenty of waste can yet be wrung from the system.

“If I was a hospitalist, I would expect more of this coming,” Dr. Baker says.

Of course, rolling out new incentive programs is always a difficult balancing act in which the creators must be careful not to focus too much attention on the wrong measure or create unintended disincentives.

“That’s one of the great challenges: making a program that’s going to be successful when we know that people will do what’s measured and maybe even, without thinking about it, do less of what’s not measured. So we have to be careful about that,” Dr. Baker says.

We’re getting a lot of traction to get physicians to work together to improve care, where before there wasn’t an incentive to do this. So we see this as a good thing, and I think it has potential to reduce expenses in high-cost areas.

—Monty Duke, MD, chief physician executive, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pa.

Out of Alignment

Beyond cost and infrastructure, the proliferation of new measures also presents challenges for alignment. Monty Duke, MD, chief physician executive at Lancaster General Hospital in Lancaster, Pa., says the targets are changing so rapidly that tension can arise between hospitals and hospitalists in aligning expectations about priorities and considering how much time, resources, and staffing will be required to address them.

Likewise, the impetus to install new infrastructure can sometimes have unintended consequences, as Dr. Duke has seen firsthand with his hospital’s recent implementation of electronic health records (EHRs).

“In many ways, the electronic health record has changed the dynamic of rounding between physicians and nurses, and it’s really challenging communication,” he says. How so? “Because people spend more time communicating with the computer than they do talking to one another,” he says. The discordant communication, in turn, can conspire against a clear plan of care and overall goals as well as challenge efforts that emphasize a team-based approach.

Despite federal meaningful-use incentives, a recent survey also suggested that a majority of healthcare practices still may not achieve a positive return on investment for EHRs unless they can figure out how to use the systems to increase revenue.¹ A minority of providers have succeeded by seeing more patients every day or by improving their billing process so the codes are more accurate and fewer claims are rejected.

Similarly, hospitalists like Dr. Hazen contend that some patient-satisfaction measures in the HCAHPS section of the VBP program can work against good clinical care. “That one drives me crazy because we’re not waiters or waitresses in a five-star restaurant,” he says. “Health care is complicated; it’s not like sending back a bowl of cold soup the way you can in a restaurant.”

Increasing satisfaction by keeping patients in the hospital longer than warranted or leaving in a Foley catheter for patient convenience, for example, can negatively impact actual outcomes.

“Physicians and nurses get put in this catch-22 where we have to choose between patient satisfaction and by-the-book clinical care,” Dr. Hazen says. “And our job is to try to mitigate that, but you’re kind of damned if you do and damned if you don’t.”

A new study, on the other hand, suggests that HCAHPS scores reflecting lower staff responsiveness are associated with an increased risk of HACs like central line–associated bloodstream infections and that lower scores may be a symptom of hospitals “with a multitude of problems.”²

A 10-Step Program

As existing rules and metrics are revised, new ones added, and others merged or discontinued, hospitalists are likely to encounter more hiccups and headaches. So what’s the solution? Beyond establishing good personal habits like hand-washing when entering and leaving a patient’s room, hospitalist leaders and healthcare analysts point to 10 strategies that may help keep HM providers from getting squeezed by all the demands:

1) Keep everyone on the same page. Because hospitals and health systems often take a subset of CMS core measures and make them strategic priorities, Dr. Whitcomb says hospitalists must thoroughly understand their own institutions’ internal system-level quality and safety goals. He stresses the need for hospitalists to develop and maintain close working connections with their organization’s safety- and quality-improvement (QI) teams “to understand exactly what the rules of the road are.”

Dr. Whitcomb says hospitals should compensate hospitalists for time spent working with these teams on feasible solutions. Hospitalist representatives can then champion specific safety or quality issues and keep them foremost in the minds of their colleagues. “I’m a big believer in paying people to do that work,” he says.

2) Take a wider view. It’s clear that most providers wouldn’t have chosen some of the performance indicators that Medicare and other third-party payors are asking them to meet, and many physicians have been more focused on outcomes than on clinical measures. Like it or not, however, thriving in the new era of health care means accepting more benchmarks. “We’ve had to broaden our scope to say, ‘OK, these other things matter, too,’” Dr. Duke says.

3) Use visual cues. Hospitalists can’t rely on memory to keep track of the dozens of measures for which they are being held accountable. “Every hospitalist program should have a dashboard of priority measures that they’re paying attention to and that’s out in front of them on a regular basis,” Dr. Whitcomb says. “It could be presented to them at monthly meetings, or it could be in a prominent place in their office, but there needs to be a set of cues.”

4) Use bonuses for alignment. Dr. Hazen says hospitals also may find success in using bonuses as a positive reinforcement for well-aligned care. Inova Fairfax’s bonuses include a clinical component that aligns with many of CMS’s core measures, and the financial incentives ensure that discharge summaries are completed and distributed in a timely manner.

5) Emphasize a team approach. Espousing a multidisciplinary approach to care can give patients the confidence that all providers are on the same page, thereby aiding patient-satisfaction scores and easing throughput. And as Dr. Hazen points out, avoiding a silo mentality can pay dividends for improving patient safety.

Dr. Tierza

6) Offer the right information. Tierza Stephan, MD, regional hospitalist medical director for Allina Health in Minneapolis and the incoming chair of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee, says Allina has worked hard to ensure that hospitalists complete their discharge summaries within 24 hours of a patient’s release from the hospital. Beyond timeliness, the health system is emphasizing content that informs without overwhelming the patient, caregiver, or follow-up provider with unnecessary details.

The discharge summary, for example, includes a section called “Recommendations for the Outpatient Provider,” which provides a checklist of sorts so those providers don’t miss the forest for the trees. The same is true for patients. “The hospital is probably not the best place to be educating patients, so we really focus more on patient instruction at discharge and then timely follow-up,” Dr. Stephan says.

In addition to allowing better care coordination between inpatient and outpatient providers, she says, “it cuts across patient experience and readmissions, and it helps patients to be engaged because they have very clear, easy-to-read information.” Paying attention to such details may have outsized impacts: In a recent study, researchers found that patients who are actively engaged in their own health care are significantly less costly to treat, on average.³

7) Follow through after discharge. Inova Fairfax is setting up an outpatient follow-up clinic as a safety net for patients at the highest risk of being readmitted. Many of these target patients are uninsured or underinsured and battling complex medical problems like heart failure or pneumonia. Establishing a physical location for follow-ups and direct communication with primary-care providers, the hospital hopes, might reduce noncompliance among these outpatients and thereby curtail subsequent readmissions.

8) Optimize EHR. When optimized, experts say, electronic medical records can help hospitals ensure that their providers are following core measures and preventing hospital-acquired conditions while leaving channels of communication open and keeping revenue streams flowing.

“Luckily, we just switched to electronic medical records so we can monitor who has a Foley catheter in, who does or doesn’t have DVT prophylaxis, because even really good docs sometimes make these knucklehead mistakes every once in a while,” Dr. Hazen says. “So we try to use systems to back ourselves up. But for the most part, there’s just no substitute for having good docs do the right thing and documenting that.”

9) Bundle up. Although bundled payments represent yet another CMS initiative, Dr. Duke says the model has the potential to reduce waste, standardize care, and monitor outcomes. Lancaster General has been working on the approach for the past few years, with an initial focus on cardiovascular medicine, orthopedics, and neurosurgery. “We’re getting a lot of traction to get physicians to work together to improve care, where before there wasn’t an incentive to do this,” Dr. Duke says. “So we see this as a good thing, and I think it has potential to reduce expenses in high-cost areas.”

10) Connect the dots. Joane Goodroe, an independent healthcare consultant based in Atlanta, says CMS expects providers to connect the dots and combine their efforts in the separate incentive programs to maximize their resources. By providing consistent care coordination and setting patients on the right track, then, she says hospitalists might help boost savings across the board—a benefit that wouldn’t necessarily be apparent based solely on improved quality metrics in specific programs.

Even here, though, the current fee-for-service model can create awkward side effects. For example, Goodroe recommends following the path that many care groups delving into accountable care and bundled payment systems are already taking: connecting those models to efforts aimed at reducing hospital readmissions. Without the proper financial incentives, however, those efforts may be constrained due to a significant increase in expended resources and a potential decrease in overall revenues.

Some of the kinks may work themselves out of the system over time, but experts say the era of multiple metrics—and additional pressure—is just beginning. Combined, they will require providers to be much better at working as a system and coordinating care across multiple environments beyond the hospital, Dr. Stephan says.

One main question boils down to this, she says: “How do we get more efficient as a system and eliminate waste? I think the hospitalists really play a vital role, and it’s mainly through communication and transfer of information. Hospitalists have to be really well-connected with the different physicians and venues that send the patients into the hospital so that we’re not duplicating services and so that we can get right to the crux of the problem.”

Doing so, regardless of which CMS program is on tap, may be the very best way to avoid getting squeezed.

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer in Seattle.

References

1. Adler-Milstein J, Green CE, Bates DW. A survey analysis suggests that electronic health records will yield revenue gains for some practices and losses for many. Health Affairs. 2013;32(3):562-570.
2. Saman DM, Kavanagh KT, Johnson B, Lutfiyya MN. Can inpatient hospital experiences predict central line-associated bloodstream infections? PLoS ONE. 2013;8(4):e61097.
3. Hibbard JH, Greene J, Overton V. Patients with lower activation associated with higher costs; delivery systems should know their patients’ ‘scores.’ Health Affairs. 2013; 32(2):216-222.

Dr. Tierza

VBP. ACO. HAC. EHR. Suddenly, Medicare-derived acronyms are everywhere, and many of them are attached to a growing set of programs aimed at boosting efficiency and quality. Some are optional; others are mandatory. Some have carrots as incentives; others have sticks. Some seem well-designed; others seemingly work at cross-purposes.

Love or hate these initiatives, the combined time, money, and resources needed to address all of them could put hospitals and hospitalists under considerable duress.

“It can either prove or dismantle the whole hospitalist movement,” says Brian Hazen, MD, medical director of the hospitalist division at Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, Va. “Hospitals expect us to be agile and adapt to the pressures to keep them alive. If we cannot adapt and provide that, then why give us a job?”

Whether or not the focus is on lowering readmission rates, decreasing the incidence of hospital-acquired conditions, or improving efficiencies, Dr. Hazen tends to lump most of the sticks and carrots together. “I throw them all into one basket because for the most part, they’re all reflective of good care,” he says.

The basket is growing, however, and the bundle of sticks could deliver a financial beating to the unwary.

It’s possible that some low-margin hospitals that are facing big penalties could actually have their solvency threatened. If hospitals that are a vital part of the community are threatened with insolvency because of these programs, we may need to take a second look at how we structure the penalties.

—Win Whitcomb, MD, MHM, medical director of healthcare quality, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Mass.; SHM Performance and Measurement Reporting Committee member; co-founder and past president of SHM; author of The Hospitalist’s “On the Horizon” column

At What Cost?

For the lowest-performing hospitals, the top readmission penalties will grow to 2% of Medicare reimbursements in fiscal year 2014 and 3% in 2015. Meanwhile, CMS’ Hospital-Acquired Conditions (HAC) program will begin assessing a 1% penalty on the worst performing hospitals in 2015, and the amount withheld under the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) program will reach 2% in 2017 (top-performing hospitals can recoup the withhold and more, depending on performance). By that year, the three programs alone could result in a 6% loss of reimbursements.

Win Whitcomb, MD, MHM, medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass., and a member of SHM’s Performance and Measurement Reporting Committee, estimates that by 2017, the total at-risk payments could reach about $10 million for a 650-bed academic medical center. The tally for a 90-bed community hospital, he estimates, might run a bit less than $1 million. Although the combined penalty is probably enough to get the attention of most hospitals, very few institutions are likely to be dinged for the entire amount.

Nevertheless, the cumulative loss of reimbursements could be a tipping point for hospitals already in dire straits. “It’s possible that some low-margin hospitals that are facing big penalties could actually have their solvency threatened,” Dr. Whitcomb says. “If hospitals that are a vital part of the community are threatened with insolvency because of these programs, we may need to take a second look at how we structure the penalties.”

The necessary investment in infrastructure, he says, could prove to be a far bigger concern—at least initially.

“What is more expensive is just putting out the effort to do the work to improve and perform well under these programs,” says Dr. Whitcomb, co-founder and past president of SHM and author of The Hospitalist’s “On the Horizon” column. “That’s a big unreported hidden expense of all of these programs.”

With the fairly rapid implementation of multiple measures mandated by the Accountable Care Act, Medicare may be disinclined to dramatically ramp up the programs in play until it has a better sense of what’s working well. Then again, analysts like Laurence Baker, PhD, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, say it’s doubtful that the agency will scale back its efforts given the widely held perception that plenty of waste can yet be wrung from the system.

“If I was a hospitalist, I would expect more of this coming,” Dr. Baker says.

Of course, rolling out new incentive programs is always a difficult balancing act in which the creators must be careful not to focus too much attention on the wrong measure or create unintended disincentives.

“That’s one of the great challenges: making a program that’s going to be successful when we know that people will do what’s measured and maybe even, without thinking about it, do less of what’s not measured. So we have to be careful about that,” Dr. Baker says.

We’re getting a lot of traction to get physicians to work together to improve care, where before there wasn’t an incentive to do this. So we see this as a good thing, and I think it has potential to reduce expenses in high-cost areas.

—Monty Duke, MD, chief physician executive, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pa.

Out of Alignment

Beyond cost and infrastructure, the proliferation of new measures also presents challenges for alignment. Monty Duke, MD, chief physician executive at Lancaster General Hospital in Lancaster, Pa., says the targets are changing so rapidly that tension can arise between hospitals and hospitalists in aligning expectations about priorities and considering how much time, resources, and staffing will be required to address them.

Likewise, the impetus to install new infrastructure can sometimes have unintended consequences, as Dr. Duke has seen firsthand with his hospital’s recent implementation of electronic health records (EHRs).

“In many ways, the electronic health record has changed the dynamic of rounding between physicians and nurses, and it’s really challenging communication,” he says. How so? “Because people spend more time communicating with the computer than they do talking to one another,” he says. The discordant communication, in turn, can conspire against a clear plan of care and overall goals as well as challenge efforts that emphasize a team-based approach.

Despite federal meaningful-use incentives, a recent survey also suggested that a majority of healthcare practices still may not achieve a positive return on investment for EHRs unless they can figure out how to use the systems to increase revenue.¹ A minority of providers have succeeded by seeing more patients every day or by improving their billing process so the codes are more accurate and fewer claims are rejected.

Similarly, hospitalists like Dr. Hazen contend that some patient-satisfaction measures in the HCAHPS section of the VBP program can work against good clinical care. “That one drives me crazy because we’re not waiters or waitresses in a five-star restaurant,” he says. “Health care is complicated; it’s not like sending back a bowl of cold soup the way you can in a restaurant.”

Increasing satisfaction by keeping patients in the hospital longer than warranted or leaving in a Foley catheter for patient convenience, for example, can negatively impact actual outcomes.

“Physicians and nurses get put in this catch-22 where we have to choose between patient satisfaction and by-the-book clinical care,” Dr. Hazen says. “And our job is to try to mitigate that, but you’re kind of damned if you do and damned if you don’t.”

A new study, on the other hand, suggests that HCAHPS scores reflecting lower staff responsiveness are associated with an increased risk of HACs like central line–associated bloodstream infections and that lower scores may be a symptom of hospitals “with a multitude of problems.”²

A 10-Step Program

As existing rules and metrics are revised, new ones added, and others merged or discontinued, hospitalists are likely to encounter more hiccups and headaches. So what’s the solution? Beyond establishing good personal habits like hand-washing when entering and leaving a patient’s room, hospitalist leaders and healthcare analysts point to 10 strategies that may help keep HM providers from getting squeezed by all the demands:

1) Keep everyone on the same page. Because hospitals and health systems often take a subset of CMS core measures and make them strategic priorities, Dr. Whitcomb says hospitalists must thoroughly understand their own institutions’ internal system-level quality and safety goals. He stresses the need for hospitalists to develop and maintain close working connections with their organization’s safety- and quality-improvement (QI) teams “to understand exactly what the rules of the road are.”

Dr. Whitcomb says hospitals should compensate hospitalists for time spent working with these teams on feasible solutions. Hospitalist representatives can then champion specific safety or quality issues and keep them foremost in the minds of their colleagues. “I’m a big believer in paying people to do that work,” he says.

2) Take a wider view. It’s clear that most providers wouldn’t have chosen some of the performance indicators that Medicare and other third-party payors are asking them to meet, and many physicians have been more focused on outcomes than on clinical measures. Like it or not, however, thriving in the new era of health care means accepting more benchmarks. “We’ve had to broaden our scope to say, ‘OK, these other things matter, too,’” Dr. Duke says.

3) Use visual cues. Hospitalists can’t rely on memory to keep track of the dozens of measures for which they are being held accountable. “Every hospitalist program should have a dashboard of priority measures that they’re paying attention to and that’s out in front of them on a regular basis,” Dr. Whitcomb says. “It could be presented to them at monthly meetings, or it could be in a prominent place in their office, but there needs to be a set of cues.”

4) Use bonuses for alignment. Dr. Hazen says hospitals also may find success in using bonuses as a positive reinforcement for well-aligned care. Inova Fairfax’s bonuses include a clinical component that aligns with many of CMS’s core measures, and the financial incentives ensure that discharge summaries are completed and distributed in a timely manner.

5) Emphasize a team approach. Espousing a multidisciplinary approach to care can give patients the confidence that all providers are on the same page, thereby aiding patient-satisfaction scores and easing throughput. And as Dr. Hazen points out, avoiding a silo mentality can pay dividends for improving patient safety.

Dr. Tierza

6) Offer the right information. Tierza Stephan, MD, regional hospitalist medical director for Allina Health in Minneapolis and the incoming chair of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee, says Allina has worked hard to ensure that hospitalists complete their discharge summaries within 24 hours of a patient’s release from the hospital. Beyond timeliness, the health system is emphasizing content that informs without overwhelming the patient, caregiver, or follow-up provider with unnecessary details.

The discharge summary, for example, includes a section called “Recommendations for the Outpatient Provider,” which provides a checklist of sorts so those providers don’t miss the forest for the trees. The same is true for patients. “The hospital is probably not the best place to be educating patients, so we really focus more on patient instruction at discharge and then timely follow-up,” Dr. Stephan says.

In addition to allowing better care coordination between inpatient and outpatient providers, she says, “it cuts across patient experience and readmissions, and it helps patients to be engaged because they have very clear, easy-to-read information.” Paying attention to such details may have outsized impacts: In a recent study, researchers found that patients who are actively engaged in their own health care are significantly less costly to treat, on average.³

7) Follow through after discharge. Inova Fairfax is setting up an outpatient follow-up clinic as a safety net for patients at the highest risk of being readmitted. Many of these target patients are uninsured or underinsured and battling complex medical problems like heart failure or pneumonia. Establishing a physical location for follow-ups and direct communication with primary-care providers, the hospital hopes, might reduce noncompliance among these outpatients and thereby curtail subsequent readmissions.

8) Optimize EHR. When optimized, experts say, electronic medical records can help hospitals ensure that their providers are following core measures and preventing hospital-acquired conditions while leaving channels of communication open and keeping revenue streams flowing.

“Luckily, we just switched to electronic medical records so we can monitor who has a Foley catheter in, who does or doesn’t have DVT prophylaxis, because even really good docs sometimes make these knucklehead mistakes every once in a while,” Dr. Hazen says. “So we try to use systems to back ourselves up. But for the most part, there’s just no substitute for having good docs do the right thing and documenting that.”

9) Bundle up. Although bundled payments represent yet another CMS initiative, Dr. Duke says the model has the potential to reduce waste, standardize care, and monitor outcomes. Lancaster General has been working on the approach for the past few years, with an initial focus on cardiovascular medicine, orthopedics, and neurosurgery. “We’re getting a lot of traction to get physicians to work together to improve care, where before there wasn’t an incentive to do this,” Dr. Duke says. “So we see this as a good thing, and I think it has potential to reduce expenses in high-cost areas.”

10) Connect the dots. Joane Goodroe, an independent healthcare consultant based in Atlanta, says CMS expects providers to connect the dots and combine their efforts in the separate incentive programs to maximize their resources. By providing consistent care coordination and setting patients on the right track, then, she says hospitalists might help boost savings across the board—a benefit that wouldn’t necessarily be apparent based solely on improved quality metrics in specific programs.

Even here, though, the current fee-for-service model can create awkward side effects. For example, Goodroe recommends following the path that many care groups delving into accountable care and bundled payment systems are already taking: connecting those models to efforts aimed at reducing hospital readmissions. Without the proper financial incentives, however, those efforts may be constrained due to a significant increase in expended resources and a potential decrease in overall revenues.

Some of the kinks may work themselves out of the system over time, but experts say the era of multiple metrics—and additional pressure—is just beginning. Combined, they will require providers to be much better at working as a system and coordinating care across multiple environments beyond the hospital, Dr. Stephan says.

One main question boils down to this, she says: “How do we get more efficient as a system and eliminate waste? I think the hospitalists really play a vital role, and it’s mainly through communication and transfer of information. Hospitalists have to be really well-connected with the different physicians and venues that send the patients into the hospital so that we’re not duplicating services and so that we can get right to the crux of the problem.”

Doing so, regardless of which CMS program is on tap, may be the very best way to avoid getting squeezed.

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer in Seattle.

References

1. Adler-Milstein J, Green CE, Bates DW. A survey analysis suggests that electronic health records will yield revenue gains for some practices and losses for many. Health Affairs. 2013;32(3):562-570.
2. Saman DM, Kavanagh KT, Johnson B, Lutfiyya MN. Can inpatient hospital experiences predict central line-associated bloodstream infections? PLoS ONE. 2013;8(4):e61097.
3. Hibbard JH, Greene J, Overton V. Patients with lower activation associated with higher costs; delivery systems should know their patients’ ‘scores.’ Health Affairs. 2013; 32(2):216-222.

Dr. Stephan

Before 2011, hospitalists had only Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) specialty-specific CPT distribution data, and no hospitalist-specific data, available when looking for benchmarks against which to compare their billing practices. Thanks to recent State of Hospital Medicine surveys, however, we now have hospitalist-specific data for the distribution of commonly used CPT codes. It’s interesting to analyze how 2011 data compares to 2012, and how the use of high-level codes varies by geographic region, employment model, compensation structure, and practice size.

In 2012, the use of the higher-level inpatient (IP) discharge code (99239) increased to 52% from 48% in 2011 among HM groups serving adults only, and the use of the highest-level IP subsequent code (99233) increased to 33% from 28% in the same comparison. This increase is in keeping with national trends. According to a May 2012 report by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General, from 2001 to 2010, physicians’ billing shifted from lower-level to higher-level codes. For example, the billing of the lowest-level code (99231) decreased 16%, while the billing of the two higher-level codes (99232 and 99233) increased 6% and 9%, respectively.

Possible drivers of this change include:

• Expanded use of electronic health records (EHRs);
• Increased physician education about documentation requirements; and
• A sicker hospitalized patient population due to expanded outpatient care capabilities.

Although the proportion of high-level subsequent and discharge codes reported by SHM increased in 2012, the percent of highest-level IP admission codes (99223) actually decreased to 66% from 69%. There are many possible reasons for this. First, the elimination of consult codes by CMS in 2010 increased the overall use of admission codes but might have decreased the proportion of highest-level admission codes. Additionally, there may be an increased use of higher RVU-generating critical-care codes preferentially over billing of the highest-level admission codes. Third, there is the possibility that the extra documentation required for high-level admissions is a billing deterrent. Similarly, higher-level codes may be downcoded if documentation is lacking or incomplete.

Dr. Stephan

Comparatively, my health system, Allina Health, showed an increase in the use of highest-level codes for all three CPT codes analyzed.

With the increasing sophistication of EHRs and coding technology tools, it will be interesting to see the future impact on coding distribution as providers adapt to new documentation processes that support health information exchange across systems.

Comparing geographic regions, the West uses the highest proportion of high-level codes for admission, follow-up, and discharge, followed by the Midwest.

Interestingly, variation in billing by group size is only correlated directly to admission codes, but not to follow-up or discharge codes—with larger services tending to bill more of the highest-level admission codes.

Admission code use correlates directly with compensation structure; groups providing 100% of total compensation in the form of salary bill the lowest percentage of high-level admission codes. As compensation trends away from straight salaries, the percentage of high-level admission codes increases. The picture is less clear for high-level follow-up and discharge codes.

Comparing academic and nonacademic HM groups shows greater use of the highest- level admission, follow-up, and discharge codes for nonacademic HM groups. This is likely because academic hospitalists can only bill for their own time and not for time spent by medical residents.

Employment model (e.g. hospital system, private hospitalist-only groups, management companies, etc.) showed no categorical effect on CPT distribution.

Dr. Stephan is regional hospitalist medical director for Allina Health in Minneapolis and the incoming chair of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

Dr. Stephan

Before 2011, hospitalists had only Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) specialty-specific CPT distribution data, and no hospitalist-specific data, available when looking for benchmarks against which to compare their billing practices. Thanks to recent State of Hospital Medicine surveys, however, we now have hospitalist-specific data for the distribution of commonly used CPT codes. It’s interesting to analyze how 2011 data compares to 2012, and how the use of high-level codes varies by geographic region, employment model, compensation structure, and practice size.

In 2012, the use of the higher-level inpatient (IP) discharge code (99239) increased to 52% from 48% in 2011 among HM groups serving adults only, and the use of the highest-level IP subsequent code (99233) increased to 33% from 28% in the same comparison. This increase is in keeping with national trends. According to a May 2012 report by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General, from 2001 to 2010, physicians’ billing shifted from lower-level to higher-level codes. For example, the billing of the lowest-level code (99231) decreased 16%, while the billing of the two higher-level codes (99232 and 99233) increased 6% and 9%, respectively.

Possible drivers of this change include:

• Expanded use of electronic health records (EHRs);
• Increased physician education about documentation requirements; and
• A sicker hospitalized patient population due to expanded outpatient care capabilities.

Although the proportion of high-level subsequent and discharge codes reported by SHM increased in 2012, the percent of highest-level IP admission codes (99223) actually decreased to 66% from 69%. There are many possible reasons for this. First, the elimination of consult codes by CMS in 2010 increased the overall use of admission codes but might have decreased the proportion of highest-level admission codes. Additionally, there may be an increased use of higher RVU-generating critical-care codes preferentially over billing of the highest-level admission codes. Third, there is the possibility that the extra documentation required for high-level admissions is a billing deterrent. Similarly, higher-level codes may be downcoded if documentation is lacking or incomplete.

Dr. Stephan

Comparatively, my health system, Allina Health, showed an increase in the use of highest-level codes for all three CPT codes analyzed.

With the increasing sophistication of EHRs and coding technology tools, it will be interesting to see the future impact on coding distribution as providers adapt to new documentation processes that support health information exchange across systems.

Comparing geographic regions, the West uses the highest proportion of high-level codes for admission, follow-up, and discharge, followed by the Midwest.

Interestingly, variation in billing by group size is only correlated directly to admission codes, but not to follow-up or discharge codes—with larger services tending to bill more of the highest-level admission codes.

Admission code use correlates directly with compensation structure; groups providing 100% of total compensation in the form of salary bill the lowest percentage of high-level admission codes. As compensation trends away from straight salaries, the percentage of high-level admission codes increases. The picture is less clear for high-level follow-up and discharge codes.

Comparing academic and nonacademic HM groups shows greater use of the highest- level admission, follow-up, and discharge codes for nonacademic HM groups. This is likely because academic hospitalists can only bill for their own time and not for time spent by medical residents.

Employment model (e.g. hospital system, private hospitalist-only groups, management companies, etc.) showed no categorical effect on CPT distribution.

Dr. Stephan is regional hospitalist medical director for Allina Health in Minneapolis and the incoming chair of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

Dr. Stephan

Before 2011, hospitalists had only Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) specialty-specific CPT distribution data, and no hospitalist-specific data, available when looking for benchmarks against which to compare their billing practices. Thanks to recent State of Hospital Medicine surveys, however, we now have hospitalist-specific data for the distribution of commonly used CPT codes. It’s interesting to analyze how 2011 data compares to 2012, and how the use of high-level codes varies by geographic region, employment model, compensation structure, and practice size.

In 2012, the use of the higher-level inpatient (IP) discharge code (99239) increased to 52% from 48% in 2011 among HM groups serving adults only, and the use of the highest-level IP subsequent code (99233) increased to 33% from 28% in the same comparison. This increase is in keeping with national trends. According to a May 2012 report by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General, from 2001 to 2010, physicians’ billing shifted from lower-level to higher-level codes. For example, the billing of the lowest-level code (99231) decreased 16%, while the billing of the two higher-level codes (99232 and 99233) increased 6% and 9%, respectively.

Possible drivers of this change include:

• Expanded use of electronic health records (EHRs);
• Increased physician education about documentation requirements; and
• A sicker hospitalized patient population due to expanded outpatient care capabilities.

Although the proportion of high-level subsequent and discharge codes reported by SHM increased in 2012, the percent of highest-level IP admission codes (99223) actually decreased to 66% from 69%. There are many possible reasons for this. First, the elimination of consult codes by CMS in 2010 increased the overall use of admission codes but might have decreased the proportion of highest-level admission codes. Additionally, there may be an increased use of higher RVU-generating critical-care codes preferentially over billing of the highest-level admission codes. Third, there is the possibility that the extra documentation required for high-level admissions is a billing deterrent. Similarly, higher-level codes may be downcoded if documentation is lacking or incomplete.

Dr. Stephan

Comparatively, my health system, Allina Health, showed an increase in the use of highest-level codes for all three CPT codes analyzed.

With the increasing sophistication of EHRs and coding technology tools, it will be interesting to see the future impact on coding distribution as providers adapt to new documentation processes that support health information exchange across systems.

Comparing geographic regions, the West uses the highest proportion of high-level codes for admission, follow-up, and discharge, followed by the Midwest.

Interestingly, variation in billing by group size is only correlated directly to admission codes, but not to follow-up or discharge codes—with larger services tending to bill more of the highest-level admission codes.

Admission code use correlates directly with compensation structure; groups providing 100% of total compensation in the form of salary bill the lowest percentage of high-level admission codes. As compensation trends away from straight salaries, the percentage of high-level admission codes increases. The picture is less clear for high-level follow-up and discharge codes.

Comparing academic and nonacademic HM groups shows greater use of the highest- level admission, follow-up, and discharge codes for nonacademic HM groups. This is likely because academic hospitalists can only bill for their own time and not for time spent by medical residents.

Employment model (e.g. hospital system, private hospitalist-only groups, management companies, etc.) showed no categorical effect on CPT distribution.

Dr. Stephan is regional hospitalist medical director for Allina Health in Minneapolis and the incoming chair of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

Dr. Conway

Hospitalist leaders are taking a proactive approach to the latest wrinkle of the specialty’s rock-and-a-hard-place dilemma when it comes to how clinicians code for their services. The oft-lamented issue is the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) dearth of CPT codes designated for day-to-day hospitalist services.

But the latest twist to the story is what happens in skilled-nursing facilities (SNFs). Hospitalists increasingly are taking lead roles in SNFs, yet they must use the same care codes as nursing-home providers despite the higher acuity and longer length of stay found in SNFs compared to nursing homes. Additionally, Medicare recognizes SNFs and nursing homes as primary care for reimbursement via accountable-care organizations (ACOs).

Kerry Weiner, MD, a member of SHM’s Public Policy Committee, says SHM and others, including the American Medical Directors Association, are pushing CMS to reclassify SNF care as inpatient service, similar to acute rehabilitation facilities, inpatient psychiatric care, and long-term acute-care facilities. Dr. Weiner suggests rank-and-file practitioners do the same.

“We think attributing providers to be primary care versus specialty care versus acute care only on the basis of E&M codes will not really capture the nuances of primary-care practice in the country right now,” says Dr. Weiner, chief medical officer at North Hollywood, Calif.-based IPC: The Hospitalist Company. “This is an example of how just using E&M codes does not really capture the style of practice and the type of patient you’re seeing.”

The arguments for reclassification include:

• Hospitalists and other physicians practicing in SNFs need to spend most of their time there to provide optimal care, but it is difficult to financially justify maintaining that presence without an adequate patient census.
• Generating that census while practicing in one ACO is difficult because most facilities service multiple ACOs, and PCP exclusivity rules tied to many ACO contracts are a hurdle for physicians working with one just ACO (working with multiple ACOs requires multiple tax identification numbers and can be “operationally and politically difficult,” Dr. Wiener says).
• All told, ACO setup creates a fiscal hurdle for providers working in SNFs and does not recognize the clinical burden that separates the types of care provided in SNFs and nursing homes. Were care in SNFs reclassified as inpatient care, the exclusivity rule would not apply, and therefore, hospitalists in those facilities could more easily attain a patient census that justifies their continued presence. Dr. Weiner says one solution is to create a set of CPT codes just for SNFs that could be used by specialist physicians, including hospitalists.

“We are proposing a ‘work around’ by using the site of service as a determinator,” he adds.

Issues to Address

Dr. Weiner, SHM officials, and others have met with CMS to discuss the potential reclassification. Dr. Weiner says that as the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) morphs into the Value-Based Payment Modifier (VBPM) program, the issue of ACO exclusivity could become even more prevalent as compensation is tied to performance.

“One of the components of physician value-based purchasing is the cost of care,” Dr. Weiner says. “If you compare a hospitalist’s cost to the pool of primary care, which includes hospitals, SNFs, etc., you’re obviously going to be higher because you have a much sicker population; A lot more things are going on, so there’s a lot higher utilization. So this concept of assigning doctors to a style of practice just based on E&M codes is just inadequate.”

Patrick Conway, MD, MSc, FAAP, SFHM, chief medical officer of CMS and director of CMS’ Center of Clinical Standards and Quality, says the agency is sympathetic to the issue. Via PQRS and VBPM, CMS is working to put in place “a robust set of measures that hospitalists can choose to report on,” he says.

“CMS has sought public comment on allowing hospitalists to align with their hospital’s quality measures for CMS quality programs,” he says. “But without this alignment option or a specialty code, we need to at least have sufficient measures to reflect hospitalists’ actual practice and what’s important to hospital medicine.”

Dr. Conway, a former hospitalist and chair of SHM’s Public Policy Committee, says he welcomes feedback from SHM and its members on suggested changes to CMS policy.

“I would certainly encourage hospital medicine to have discussions with the CMS payment and coding team that makes determinations about specialty status,” he says.

The Future?

Ironically, the potential panacea of HM-specific codes has not been fully embraced because of fears of unintended consequences. For example, in the case of hospitalists practicing in SNFs, the PCP designation is problematic in terms of lower reimbursement rates. Some hospitalists, however, will see a bump in total revenue the next two years because they will be designated PCPs and paid more via the Medicaid-to-Medicare parity regulation included in the Affordable Care Act.

“Hospital medicine will want to think about that as it goes through the process,” Dr. Conway says. “Internally with CMS, if you’re a specialty, we will specifically consider if you’re primary care or not. Whereas, if you’re in the internal-medicine bucket, by definition from the traditional CMS specialty coding perspective, you are primary care. So if you make a point to carve out your own category, then it’ll be a decision every time if you’re primary care or are you a specialty.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

Call for PQRS Measures

Dr. Conway

CMS’ annual call for Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) measures is a rite of summer. And Dr. Conway hopes that when CMS culls through this summer’s batch, hospitalists weighed in often.

“I know that the surgeons, the cardiologists, and others, every year, they say, ‘Here are the 20 new measures we’re thinking about for our specialty,’” he says. “So I just want to make clear that SHM should do the same. Identify the measures out there that are most relevant to you.”

Dr. Conway adds that the process shouldn’t be limited to the society level. Individual practitioners can reach out to CMS and weigh in as well.

Physicians “need to have sufficient measures to cover [their] specialty, and societies can play a key role in developing measures or identifying measures,” Dr. Conway says. “If there’s measures you want in the program, by all means, tell us.”

—Richard Quinn

Dr. Conway

Hospitalist leaders are taking a proactive approach to the latest wrinkle of the specialty’s rock-and-a-hard-place dilemma when it comes to how clinicians code for their services. The oft-lamented issue is the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) dearth of CPT codes designated for day-to-day hospitalist services.

But the latest twist to the story is what happens in skilled-nursing facilities (SNFs). Hospitalists increasingly are taking lead roles in SNFs, yet they must use the same care codes as nursing-home providers despite the higher acuity and longer length of stay found in SNFs compared to nursing homes. Additionally, Medicare recognizes SNFs and nursing homes as primary care for reimbursement via accountable-care organizations (ACOs).

Kerry Weiner, MD, a member of SHM’s Public Policy Committee, says SHM and others, including the American Medical Directors Association, are pushing CMS to reclassify SNF care as inpatient service, similar to acute rehabilitation facilities, inpatient psychiatric care, and long-term acute-care facilities. Dr. Weiner suggests rank-and-file practitioners do the same.

“We think attributing providers to be primary care versus specialty care versus acute care only on the basis of E&M codes will not really capture the nuances of primary-care practice in the country right now,” says Dr. Weiner, chief medical officer at North Hollywood, Calif.-based IPC: The Hospitalist Company. “This is an example of how just using E&M codes does not really capture the style of practice and the type of patient you’re seeing.”

The arguments for reclassification include:

• Hospitalists and other physicians practicing in SNFs need to spend most of their time there to provide optimal care, but it is difficult to financially justify maintaining that presence without an adequate patient census.
• Generating that census while practicing in one ACO is difficult because most facilities service multiple ACOs, and PCP exclusivity rules tied to many ACO contracts are a hurdle for physicians working with one just ACO (working with multiple ACOs requires multiple tax identification numbers and can be “operationally and politically difficult,” Dr. Wiener says).
• All told, ACO setup creates a fiscal hurdle for providers working in SNFs and does not recognize the clinical burden that separates the types of care provided in SNFs and nursing homes. Were care in SNFs reclassified as inpatient care, the exclusivity rule would not apply, and therefore, hospitalists in those facilities could more easily attain a patient census that justifies their continued presence. Dr. Weiner says one solution is to create a set of CPT codes just for SNFs that could be used by specialist physicians, including hospitalists.

“We are proposing a ‘work around’ by using the site of service as a determinator,” he adds.

Issues to Address

Dr. Weiner, SHM officials, and others have met with CMS to discuss the potential reclassification. Dr. Weiner says that as the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) morphs into the Value-Based Payment Modifier (VBPM) program, the issue of ACO exclusivity could become even more prevalent as compensation is tied to performance.

“One of the components of physician value-based purchasing is the cost of care,” Dr. Weiner says. “If you compare a hospitalist’s cost to the pool of primary care, which includes hospitals, SNFs, etc., you’re obviously going to be higher because you have a much sicker population; A lot more things are going on, so there’s a lot higher utilization. So this concept of assigning doctors to a style of practice just based on E&M codes is just inadequate.”

Patrick Conway, MD, MSc, FAAP, SFHM, chief medical officer of CMS and director of CMS’ Center of Clinical Standards and Quality, says the agency is sympathetic to the issue. Via PQRS and VBPM, CMS is working to put in place “a robust set of measures that hospitalists can choose to report on,” he says.

“CMS has sought public comment on allowing hospitalists to align with their hospital’s quality measures for CMS quality programs,” he says. “But without this alignment option or a specialty code, we need to at least have sufficient measures to reflect hospitalists’ actual practice and what’s important to hospital medicine.”

Dr. Conway, a former hospitalist and chair of SHM’s Public Policy Committee, says he welcomes feedback from SHM and its members on suggested changes to CMS policy.

“I would certainly encourage hospital medicine to have discussions with the CMS payment and coding team that makes determinations about specialty status,” he says.

The Future?

Ironically, the potential panacea of HM-specific codes has not been fully embraced because of fears of unintended consequences. For example, in the case of hospitalists practicing in SNFs, the PCP designation is problematic in terms of lower reimbursement rates. Some hospitalists, however, will see a bump in total revenue the next two years because they will be designated PCPs and paid more via the Medicaid-to-Medicare parity regulation included in the Affordable Care Act.

“Hospital medicine will want to think about that as it goes through the process,” Dr. Conway says. “Internally with CMS, if you’re a specialty, we will specifically consider if you’re primary care or not. Whereas, if you’re in the internal-medicine bucket, by definition from the traditional CMS specialty coding perspective, you are primary care. So if you make a point to carve out your own category, then it’ll be a decision every time if you’re primary care or are you a specialty.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

Call for PQRS Measures

Dr. Conway

CMS’ annual call for Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) measures is a rite of summer. And Dr. Conway hopes that when CMS culls through this summer’s batch, hospitalists weighed in often.

“I know that the surgeons, the cardiologists, and others, every year, they say, ‘Here are the 20 new measures we’re thinking about for our specialty,’” he says. “So I just want to make clear that SHM should do the same. Identify the measures out there that are most relevant to you.”

Dr. Conway adds that the process shouldn’t be limited to the society level. Individual practitioners can reach out to CMS and weigh in as well.

Physicians “need to have sufficient measures to cover [their] specialty, and societies can play a key role in developing measures or identifying measures,” Dr. Conway says. “If there’s measures you want in the program, by all means, tell us.”

—Richard Quinn

Dr. Conway

Hospitalist leaders are taking a proactive approach to the latest wrinkle of the specialty’s rock-and-a-hard-place dilemma when it comes to how clinicians code for their services. The oft-lamented issue is the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) dearth of CPT codes designated for day-to-day hospitalist services.

But the latest twist to the story is what happens in skilled-nursing facilities (SNFs). Hospitalists increasingly are taking lead roles in SNFs, yet they must use the same care codes as nursing-home providers despite the higher acuity and longer length of stay found in SNFs compared to nursing homes. Additionally, Medicare recognizes SNFs and nursing homes as primary care for reimbursement via accountable-care organizations (ACOs).

Kerry Weiner, MD, a member of SHM’s Public Policy Committee, says SHM and others, including the American Medical Directors Association, are pushing CMS to reclassify SNF care as inpatient service, similar to acute rehabilitation facilities, inpatient psychiatric care, and long-term acute-care facilities. Dr. Weiner suggests rank-and-file practitioners do the same.

“We think attributing providers to be primary care versus specialty care versus acute care only on the basis of E&M codes will not really capture the nuances of primary-care practice in the country right now,” says Dr. Weiner, chief medical officer at North Hollywood, Calif.-based IPC: The Hospitalist Company. “This is an example of how just using E&M codes does not really capture the style of practice and the type of patient you’re seeing.”

The arguments for reclassification include:

• Hospitalists and other physicians practicing in SNFs need to spend most of their time there to provide optimal care, but it is difficult to financially justify maintaining that presence without an adequate patient census.
• Generating that census while practicing in one ACO is difficult because most facilities service multiple ACOs, and PCP exclusivity rules tied to many ACO contracts are a hurdle for physicians working with one just ACO (working with multiple ACOs requires multiple tax identification numbers and can be “operationally and politically difficult,” Dr. Wiener says).
• All told, ACO setup creates a fiscal hurdle for providers working in SNFs and does not recognize the clinical burden that separates the types of care provided in SNFs and nursing homes. Were care in SNFs reclassified as inpatient care, the exclusivity rule would not apply, and therefore, hospitalists in those facilities could more easily attain a patient census that justifies their continued presence. Dr. Weiner says one solution is to create a set of CPT codes just for SNFs that could be used by specialist physicians, including hospitalists.

“We are proposing a ‘work around’ by using the site of service as a determinator,” he adds.

Issues to Address

Dr. Weiner, SHM officials, and others have met with CMS to discuss the potential reclassification. Dr. Weiner says that as the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) morphs into the Value-Based Payment Modifier (VBPM) program, the issue of ACO exclusivity could become even more prevalent as compensation is tied to performance.

“One of the components of physician value-based purchasing is the cost of care,” Dr. Weiner says. “If you compare a hospitalist’s cost to the pool of primary care, which includes hospitals, SNFs, etc., you’re obviously going to be higher because you have a much sicker population; A lot more things are going on, so there’s a lot higher utilization. So this concept of assigning doctors to a style of practice just based on E&M codes is just inadequate.”

Patrick Conway, MD, MSc, FAAP, SFHM, chief medical officer of CMS and director of CMS’ Center of Clinical Standards and Quality, says the agency is sympathetic to the issue. Via PQRS and VBPM, CMS is working to put in place “a robust set of measures that hospitalists can choose to report on,” he says.

“CMS has sought public comment on allowing hospitalists to align with their hospital’s quality measures for CMS quality programs,” he says. “But without this alignment option or a specialty code, we need to at least have sufficient measures to reflect hospitalists’ actual practice and what’s important to hospital medicine.”

Dr. Conway, a former hospitalist and chair of SHM’s Public Policy Committee, says he welcomes feedback from SHM and its members on suggested changes to CMS policy.

“I would certainly encourage hospital medicine to have discussions with the CMS payment and coding team that makes determinations about specialty status,” he says.

The Future?

Ironically, the potential panacea of HM-specific codes has not been fully embraced because of fears of unintended consequences. For example, in the case of hospitalists practicing in SNFs, the PCP designation is problematic in terms of lower reimbursement rates. Some hospitalists, however, will see a bump in total revenue the next two years because they will be designated PCPs and paid more via the Medicaid-to-Medicare parity regulation included in the Affordable Care Act.

“Hospital medicine will want to think about that as it goes through the process,” Dr. Conway says. “Internally with CMS, if you’re a specialty, we will specifically consider if you’re primary care or not. Whereas, if you’re in the internal-medicine bucket, by definition from the traditional CMS specialty coding perspective, you are primary care. So if you make a point to carve out your own category, then it’ll be a decision every time if you’re primary care or are you a specialty.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

Call for PQRS Measures

Dr. Conway

CMS’ annual call for Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) measures is a rite of summer. And Dr. Conway hopes that when CMS culls through this summer’s batch, hospitalists weighed in often.

“I know that the surgeons, the cardiologists, and others, every year, they say, ‘Here are the 20 new measures we’re thinking about for our specialty,’” he says. “So I just want to make clear that SHM should do the same. Identify the measures out there that are most relevant to you.”

Dr. Conway adds that the process shouldn’t be limited to the society level. Individual practitioners can reach out to CMS and weigh in as well.

Physicians “need to have sufficient measures to cover [their] specialty, and societies can play a key role in developing measures or identifying measures,” Dr. Conway says. “If there’s measures you want in the program, by all means, tell us.”

—Richard Quinn

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently released a few Fact Sheets on how they anticipate funding changes on a few of their programs that were implemented (or sustained) under the Affordable Care Act. As a background, CMS pays most acute-care hospitals by prospectively determining payment based on a patient’s diagnosis and the severity of illness within that diagnosis (e.g. “MS-DRG”). These payment amounts are updated annually after evaluating several factors, including the costs associated with the delivery of care.

One of the most major changes described in the Fact Sheet that will affect hospitalists is how CMS will review inpatient stays based on the number of nights in the hospital. CMS has proposed that any patient who stays in the hospital for two or more “midnights” should be appropriate for payment under Medicare Part A. For those who stay in the hospital for only one (or zero) midnights, payment under Medicare Part A will only be appropriate if:

1. There is sufficient documentation at the time of admission that the anticipated length of stay is two or more nights; and.
2. Further documentation that circumstances changed, and the hospital stay ended prematurely because of those changes.

Overall for hospitalists, this should substantially simplify the admitting process, whereby most inpatients being admitted with the anticipation of two or more nights should qualify for an inpatient stay. This also reduces the administrative burden of correcting the “inpatient” versus “observation” designation, which keeps many hospital staffs entirely too busy. This change also should relieve a significant burden from the patients and their families, who if kept in observation for a period of time, may have to pay substantially out of pocket to make up for the difference between the cost of the stay and the reimbursement from CMS for observation status. So this is one of the moves that CMS is making to simplify (and not complicate) an already too-complicated payment system. This should go into effect October 2013 and will be a sigh of much relief from many of us.

A few other anticipated changes that will affect hospitalists include:

Payments for Unfunded Care

Another major change that will go into affect October 2013 is the amount of monies received by hospitals that care for unfunded patients. These payments historically have been made to “Disproportionate Share Hospitals” (DSH), which are hospitals that care for a higher percentage of unfunded patients. Under the Affordable Care Act, only 25% of these payments will be distributed to DSH hospitals; the remaining 75% will be reduced based on the number of uninsured in the U.S., then redistributed to DSH hospitals based on their portion of uninsured care delivered.

Most DSH hospitals should expect a decrease in DSH payments, the amount of which will depend on their share of unfunded patients.

Any reduction in the “bottom line” to the hospital can affect hospitalists, especially those who are directly employed by the hospital.

Hospital-Acquired Conditions

CMS has long had the Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) program in effect, which has the ability to reduce the amount of payment for inpatients who acquire a HAC during their hospital stay. Starting in October 2014, CMS will impose additional financial penalties for hospitals with high HAC rates.

Specifically, those hospitals in the highest 25th percentile of HAC rates will be penalized 1% of their overall CMS payments. Another proposed change is that the following be included in the HAC reduction plan (two “domains” of measures):

• Domain No. 1: Six of the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs), including pressure ulcers, foreign bodies left in after surgery, iatrogenic pneumothorax, postoperative physiologic or metabolic derangements, postoperative VTE, and accidental puncture/laceration.
• Domain No. 2: Central-line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) and catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs).

The domains will be weighted equally, and an average score will determine the total score. There will be some methodology for risk adjustment, and hospitals will be given a review and comment period to validate their own scores.

Most hospitalists have at least indirect control over many of these HACs,and all need to pay very close attention to their hospital’s rates of these now and in the future.

Readmissions

As we all know, the Hospital Readmission Reduction program went into effect October 2012; it placed 1% of CMS payments at risk. This will increase to 2% of payments as of October 2013. CMS will continue to use AMI, CHF, and pneumonia as the three conditions under which the readmissions are measured but will put in some methodology to account for planned readmissions.

In addition, in October 2014, they plan to add readmission rates for COPD and for hip/knee arthroplasty.

Hospitalists will continue to need to progress their transitions of care programs, at least for these five patients conditions but more likely (and more effectively) for all hospital discharges.

Quality Measures

Currently more than 99% of acute-care hospitals participate in the pay-for-reporting quality program through CMS, the results of which have been displayed on the Hospital Compare website (www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov) for years. The program started in 2004 with 10 quality metrics and now includes 57 metrics. These include process and outcome measures for AMI, CHF, and pneumonia, as well as process measures for surgical care, HACs, and patient-satisfaction surveys, among others.

This program will continue to expand over time, including hospital-acquired MRSA and Clostridium difficile rates. The few hospitals not participating will have their CMS annual payments reduced by 2%.

EHR Incentives

CMS is evaluating ways to reduce the burden of reporting by aligning EHR incentives with the Inpatient Quality Reporting program.

Summary

After an open commentary period, the Final Rule will be published Aug. 1, and will become effective for discharges on or after Oct. 1. Although CMS will continue to expand the total number of measures that need to be reported, and the penalties for non-reporting or low performance will continue to escalate, CMS is at least attempting to reduce the overall burden of reporting by combining measures and programs over time and using EHRs to facilitate the bulk of reporting over time.

The global message to hospitalists is: Continue to focus on reducing the burden of HACs, enhance throughput, and carefully and thoughtfully transition patients to the next provider after their hospital discharge. All in all, although at times this can feel overwhelming, these changes represent the right direction to move for high-quality and safe patient care.

Dr. Scheurer is a hospitalist and chief quality officer at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. She is physician editor of The Hospitalist. Email her at [email protected].

Reference

1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid. Fact Sheets: CMS proposals to improve quality of care during hospital inpatient stays. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid website. Available at: www.cms.gov/apps/media/press/factsheet.asp?Counter=4586&intNumPerPage=10&checkDate=&checkKey=&srchType=1&numDays=3500&srchOpt=0&srchData=&keywordType=All&chkNewsType=6&intPage=&showAll=&pYear=&year=&desc=&cboOrder=date. Accessed May 1, 2013.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently released a few Fact Sheets on how they anticipate funding changes on a few of their programs that were implemented (or sustained) under the Affordable Care Act. As a background, CMS pays most acute-care hospitals by prospectively determining payment based on a patient’s diagnosis and the severity of illness within that diagnosis (e.g. “MS-DRG”). These payment amounts are updated annually after evaluating several factors, including the costs associated with the delivery of care.

One of the most major changes described in the Fact Sheet that will affect hospitalists is how CMS will review inpatient stays based on the number of nights in the hospital. CMS has proposed that any patient who stays in the hospital for two or more “midnights” should be appropriate for payment under Medicare Part A. For those who stay in the hospital for only one (or zero) midnights, payment under Medicare Part A will only be appropriate if:

1. There is sufficient documentation at the time of admission that the anticipated length of stay is two or more nights; and.
2. Further documentation that circumstances changed, and the hospital stay ended prematurely because of those changes.

Overall for hospitalists, this should substantially simplify the admitting process, whereby most inpatients being admitted with the anticipation of two or more nights should qualify for an inpatient stay. This also reduces the administrative burden of correcting the “inpatient” versus “observation” designation, which keeps many hospital staffs entirely too busy. This change also should relieve a significant burden from the patients and their families, who if kept in observation for a period of time, may have to pay substantially out of pocket to make up for the difference between the cost of the stay and the reimbursement from CMS for observation status. So this is one of the moves that CMS is making to simplify (and not complicate) an already too-complicated payment system. This should go into effect October 2013 and will be a sigh of much relief from many of us.

A few other anticipated changes that will affect hospitalists include:

Payments for Unfunded Care

Another major change that will go into affect October 2013 is the amount of monies received by hospitals that care for unfunded patients. These payments historically have been made to “Disproportionate Share Hospitals” (DSH), which are hospitals that care for a higher percentage of unfunded patients. Under the Affordable Care Act, only 25% of these payments will be distributed to DSH hospitals; the remaining 75% will be reduced based on the number of uninsured in the U.S., then redistributed to DSH hospitals based on their portion of uninsured care delivered.

Most DSH hospitals should expect a decrease in DSH payments, the amount of which will depend on their share of unfunded patients.

Any reduction in the “bottom line” to the hospital can affect hospitalists, especially those who are directly employed by the hospital.

Hospital-Acquired Conditions

CMS has long had the Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) program in effect, which has the ability to reduce the amount of payment for inpatients who acquire a HAC during their hospital stay. Starting in October 2014, CMS will impose additional financial penalties for hospitals with high HAC rates.

Specifically, those hospitals in the highest 25th percentile of HAC rates will be penalized 1% of their overall CMS payments. Another proposed change is that the following be included in the HAC reduction plan (two “domains” of measures):

• Domain No. 1: Six of the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs), including pressure ulcers, foreign bodies left in after surgery, iatrogenic pneumothorax, postoperative physiologic or metabolic derangements, postoperative VTE, and accidental puncture/laceration.
• Domain No. 2: Central-line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) and catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs).

The domains will be weighted equally, and an average score will determine the total score. There will be some methodology for risk adjustment, and hospitals will be given a review and comment period to validate their own scores.

Most hospitalists have at least indirect control over many of these HACs,and all need to pay very close attention to their hospital’s rates of these now and in the future.

Readmissions

As we all know, the Hospital Readmission Reduction program went into effect October 2012; it placed 1% of CMS payments at risk. This will increase to 2% of payments as of October 2013. CMS will continue to use AMI, CHF, and pneumonia as the three conditions under which the readmissions are measured but will put in some methodology to account for planned readmissions.

In addition, in October 2014, they plan to add readmission rates for COPD and for hip/knee arthroplasty.

Hospitalists will continue to need to progress their transitions of care programs, at least for these five patients conditions but more likely (and more effectively) for all hospital discharges.

Quality Measures

Currently more than 99% of acute-care hospitals participate in the pay-for-reporting quality program through CMS, the results of which have been displayed on the Hospital Compare website (www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov) for years. The program started in 2004 with 10 quality metrics and now includes 57 metrics. These include process and outcome measures for AMI, CHF, and pneumonia, as well as process measures for surgical care, HACs, and patient-satisfaction surveys, among others.

This program will continue to expand over time, including hospital-acquired MRSA and Clostridium difficile rates. The few hospitals not participating will have their CMS annual payments reduced by 2%.

EHR Incentives

CMS is evaluating ways to reduce the burden of reporting by aligning EHR incentives with the Inpatient Quality Reporting program.

Summary

After an open commentary period, the Final Rule will be published Aug. 1, and will become effective for discharges on or after Oct. 1. Although CMS will continue to expand the total number of measures that need to be reported, and the penalties for non-reporting or low performance will continue to escalate, CMS is at least attempting to reduce the overall burden of reporting by combining measures and programs over time and using EHRs to facilitate the bulk of reporting over time.

The global message to hospitalists is: Continue to focus on reducing the burden of HACs, enhance throughput, and carefully and thoughtfully transition patients to the next provider after their hospital discharge. All in all, although at times this can feel overwhelming, these changes represent the right direction to move for high-quality and safe patient care.

Dr. Scheurer is a hospitalist and chief quality officer at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. She is physician editor of The Hospitalist. Email her at [email protected].

Reference

1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid. Fact Sheets: CMS proposals to improve quality of care during hospital inpatient stays. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid website. Available at: www.cms.gov/apps/media/press/factsheet.asp?Counter=4586&intNumPerPage=10&checkDate=&checkKey=&srchType=1&numDays=3500&srchOpt=0&srchData=&keywordType=All&chkNewsType=6&intPage=&showAll=&pYear=&year=&desc=&cboOrder=date. Accessed May 1, 2013.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently released a few Fact Sheets on how they anticipate funding changes on a few of their programs that were implemented (or sustained) under the Affordable Care Act. As a background, CMS pays most acute-care hospitals by prospectively determining payment based on a patient’s diagnosis and the severity of illness within that diagnosis (e.g. “MS-DRG”). These payment amounts are updated annually after evaluating several factors, including the costs associated with the delivery of care.

One of the most major changes described in the Fact Sheet that will affect hospitalists is how CMS will review inpatient stays based on the number of nights in the hospital. CMS has proposed that any patient who stays in the hospital for two or more “midnights” should be appropriate for payment under Medicare Part A. For those who stay in the hospital for only one (or zero) midnights, payment under Medicare Part A will only be appropriate if:

1. There is sufficient documentation at the time of admission that the anticipated length of stay is two or more nights; and.
2. Further documentation that circumstances changed, and the hospital stay ended prematurely because of those changes.

Overall for hospitalists, this should substantially simplify the admitting process, whereby most inpatients being admitted with the anticipation of two or more nights should qualify for an inpatient stay. This also reduces the administrative burden of correcting the “inpatient” versus “observation” designation, which keeps many hospital staffs entirely too busy. This change also should relieve a significant burden from the patients and their families, who if kept in observation for a period of time, may have to pay substantially out of pocket to make up for the difference between the cost of the stay and the reimbursement from CMS for observation status. So this is one of the moves that CMS is making to simplify (and not complicate) an already too-complicated payment system. This should go into effect October 2013 and will be a sigh of much relief from many of us.

A few other anticipated changes that will affect hospitalists include:

Payments for Unfunded Care

Another major change that will go into affect October 2013 is the amount of monies received by hospitals that care for unfunded patients. These payments historically have been made to “Disproportionate Share Hospitals” (DSH), which are hospitals that care for a higher percentage of unfunded patients. Under the Affordable Care Act, only 25% of these payments will be distributed to DSH hospitals; the remaining 75% will be reduced based on the number of uninsured in the U.S., then redistributed to DSH hospitals based on their portion of uninsured care delivered.

Most DSH hospitals should expect a decrease in DSH payments, the amount of which will depend on their share of unfunded patients.

Any reduction in the “bottom line” to the hospital can affect hospitalists, especially those who are directly employed by the hospital.

Hospital-Acquired Conditions

CMS has long had the Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) program in effect, which has the ability to reduce the amount of payment for inpatients who acquire a HAC during their hospital stay. Starting in October 2014, CMS will impose additional financial penalties for hospitals with high HAC rates.

Specifically, those hospitals in the highest 25th percentile of HAC rates will be penalized 1% of their overall CMS payments. Another proposed change is that the following be included in the HAC reduction plan (two “domains” of measures):

• Domain No. 1: Six of the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs), including pressure ulcers, foreign bodies left in after surgery, iatrogenic pneumothorax, postoperative physiologic or metabolic derangements, postoperative VTE, and accidental puncture/laceration.
• Domain No. 2: Central-line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) and catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs).

The domains will be weighted equally, and an average score will determine the total score. There will be some methodology for risk adjustment, and hospitals will be given a review and comment period to validate their own scores.

Most hospitalists have at least indirect control over many of these HACs,and all need to pay very close attention to their hospital’s rates of these now and in the future.

Readmissions

As we all know, the Hospital Readmission Reduction program went into effect October 2012; it placed 1% of CMS payments at risk. This will increase to 2% of payments as of October 2013. CMS will continue to use AMI, CHF, and pneumonia as the three conditions under which the readmissions are measured but will put in some methodology to account for planned readmissions.

In addition, in October 2014, they plan to add readmission rates for COPD and for hip/knee arthroplasty.

Hospitalists will continue to need to progress their transitions of care programs, at least for these five patients conditions but more likely (and more effectively) for all hospital discharges.

Quality Measures

Currently more than 99% of acute-care hospitals participate in the pay-for-reporting quality program through CMS, the results of which have been displayed on the Hospital Compare website (www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov) for years. The program started in 2004 with 10 quality metrics and now includes 57 metrics. These include process and outcome measures for AMI, CHF, and pneumonia, as well as process measures for surgical care, HACs, and patient-satisfaction surveys, among others.

This program will continue to expand over time, including hospital-acquired MRSA and Clostridium difficile rates. The few hospitals not participating will have their CMS annual payments reduced by 2%.

EHR Incentives

CMS is evaluating ways to reduce the burden of reporting by aligning EHR incentives with the Inpatient Quality Reporting program.

Summary

After an open commentary period, the Final Rule will be published Aug. 1, and will become effective for discharges on or after Oct. 1. Although CMS will continue to expand the total number of measures that need to be reported, and the penalties for non-reporting or low performance will continue to escalate, CMS is at least attempting to reduce the overall burden of reporting by combining measures and programs over time and using EHRs to facilitate the bulk of reporting over time.

The global message to hospitalists is: Continue to focus on reducing the burden of HACs, enhance throughput, and carefully and thoughtfully transition patients to the next provider after their hospital discharge. All in all, although at times this can feel overwhelming, these changes represent the right direction to move for high-quality and safe patient care.

Dr. Scheurer is a hospitalist and chief quality officer at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. She is physician editor of The Hospitalist. Email her at [email protected].

Reference

1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid. Fact Sheets: CMS proposals to improve quality of care during hospital inpatient stays. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid website. Available at: www.cms.gov/apps/media/press/factsheet.asp?Counter=4586&intNumPerPage=10&checkDate=&checkKey=&srchType=1&numDays=3500&srchOpt=0&srchData=&keywordType=All&chkNewsType=6&intPage=&showAll=&pYear=&year=&desc=&cboOrder=date. Accessed May 1, 2013.

Median hospitalist compensation has grown steadily over the past decade, but physicians aren’t immune to the sting of accelerated premiums, copays, and contributions imposed by health insurers.

According to the Hay Group’s 2011 Physician Compensation Survey, the number of physicians who contributing to health insurance premiums increased to 68% in 2011 from 58% in 2010. The survey showed only 9% of physicians did not pay anything for medical coverage, down from 19% in 2010.

Moreover, the expected physician contribution was between 1% and 25% of the premium.

Dan Fuller, president and cofounder of Alpharetta, Ga.-based IN Compass Health, has noticed an uptick in candidates’ interest in their health-care benefits. “Especially for physicians who have families, health benefits have become one of the top issues in recruiting,” the SHM Practice Analysis Committee (PAC) member says.

Christopher Frost, MD, FHM, medical director of hospital medicine at the Hospital Corporation of America in Nashville, Tenn., reports that he is seeing an upward trend in employees’ contributions to premiums and out-of-pocket costs. He’s also observed colleagues becoming more selective when choosing their own health-care plans and how they use those plans.

Gretchen Henkel is a freelance writer in California.

Median hospitalist compensation has grown steadily over the past decade, but physicians aren’t immune to the sting of accelerated premiums, copays, and contributions imposed by health insurers.

According to the Hay Group’s 2011 Physician Compensation Survey, the number of physicians who contributing to health insurance premiums increased to 68% in 2011 from 58% in 2010. The survey showed only 9% of physicians did not pay anything for medical coverage, down from 19% in 2010.

Moreover, the expected physician contribution was between 1% and 25% of the premium.

Dan Fuller, president and cofounder of Alpharetta, Ga.-based IN Compass Health, has noticed an uptick in candidates’ interest in their health-care benefits. “Especially for physicians who have families, health benefits have become one of the top issues in recruiting,” the SHM Practice Analysis Committee (PAC) member says.

Christopher Frost, MD, FHM, medical director of hospital medicine at the Hospital Corporation of America in Nashville, Tenn., reports that he is seeing an upward trend in employees’ contributions to premiums and out-of-pocket costs. He’s also observed colleagues becoming more selective when choosing their own health-care plans and how they use those plans.

Gretchen Henkel is a freelance writer in California.

Median hospitalist compensation has grown steadily over the past decade, but physicians aren’t immune to the sting of accelerated premiums, copays, and contributions imposed by health insurers.

According to the Hay Group’s 2011 Physician Compensation Survey, the number of physicians who contributing to health insurance premiums increased to 68% in 2011 from 58% in 2010. The survey showed only 9% of physicians did not pay anything for medical coverage, down from 19% in 2010.

Moreover, the expected physician contribution was between 1% and 25% of the premium.

Dan Fuller, president and cofounder of Alpharetta, Ga.-based IN Compass Health, has noticed an uptick in candidates’ interest in their health-care benefits. “Especially for physicians who have families, health benefits have become one of the top issues in recruiting,” the SHM Practice Analysis Committee (PAC) member says.

Christopher Frost, MD, FHM, medical director of hospital medicine at the Hospital Corporation of America in Nashville, Tenn., reports that he is seeing an upward trend in employees’ contributions to premiums and out-of-pocket costs. He’s also observed colleagues becoming more selective when choosing their own health-care plans and how they use those plans.

Gretchen Henkel is a freelance writer in California.

The tiresome cycle of the sustainable growth rate (SGR) continues and, as a result, providers are facing a pay cut of approximately 25% at the end of 2013. With virtually universal agreement that something must be done to permanently repeal the SGR, the insurmountable barrier to a solution has been the cost, which is estimated at $245 billion.

However, a bright spot has emerged.

Several months ago, the Congressional Budget Office produced an anomalous, revised SGR repeal estimate of $138 billion. At nearly half the cost of previous estimates, this is a much less daunting budgetary hole to fill. Needless to say, this revised estimate has breathed new life into the potential to permanently fix the SGR this year. The only catch is that this low estimate is unlikely to persist, so a flurry of activity is expected to last throughout the summer months before the window of opportunity closes.

One of the earliest proposals to move away from fee-for-service to a payment system rooted in quality and value came from the reintroduction of legislation by U.S. Reps. Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.) and Joe Heck (R-Nev.). SHM is actively supporting this legislation and will continue to do so, but it will give the same attention to other reasonable plans designed to move away from the SGR by incorporating the concepts of quality and value as laid out by Schwartz and Heck.

Along these lines, a joint effort by House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman

Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) would repeal the SGR and replace it with a more sustainable payment system. The plan is being developed iteratively, with opportunities for specialty societies, such as SHM, to provide input along the way. Clear details have yet to emerge because the plan is still in its early stages, but broadly, it will repeal the SGR, replacing it with quality and resource use metrics coupled with value-based payment, and somehow incorporate alternative payment models, such as accountable-care organizations (ACOs). This may sound familiar

because much of it is.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is developing programs, guided by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), to meet many of these systemic needs in the absence of a repeal of the SGR. The Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) is transitioning into a mandatory program, and it’s coupling with Quality and Resource Use Reports (QRURs) brings value into the equation. Both of these programs are a part of the ACA-mandated Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier (VBPM), which implements a level of value-based payment to all physicians by 2017. Additionally, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation, along with Medicare itself, is developing and testing many alternative models, such as ACOs, bundled payments, and patient-centered medical homes, to name a few.

Upton and Camp have expressed that their goal is to not only repeal the SGR, but also to establish a system that pays for value and is less piecemeal and confusing than what is currently being implemented. For example, they are looking at ways to potentially unify the often disparate yet overlapping reporting requirements placed on physicians through such programs as PQRS, Meaningful Use, and VBPM. This is a great opportunity to take the knowledge and experience hospitalists have with these current CMS programs and advocate for aligning programs, ensuring the usefulness of quality measurement, and reducing administrative barriers and burdens.

Ultimately, the repeal of the SGR will take much thought and legislative will to accomplish. With a broad framework in place, the process has at least begun. It remains to be seen whether Congress will act now on the SGR “sale” and help the health-care system transition into something more sustainable and stable.

Josh Boswell is SHM’s senior manager of government relations

The tiresome cycle of the sustainable growth rate (SGR) continues and, as a result, providers are facing a pay cut of approximately 25% at the end of 2013. With virtually universal agreement that something must be done to permanently repeal the SGR, the insurmountable barrier to a solution has been the cost, which is estimated at $245 billion.

However, a bright spot has emerged.

Several months ago, the Congressional Budget Office produced an anomalous, revised SGR repeal estimate of $138 billion. At nearly half the cost of previous estimates, this is a much less daunting budgetary hole to fill. Needless to say, this revised estimate has breathed new life into the potential to permanently fix the SGR this year. The only catch is that this low estimate is unlikely to persist, so a flurry of activity is expected to last throughout the summer months before the window of opportunity closes.

One of the earliest proposals to move away from fee-for-service to a payment system rooted in quality and value came from the reintroduction of legislation by U.S. Reps. Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.) and Joe Heck (R-Nev.). SHM is actively supporting this legislation and will continue to do so, but it will give the same attention to other reasonable plans designed to move away from the SGR by incorporating the concepts of quality and value as laid out by Schwartz and Heck.

Along these lines, a joint effort by House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman

Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) would repeal the SGR and replace it with a more sustainable payment system. The plan is being developed iteratively, with opportunities for specialty societies, such as SHM, to provide input along the way. Clear details have yet to emerge because the plan is still in its early stages, but broadly, it will repeal the SGR, replacing it with quality and resource use metrics coupled with value-based payment, and somehow incorporate alternative payment models, such as accountable-care organizations (ACOs). This may sound familiar

because much of it is.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is developing programs, guided by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), to meet many of these systemic needs in the absence of a repeal of the SGR. The Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) is transitioning into a mandatory program, and it’s coupling with Quality and Resource Use Reports (QRURs) brings value into the equation. Both of these programs are a part of the ACA-mandated Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier (VBPM), which implements a level of value-based payment to all physicians by 2017. Additionally, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation, along with Medicare itself, is developing and testing many alternative models, such as ACOs, bundled payments, and patient-centered medical homes, to name a few.

Upton and Camp have expressed that their goal is to not only repeal the SGR, but also to establish a system that pays for value and is less piecemeal and confusing than what is currently being implemented. For example, they are looking at ways to potentially unify the often disparate yet overlapping reporting requirements placed on physicians through such programs as PQRS, Meaningful Use, and VBPM. This is a great opportunity to take the knowledge and experience hospitalists have with these current CMS programs and advocate for aligning programs, ensuring the usefulness of quality measurement, and reducing administrative barriers and burdens.

Ultimately, the repeal of the SGR will take much thought and legislative will to accomplish. With a broad framework in place, the process has at least begun. It remains to be seen whether Congress will act now on the SGR “sale” and help the health-care system transition into something more sustainable and stable.

Josh Boswell is SHM’s senior manager of government relations

The tiresome cycle of the sustainable growth rate (SGR) continues and, as a result, providers are facing a pay cut of approximately 25% at the end of 2013. With virtually universal agreement that something must be done to permanently repeal the SGR, the insurmountable barrier to a solution has been the cost, which is estimated at $245 billion.

However, a bright spot has emerged.

Several months ago, the Congressional Budget Office produced an anomalous, revised SGR repeal estimate of $138 billion. At nearly half the cost of previous estimates, this is a much less daunting budgetary hole to fill. Needless to say, this revised estimate has breathed new life into the potential to permanently fix the SGR this year. The only catch is that this low estimate is unlikely to persist, so a flurry of activity is expected to last throughout the summer months before the window of opportunity closes.

One of the earliest proposals to move away from fee-for-service to a payment system rooted in quality and value came from the reintroduction of legislation by U.S. Reps. Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.) and Joe Heck (R-Nev.). SHM is actively supporting this legislation and will continue to do so, but it will give the same attention to other reasonable plans designed to move away from the SGR by incorporating the concepts of quality and value as laid out by Schwartz and Heck.

Along these lines, a joint effort by House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman

Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) would repeal the SGR and replace it with a more sustainable payment system. The plan is being developed iteratively, with opportunities for specialty societies, such as SHM, to provide input along the way. Clear details have yet to emerge because the plan is still in its early stages, but broadly, it will repeal the SGR, replacing it with quality and resource use metrics coupled with value-based payment, and somehow incorporate alternative payment models, such as accountable-care organizations (ACOs). This may sound familiar

because much of it is.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is developing programs, guided by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), to meet many of these systemic needs in the absence of a repeal of the SGR. The Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) is transitioning into a mandatory program, and it’s coupling with Quality and Resource Use Reports (QRURs) brings value into the equation. Both of these programs are a part of the ACA-mandated Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier (VBPM), which implements a level of value-based payment to all physicians by 2017. Additionally, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation, along with Medicare itself, is developing and testing many alternative models, such as ACOs, bundled payments, and patient-centered medical homes, to name a few.

Upton and Camp have expressed that their goal is to not only repeal the SGR, but also to establish a system that pays for value and is less piecemeal and confusing than what is currently being implemented. For example, they are looking at ways to potentially unify the often disparate yet overlapping reporting requirements placed on physicians through such programs as PQRS, Meaningful Use, and VBPM. This is a great opportunity to take the knowledge and experience hospitalists have with these current CMS programs and advocate for aligning programs, ensuring the usefulness of quality measurement, and reducing administrative barriers and burdens.

Ultimately, the repeal of the SGR will take much thought and legislative will to accomplish. With a broad framework in place, the process has at least begun. It remains to be seen whether Congress will act now on the SGR “sale” and help the health-care system transition into something more sustainable and stable.

Josh Boswell is SHM’s senior manager of government relations

Two oral research poster presentations at HM13 explored malpractice concerns of hospitalists and the issue of defensive-medicine-related overutilization—popular topics considering how policymakers are attempting to bend the cost curve in the direction of greater efficiency and value.

Hospitalist Alan Kachalia, MD, JD, and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston conducted a randomized national survey of 1,020 hospitalists and analyzed their responses to common clinical scenarios. They found evidence of inappropriate overutilization and deviance from scientific evidence or recognized treatment guidelines, which the research team pegged to the practice of defensive medicine.

Dr. Kachalia’s presentation, “Overutilization and Defensive Medicine in U.S. Hospitals: A Randomized National Survey of Hospitalists,” was named best of the oral presentations in the research category.

“Our survey found substantial overutilization, frequently caused by defensive medicine,” in response to questions about practice patterns for two common clinical scenarios: preoperative evaluation and syncope, Dr. Kachalia said. Physicians who practiced at Veterans Affairs medical centers had less association with defensive medicine, while those who paid for their own liability insurance reported more. Overall, defensive medicine was reported for 37% of preoperative evaluations and 58% of the syncope scenarios.

More than 800 abstracts were submitted for HM13’s Research, Innovations, and Clinical Vignettes (RIV) competition. Nearly 600 were accepted, put on display at the annual meeting, and published online (www.shmabstracts.com). More than 100 abstracts were judged, with 15 of the Research and Innovations entries invited to make oral presentations of their projects. Three others gave “Best of RIV” plenary presentations at the conference.

The diversity and richness of HM13’s oral and poster presentations also will be highlighted in the Innovations department of The Hospitalist over the next year.

Asked to suggest policy responses to these findings, Dr. Kachalia said reform of the malpractice system is needed. “What a lot of us argue is that to get physicians to follow treatment guidelines, make them more clear and practical,” he said. “We’d also like to see safe harbors [from lawsuits] for following recognized guidelines.”

Adam Schaffer, MD, also a hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues reviewed a medical liability insurance carrier’s database of more than 30,000 closed claims for those in which a hospitalist was the attending of record. Dr. Schaffer’s retrospective, observational analysis, “Medical Malpractice: Causes and Outcomes of Claims Against Hospitalists,” of the claims database from 1997 to 2011 found 272 claims—almost 1%—for which the attending was a hospitalist.

“The claims rate was almost four times lower for hospitalists than for nonhospitalist internal-medicine physicians,” he said.

The average payment for claims against hospitalists also was smaller. He noted that the types of claims were similar and tended to fall in three general categories: errors in medical treatment, missed or delayed diagnoses, and medication-related errors (although claims also tended to have multiple contributing factors).

Research like Dr. Schaffer’s could help to inform patient-safety efforts and reduce legal malpractice risk, he said. If hospitalists have fewer malpractice claims, that information might also be used to argue for lower malpractice premium rates.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

Two oral research poster presentations at HM13 explored malpractice concerns of hospitalists and the issue of defensive-medicine-related overutilization—popular topics considering how policymakers are attempting to bend the cost curve in the direction of greater efficiency and value.

Hospitalist Alan Kachalia, MD, JD, and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston conducted a randomized national survey of 1,020 hospitalists and analyzed their responses to common clinical scenarios. They found evidence of inappropriate overutilization and deviance from scientific evidence or recognized treatment guidelines, which the research team pegged to the practice of defensive medicine.

Dr. Kachalia’s presentation, “Overutilization and Defensive Medicine in U.S. Hospitals: A Randomized National Survey of Hospitalists,” was named best of the oral presentations in the research category.

“Our survey found substantial overutilization, frequently caused by defensive medicine,” in response to questions about practice patterns for two common clinical scenarios: preoperative evaluation and syncope, Dr. Kachalia said. Physicians who practiced at Veterans Affairs medical centers had less association with defensive medicine, while those who paid for their own liability insurance reported more. Overall, defensive medicine was reported for 37% of preoperative evaluations and 58% of the syncope scenarios.

More than 800 abstracts were submitted for HM13’s Research, Innovations, and Clinical Vignettes (RIV) competition. Nearly 600 were accepted, put on display at the annual meeting, and published online (www.shmabstracts.com). More than 100 abstracts were judged, with 15 of the Research and Innovations entries invited to make oral presentations of their projects. Three others gave “Best of RIV” plenary presentations at the conference.

The diversity and richness of HM13’s oral and poster presentations also will be highlighted in the Innovations department of The Hospitalist over the next year.

Asked to suggest policy responses to these findings, Dr. Kachalia said reform of the malpractice system is needed. “What a lot of us argue is that to get physicians to follow treatment guidelines, make them more clear and practical,” he said. “We’d also like to see safe harbors [from lawsuits] for following recognized guidelines.”

Adam Schaffer, MD, also a hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues reviewed a medical liability insurance carrier’s database of more than 30,000 closed claims for those in which a hospitalist was the attending of record. Dr. Schaffer’s retrospective, observational analysis, “Medical Malpractice: Causes and Outcomes of Claims Against Hospitalists,” of the claims database from 1997 to 2011 found 272 claims—almost 1%—for which the attending was a hospitalist.

“The claims rate was almost four times lower for hospitalists than for nonhospitalist internal-medicine physicians,” he said.

The average payment for claims against hospitalists also was smaller. He noted that the types of claims were similar and tended to fall in three general categories: errors in medical treatment, missed or delayed diagnoses, and medication-related errors (although claims also tended to have multiple contributing factors).

Research like Dr. Schaffer’s could help to inform patient-safety efforts and reduce legal malpractice risk, he said. If hospitalists have fewer malpractice claims, that information might also be used to argue for lower malpractice premium rates.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

Two oral research poster presentations at HM13 explored malpractice concerns of hospitalists and the issue of defensive-medicine-related overutilization—popular topics considering how policymakers are attempting to bend the cost curve in the direction of greater efficiency and value.

Hospitalist Alan Kachalia, MD, JD, and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston conducted a randomized national survey of 1,020 hospitalists and analyzed their responses to common clinical scenarios. They found evidence of inappropriate overutilization and deviance from scientific evidence or recognized treatment guidelines, which the research team pegged to the practice of defensive medicine.

Dr. Kachalia’s presentation, “Overutilization and Defensive Medicine in U.S. Hospitals: A Randomized National Survey of Hospitalists,” was named best of the oral presentations in the research category.

“Our survey found substantial overutilization, frequently caused by defensive medicine,” in response to questions about practice patterns for two common clinical scenarios: preoperative evaluation and syncope, Dr. Kachalia said. Physicians who practiced at Veterans Affairs medical centers had less association with defensive medicine, while those who paid for their own liability insurance reported more. Overall, defensive medicine was reported for 37% of preoperative evaluations and 58% of the syncope scenarios.

More than 800 abstracts were submitted for HM13’s Research, Innovations, and Clinical Vignettes (RIV) competition. Nearly 600 were accepted, put on display at the annual meeting, and published online (www.shmabstracts.com). More than 100 abstracts were judged, with 15 of the Research and Innovations entries invited to make oral presentations of their projects. Three others gave “Best of RIV” plenary presentations at the conference.

The diversity and richness of HM13’s oral and poster presentations also will be highlighted in the Innovations department of The Hospitalist over the next year.

Asked to suggest policy responses to these findings, Dr. Kachalia said reform of the malpractice system is needed. “What a lot of us argue is that to get physicians to follow treatment guidelines, make them more clear and practical,” he said. “We’d also like to see safe harbors [from lawsuits] for following recognized guidelines.”

Adam Schaffer, MD, also a hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues reviewed a medical liability insurance carrier’s database of more than 30,000 closed claims for those in which a hospitalist was the attending of record. Dr. Schaffer’s retrospective, observational analysis, “Medical Malpractice: Causes and Outcomes of Claims Against Hospitalists,” of the claims database from 1997 to 2011 found 272 claims—almost 1%—for which the attending was a hospitalist.

“The claims rate was almost four times lower for hospitalists than for nonhospitalist internal-medicine physicians,” he said.

The average payment for claims against hospitalists also was smaller. He noted that the types of claims were similar and tended to fall in three general categories: errors in medical treatment, missed or delayed diagnoses, and medication-related errors (although claims also tended to have multiple contributing factors).

Research like Dr. Schaffer’s could help to inform patient-safety efforts and reduce legal malpractice risk, he said. If hospitalists have fewer malpractice claims, that information might also be used to argue for lower malpractice premium rates.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

Like a grinning child at a carnival, Iqbal M. Binoj, MD, steps right up and gives it a try—except instead of tossing rings, he’s gripping an intraosseous infusion drill.

A tutor shows him how the device, which looks remarkably like a glue gun, inserts into the bones of the shoulder or knee and drills down until it hits the marrow. He is guided on using a steady speed to maintain the integrity of the cavity. He’s also taught about the maneuver’s low complication rates and ability to expedite workups.

“I’ve seen it used before, but I never did it,” says Dr. Binoj, a hospitalist with Cogent HMG at Genesis Medical Center in Davenport, Iowa.

Well, he never did it before a hands-on pre-course at HM13 that focused on improving hospitalists’ proficiency at such procedures as lumbar punctures and ultrasound-guided vascular access. Quality improvement (QI) is always a focus of SHM’s annual meeting, but sometimes the science of improving care is viewed from up on high.

Not everything needs to be a national imitative, an institution-wide project, or even a unit-based intervention. Sometimes, it’s as simple as teaching a room full of hospitalists how to use an intraosseous infusion drill, says Michelle Fox, RN, BSN, senior director of clinical affairs with Vidacare, which manufactures the drill used in the demonstration.

“Hospitalists have an increasing role in doing these procedures, not only in the environment they predominantly support but in other areas of the hospital,” Fox says, adding that “the primary goal of this course is to give them the opportunity to perfect those skills.”

Hospitalist Bradley Rosen, MD, MBA, FHM, medical of the inpatient specialty program at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, says the point of hands-on demonstrations is to translate QI to the bedside. Take ultrasound devices, he says. In the past few years, the technology has become less expensive, better in resolution, more common, and more portable. Hospitalists must ensure hands-on training that keeps pace with that technology.

“We actually want people to get gloves on, hands on, learn where they may have challenges in terms of their own dexterity or workflow, which hand is dominant, and how to visualize on the ultrasound machine a three-dimensional structure in 2D,” he says. “We don’t want people watching from the sidelines. ... We try to get people in it and engaged.”

And once hospitalists master procedures or diagnostic maneuvers, they invariably are sought out by other physicians to pass that knowledge on to others, Dr. Rosen says.

“In so doing, we get involved in larger quality initiatives and systemwide changes that can go top-down,” he adds, “but from our perspective, it starts with the individual practitioner. And I think SHM has always advocated and preached the importance of the individual hospitalist doing the best possible job for your patient, and the group, and the institution.”

Shared Excellence

What’s best for individual institutions moving forward is what worries SHM immediate past president Shaun Frost, MD, SFHM. He fears CMS’ Value-Based Payment Modifier (VBPM) program could have the unintended consequence of spurring some hospitals to hang on to innovative ideas in order to keep a competitive business advantage.

In health care, where quality and affordability have long been viewed as valuable for nonmonetary reasons, “the medical profession willingly shares new information” to improve patient care, Dr. Frost said in his farewell speech. But he is concerned that commodification—imbuing monetary value into something that previously had none—could change that dynamic, a situation he says is “ethically not acceptable.”

“When somebody builds a better mousetrap, it should be freely shared so that all patients have the opportunity to benefit,” Dr. Frost said. “The pursuit of economic competitive advantage should not prevent us from collaborating and sharing new ideas that hopefully make the health system better.”

Kendall Rogers, MD, FACP, SFHM, chief of the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center in Albuquerque, N.M., says part of that improvement in quality and patient safety will come via hospitalists pushing for improvements to health information technology (HIT), particularly to maximize computerized physician order entry (CPOE) and order sets. He empathizes with those who complain about the operability of existing systems but urges physicians to stop complaining and take action.

“We need to stop accepting what our existing limitations are, and we need to be the innovators,” he says. “Many of us aren’t even thinking about, ‘What are the products we need?’ We’re just reacting to the products we currently have and stating how they don’t meet our needs.”

He suggests people communally report safety or troubleshooting issues, in part via Hospital Medicine Exchange (HMX), an online community SHM launched last year to discuss HM issues (www.hmxchange.org). He also wants hospitalists to push HIT vendors to provide improved functionality, and for institutions to provide necessary training.

“We just need to be vocal,” says Dr. Rogers, chair of SHM’s IT Executive Committee. “I do believe this is all leading us to a good place, but there’s a dip down before we have a swing up.”

Frustration Surge

In the long run, hospitalist Anuj Mehta, MD, medical director of the adult hospitalist program at Nyack Hospital in New York, agrees with Dr. Rogers. But as a provider seeing patients day after day, he says it’s often easier to not engage HIT than it is to slog through it.

“We try to work around the system, and sometimes it’s a much longer workaround,” he says. “So what happens is loss of productivity, greater length of stay, poor patient satisfaction, more screen time, and less bedside time.”

Dr. Mehta says frustration is building as society—outside of medicine—moves rapidly through such technology as smartphones, tablets, and other intuitive devices that make actions easier. He notes that his toddler daughter could learn how to navigate an iPad in a fraction of the time it takes him to complete an HIT training course.

“You cannot have physicians going through learning for four hours, learning a system to do step one before step two before step three,” he laments. “It should flow naturally. I don’t think the IT people have realized that as of yet.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

Like a grinning child at a carnival, Iqbal M. Binoj, MD, steps right up and gives it a try—except instead of tossing rings, he’s gripping an intraosseous infusion drill.

A tutor shows him how the device, which looks remarkably like a glue gun, inserts into the bones of the shoulder or knee and drills down until it hits the marrow. He is guided on using a steady speed to maintain the integrity of the cavity. He’s also taught about the maneuver’s low complication rates and ability to expedite workups.

“I’ve seen it used before, but I never did it,” says Dr. Binoj, a hospitalist with Cogent HMG at Genesis Medical Center in Davenport, Iowa.

Well, he never did it before a hands-on pre-course at HM13 that focused on improving hospitalists’ proficiency at such procedures as lumbar punctures and ultrasound-guided vascular access. Quality improvement (QI) is always a focus of SHM’s annual meeting, but sometimes the science of improving care is viewed from up on high.

Not everything needs to be a national imitative, an institution-wide project, or even a unit-based intervention. Sometimes, it’s as simple as teaching a room full of hospitalists how to use an intraosseous infusion drill, says Michelle Fox, RN, BSN, senior director of clinical affairs with Vidacare, which manufactures the drill used in the demonstration.

“Hospitalists have an increasing role in doing these procedures, not only in the environment they predominantly support but in other areas of the hospital,” Fox says, adding that “the primary goal of this course is to give them the opportunity to perfect those skills.”

Hospitalist Bradley Rosen, MD, MBA, FHM, medical of the inpatient specialty program at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, says the point of hands-on demonstrations is to translate QI to the bedside. Take ultrasound devices, he says. In the past few years, the technology has become less expensive, better in resolution, more common, and more portable. Hospitalists must ensure hands-on training that keeps pace with that technology.

“We actually want people to get gloves on, hands on, learn where they may have challenges in terms of their own dexterity or workflow, which hand is dominant, and how to visualize on the ultrasound machine a three-dimensional structure in 2D,” he says. “We don’t want people watching from the sidelines. ... We try to get people in it and engaged.”

And once hospitalists master procedures or diagnostic maneuvers, they invariably are sought out by other physicians to pass that knowledge on to others, Dr. Rosen says.

“In so doing, we get involved in larger quality initiatives and systemwide changes that can go top-down,” he adds, “but from our perspective, it starts with the individual practitioner. And I think SHM has always advocated and preached the importance of the individual hospitalist doing the best possible job for your patient, and the group, and the institution.”

Shared Excellence

What’s best for individual institutions moving forward is what worries SHM immediate past president Shaun Frost, MD, SFHM. He fears CMS’ Value-Based Payment Modifier (VBPM) program could have the unintended consequence of spurring some hospitals to hang on to innovative ideas in order to keep a competitive business advantage.

In health care, where quality and affordability have long been viewed as valuable for nonmonetary reasons, “the medical profession willingly shares new information” to improve patient care, Dr. Frost said in his farewell speech. But he is concerned that commodification—imbuing monetary value into something that previously had none—could change that dynamic, a situation he says is “ethically not acceptable.”

“When somebody builds a better mousetrap, it should be freely shared so that all patients have the opportunity to benefit,” Dr. Frost said. “The pursuit of economic competitive advantage should not prevent us from collaborating and sharing new ideas that hopefully make the health system better.”

Kendall Rogers, MD, FACP, SFHM, chief of the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center in Albuquerque, N.M., says part of that improvement in quality and patient safety will come via hospitalists pushing for improvements to health information technology (HIT), particularly to maximize computerized physician order entry (CPOE) and order sets. He empathizes with those who complain about the operability of existing systems but urges physicians to stop complaining and take action.

“We need to stop accepting what our existing limitations are, and we need to be the innovators,” he says. “Many of us aren’t even thinking about, ‘What are the products we need?’ We’re just reacting to the products we currently have and stating how they don’t meet our needs.”

He suggests people communally report safety or troubleshooting issues, in part via Hospital Medicine Exchange (HMX), an online community SHM launched last year to discuss HM issues (www.hmxchange.org). He also wants hospitalists to push HIT vendors to provide improved functionality, and for institutions to provide necessary training.

“We just need to be vocal,” says Dr. Rogers, chair of SHM’s IT Executive Committee. “I do believe this is all leading us to a good place, but there’s a dip down before we have a swing up.”

Frustration Surge

In the long run, hospitalist Anuj Mehta, MD, medical director of the adult hospitalist program at Nyack Hospital in New York, agrees with Dr. Rogers. But as a provider seeing patients day after day, he says it’s often easier to not engage HIT than it is to slog through it.

“We try to work around the system, and sometimes it’s a much longer workaround,” he says. “So what happens is loss of productivity, greater length of stay, poor patient satisfaction, more screen time, and less bedside time.”

Dr. Mehta says frustration is building as society—outside of medicine—moves rapidly through such technology as smartphones, tablets, and other intuitive devices that make actions easier. He notes that his toddler daughter could learn how to navigate an iPad in a fraction of the time it takes him to complete an HIT training course.

“You cannot have physicians going through learning for four hours, learning a system to do step one before step two before step three,” he laments. “It should flow naturally. I don’t think the IT people have realized that as of yet.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

Like a grinning child at a carnival, Iqbal M. Binoj, MD, steps right up and gives it a try—except instead of tossing rings, he’s gripping an intraosseous infusion drill.

A tutor shows him how the device, which looks remarkably like a glue gun, inserts into the bones of the shoulder or knee and drills down until it hits the marrow. He is guided on using a steady speed to maintain the integrity of the cavity. He’s also taught about the maneuver’s low complication rates and ability to expedite workups.

“I’ve seen it used before, but I never did it,” says Dr. Binoj, a hospitalist with Cogent HMG at Genesis Medical Center in Davenport, Iowa.

Well, he never did it before a hands-on pre-course at HM13 that focused on improving hospitalists’ proficiency at such procedures as lumbar punctures and ultrasound-guided vascular access. Quality improvement (QI) is always a focus of SHM’s annual meeting, but sometimes the science of improving care is viewed from up on high.

Not everything needs to be a national imitative, an institution-wide project, or even a unit-based intervention. Sometimes, it’s as simple as teaching a room full of hospitalists how to use an intraosseous infusion drill, says Michelle Fox, RN, BSN, senior director of clinical affairs with Vidacare, which manufactures the drill used in the demonstration.

“Hospitalists have an increasing role in doing these procedures, not only in the environment they predominantly support but in other areas of the hospital,” Fox says, adding that “the primary goal of this course is to give them the opportunity to perfect those skills.”

Hospitalist Bradley Rosen, MD, MBA, FHM, medical of the inpatient specialty program at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, says the point of hands-on demonstrations is to translate QI to the bedside. Take ultrasound devices, he says. In the past few years, the technology has become less expensive, better in resolution, more common, and more portable. Hospitalists must ensure hands-on training that keeps pace with that technology.

“We actually want people to get gloves on, hands on, learn where they may have challenges in terms of their own dexterity or workflow, which hand is dominant, and how to visualize on the ultrasound machine a three-dimensional structure in 2D,” he says. “We don’t want people watching from the sidelines. ... We try to get people in it and engaged.”

And once hospitalists master procedures or diagnostic maneuvers, they invariably are sought out by other physicians to pass that knowledge on to others, Dr. Rosen says.

“In so doing, we get involved in larger quality initiatives and systemwide changes that can go top-down,” he adds, “but from our perspective, it starts with the individual practitioner. And I think SHM has always advocated and preached the importance of the individual hospitalist doing the best possible job for your patient, and the group, and the institution.”

Shared Excellence

What’s best for individual institutions moving forward is what worries SHM immediate past president Shaun Frost, MD, SFHM. He fears CMS’ Value-Based Payment Modifier (VBPM) program could have the unintended consequence of spurring some hospitals to hang on to innovative ideas in order to keep a competitive business advantage.

In health care, where quality and affordability have long been viewed as valuable for nonmonetary reasons, “the medical profession willingly shares new information” to improve patient care, Dr. Frost said in his farewell speech. But he is concerned that commodification—imbuing monetary value into something that previously had none—could change that dynamic, a situation he says is “ethically not acceptable.”

“When somebody builds a better mousetrap, it should be freely shared so that all patients have the opportunity to benefit,” Dr. Frost said. “The pursuit of economic competitive advantage should not prevent us from collaborating and sharing new ideas that hopefully make the health system better.”

Kendall Rogers, MD, FACP, SFHM, chief of the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center in Albuquerque, N.M., says part of that improvement in quality and patient safety will come via hospitalists pushing for improvements to health information technology (HIT), particularly to maximize computerized physician order entry (CPOE) and order sets. He empathizes with those who complain about the operability of existing systems but urges physicians to stop complaining and take action.

“We need to stop accepting what our existing limitations are, and we need to be the innovators,” he says. “Many of us aren’t even thinking about, ‘What are the products we need?’ We’re just reacting to the products we currently have and stating how they don’t meet our needs.”

He suggests people communally report safety or troubleshooting issues, in part via Hospital Medicine Exchange (HMX), an online community SHM launched last year to discuss HM issues (www.hmxchange.org). He also wants hospitalists to push HIT vendors to provide improved functionality, and for institutions to provide necessary training.

“We just need to be vocal,” says Dr. Rogers, chair of SHM’s IT Executive Committee. “I do believe this is all leading us to a good place, but there’s a dip down before we have a swing up.”

Frustration Surge

In the long run, hospitalist Anuj Mehta, MD, medical director of the adult hospitalist program at Nyack Hospital in New York, agrees with Dr. Rogers. But as a provider seeing patients day after day, he says it’s often easier to not engage HIT than it is to slog through it.

“We try to work around the system, and sometimes it’s a much longer workaround,” he says. “So what happens is loss of productivity, greater length of stay, poor patient satisfaction, more screen time, and less bedside time.”

Dr. Mehta says frustration is building as society—outside of medicine—moves rapidly through such technology as smartphones, tablets, and other intuitive devices that make actions easier. He notes that his toddler daughter could learn how to navigate an iPad in a fraction of the time it takes him to complete an HIT training course.

“You cannot have physicians going through learning for four hours, learning a system to do step one before step two before step three,” he laments. “It should flow naturally. I don’t think the IT people have realized that as of yet.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

The Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act isn’t the only legislative proposal on hospitalists’ radar right now. Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives recently revised their plan to replace the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula used to determine physician payments. A bill has not been introduced, but Beltway buzz hints one could be forthcoming this year.

“Fixing the flawed SGR physician payment is a top priority for the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means,” GOP legislators said in an open letter to the “provider community.”²

The letter requested feedback from physicians and other stakeholders by April 15.

Any proposed fix would look to end the series of time-stamped delays that continue to delay a pending 27% cut to physician payments under Medicare. The latest delay was approved earlier this year, meaning that the new deadline for the SGR cut to be implemented is Dec. 31.

The SGR formula was created in 1997, but the pending cuts tied to the federal sequester were included in the Budget Control Act of 2011. At the time, the massive reduction to Medicare payments was tied to political brinksmanship over the country’s debt ceiling. But the cut also was considered a Draconian penalty that was never likely to actually happen.

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

References

1. SHM. Letter to Congress members. SHM website. Available at: http://www.hospitalmedicine.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Letters_to_Congress_and_Regulatory_Agencies&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=33169. Accessed May 3, 2013.
2. U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce Committee, Health Subcommittee. Second draft of sustainable growth rate (SGR) repeal and reform proposal—request for feedback letter. U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Ways and Means website. Available at: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sgr_joint_release_document.pdf. Accessed May 3, 2013.

The Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act isn’t the only legislative proposal on hospitalists’ radar right now. Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives recently revised their plan to replace the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula used to determine physician payments. A bill has not been introduced, but Beltway buzz hints one could be forthcoming this year.

“Fixing the flawed SGR physician payment is a top priority for the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means,” GOP legislators said in an open letter to the “provider community.”²

The letter requested feedback from physicians and other stakeholders by April 15.

Any proposed fix would look to end the series of time-stamped delays that continue to delay a pending 27% cut to physician payments under Medicare. The latest delay was approved earlier this year, meaning that the new deadline for the SGR cut to be implemented is Dec. 31.

The SGR formula was created in 1997, but the pending cuts tied to the federal sequester were included in the Budget Control Act of 2011. At the time, the massive reduction to Medicare payments was tied to political brinksmanship over the country’s debt ceiling. But the cut also was considered a Draconian penalty that was never likely to actually happen.

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

References

1. SHM. Letter to Congress members. SHM website. Available at: http://www.hospitalmedicine.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Letters_to_Congress_and_Regulatory_Agencies&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=33169. Accessed May 3, 2013.
2. U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce Committee, Health Subcommittee. Second draft of sustainable growth rate (SGR) repeal and reform proposal—request for feedback letter. U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Ways and Means website. Available at: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sgr_joint_release_document.pdf. Accessed May 3, 2013.

The Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act isn’t the only legislative proposal on hospitalists’ radar right now. Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives recently revised their plan to replace the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula used to determine physician payments. A bill has not been introduced, but Beltway buzz hints one could be forthcoming this year.

“Fixing the flawed SGR physician payment is a top priority for the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means,” GOP legislators said in an open letter to the “provider community.”²

The letter requested feedback from physicians and other stakeholders by April 15.

Any proposed fix would look to end the series of time-stamped delays that continue to delay a pending 27% cut to physician payments under Medicare. The latest delay was approved earlier this year, meaning that the new deadline for the SGR cut to be implemented is Dec. 31.

The SGR formula was created in 1997, but the pending cuts tied to the federal sequester were included in the Budget Control Act of 2011. At the time, the massive reduction to Medicare payments was tied to political brinksmanship over the country’s debt ceiling. But the cut also was considered a Draconian penalty that was never likely to actually happen.

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

References

1. SHM. Letter to Congress members. SHM website. Available at: http://www.hospitalmedicine.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Letters_to_Congress_and_Regulatory_Agencies&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=33169. Accessed May 3, 2013.
2. U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce Committee, Health Subcommittee. Second draft of sustainable growth rate (SGR) repeal and reform proposal—request for feedback letter. U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Ways and Means website. Available at: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sgr_joint_release_document.pdf. Accessed May 3, 2013.

You have to make a difficult decision, to try to help the family. You’re trying to provide good care, but on the other hand, there are rules and regulations and bylaws you work under. They don’t align that well, in this case.

—Karim Godamunne, MD, MBA, SFHM

Hospitalists are pushing hard for a change to a Medicare rule requiring beneficiaries to accumulate at least three consecutive days of inpatient treatment at a hospital (not counting day of discharge) before it will cover care in a skilled nursing facility (SNF).

The issue was one of the talking points during last month’s Hospitalists on the Hill, SHM’s annual daylong advocacy campaign that this year coincided with the annual meeting in the nation’s capital. The issue gained attention from hospitalists and others in recent years, in part because of penalties hospitals face for readmissions—and also in part because hospitalists increasingly are providing care at SNFs and other post-acute-care facilities.

The spotlight is brighter now because a group of legislators is trying to identify Medicare beneficiaries previously given “observation status” as inpatients. The Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act (H.R. 1179 and S. 569) also would establish a 90-day appeal period for those who have been denied the benefit.

SHM senior vice president Joe Miller says hospitalists used HM13 and the Hospitalists on the Hill advocacy day to discuss the issues and the proposed legislation with members of Congress, their staffs, and federal officials. He urges members to continue lobbying for changes. Although the topic might not have the resonance and impact of a fix to the sustainable growth rate (SGR), Miller says, “anybody that deals with admitting or discharging a patient will recognize the importance of this issue.”

The issue, according to Toby Edelman, a senior policy attorney for the Center for Medicare Advocacy in Washington, D.C, is that Medicare mandates that its program enrollees have at least three days of inpatient treatment before it will pay for SNF care. Medicare also covers the costs of post-acute care in other settings but does not require three days of inpatient treatment before doing so. The construct can be confusing to patients who spend time in a hospital but don’t realize that some or all of their stay is spent in “observation status,” meaning none of that time counts toward Medicare’s three-day threshold for reimbursement.

“Most people can’t believe you could be in a hospital bed for a week and then be told as you leave, ‘By the way, bring your checkbook to the nursing home because you weren’t an inpatient here and so now Medicare won’t pay for your stay in the nursing home,’” Edelman says. “This has been an issue for us for quite a while because the consequence for beneficiaries of being in observation is that people have to pay out of pocket for their nursing home care, and that cost is typically hundreds of dollars a day.”

The particular dilemma for hospitalists is managing transitions of care. Hospitalist Karim Godamunne, MD, MBA, SFHM, chief medical officer of North Fulton Hospital in Roswell, Ga., says hospitalists don’t want financial burdens to dictate care decisions, but they are caught in the middle of decisions that could saddle patients with uncovered costs.

He also worries that the issue will only grow in coming years as baby boomers put more pressure on the health-care system. “We have an aging population,” he adds. “This is not going to go away.”

That is one reason SHM is supporting the Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act. SHM supported the bill when it was first introduced in March and it has been rapidly gaining cosponsors in recent weeks. This uptick in Congressional interest may be partly a response to the efforts of hospitalists during their time on the Hill. SHM staff and hospitalists are continuing their push now as society officials say hospitalists, who often handle both discharges from the hospital and care provided at SNFs, are in a position to lead discussions on how to sensibly fix the problem.

To that end, a recent SHM letter to the bill’s sponsors casts the issue as one of fiscal responsibility.¹ Medicare not covering beneficiaries’ observation days cost patients out-of-pocket money and could cost hospitals in the long run.

“Patients who are admitted with observation status often choose to return home rather than paying out of pocket for a SNF stay,” SHM’s letter reads. “The resultant lack of appropriate post-acute SNF care can result in additional problems such as dehydration, falls, and many other avoidable complications. These complications can not only lead to otherwise preventable readmissions but also increase costs to Medicare for the treatment of conditions that were not present at the time of the original hospital stay.”

Given the debate on observation, Miller says, adopting the bill into law should be a no-brainer. The biggest sticking point likely is the perceived added cost to Medicare. Still, to streamline care and remove an added hurdle to coordinated care, Dr. Godamunne believes the bill should be embraced. He also says that many private insurers look to Medicare decisions to determine their own coverage approaches.

Basically, if Medicare changes its rules, that will carry a lot of weight in the private insurance world.

“This creates a lot of situations for the provider and the family,” Dr. Godamunne says. “You have to make a difficult decision, to try to help the family. You’re trying to provide good care, but on the other hand, there are rules and regulations and bylaws you work under. They don’t align that well, in this case.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

References

1. SHM. Letter to Congress members. SHM website. Available at: http://www.hospitalmedicine.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Letters_to_Congress_and_Regulatory_Agencies&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=33169. Accessed May 3, 2013.

You have to make a difficult decision, to try to help the family. You’re trying to provide good care, but on the other hand, there are rules and regulations and bylaws you work under. They don’t align that well, in this case.

—Karim Godamunne, MD, MBA, SFHM

Hospitalists are pushing hard for a change to a Medicare rule requiring beneficiaries to accumulate at least three consecutive days of inpatient treatment at a hospital (not counting day of discharge) before it will cover care in a skilled nursing facility (SNF).

The issue was one of the talking points during last month’s Hospitalists on the Hill, SHM’s annual daylong advocacy campaign that this year coincided with the annual meeting in the nation’s capital. The issue gained attention from hospitalists and others in recent years, in part because of penalties hospitals face for readmissions—and also in part because hospitalists increasingly are providing care at SNFs and other post-acute-care facilities.

The spotlight is brighter now because a group of legislators is trying to identify Medicare beneficiaries previously given “observation status” as inpatients. The Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act (H.R. 1179 and S. 569) also would establish a 90-day appeal period for those who have been denied the benefit.

SHM senior vice president Joe Miller says hospitalists used HM13 and the Hospitalists on the Hill advocacy day to discuss the issues and the proposed legislation with members of Congress, their staffs, and federal officials. He urges members to continue lobbying for changes. Although the topic might not have the resonance and impact of a fix to the sustainable growth rate (SGR), Miller says, “anybody that deals with admitting or discharging a patient will recognize the importance of this issue.”

The issue, according to Toby Edelman, a senior policy attorney for the Center for Medicare Advocacy in Washington, D.C, is that Medicare mandates that its program enrollees have at least three days of inpatient treatment before it will pay for SNF care. Medicare also covers the costs of post-acute care in other settings but does not require three days of inpatient treatment before doing so. The construct can be confusing to patients who spend time in a hospital but don’t realize that some or all of their stay is spent in “observation status,” meaning none of that time counts toward Medicare’s three-day threshold for reimbursement.

“Most people can’t believe you could be in a hospital bed for a week and then be told as you leave, ‘By the way, bring your checkbook to the nursing home because you weren’t an inpatient here and so now Medicare won’t pay for your stay in the nursing home,’” Edelman says. “This has been an issue for us for quite a while because the consequence for beneficiaries of being in observation is that people have to pay out of pocket for their nursing home care, and that cost is typically hundreds of dollars a day.”

The particular dilemma for hospitalists is managing transitions of care. Hospitalist Karim Godamunne, MD, MBA, SFHM, chief medical officer of North Fulton Hospital in Roswell, Ga., says hospitalists don’t want financial burdens to dictate care decisions, but they are caught in the middle of decisions that could saddle patients with uncovered costs.

He also worries that the issue will only grow in coming years as baby boomers put more pressure on the health-care system. “We have an aging population,” he adds. “This is not going to go away.”

That is one reason SHM is supporting the Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act. SHM supported the bill when it was first introduced in March and it has been rapidly gaining cosponsors in recent weeks. This uptick in Congressional interest may be partly a response to the efforts of hospitalists during their time on the Hill. SHM staff and hospitalists are continuing their push now as society officials say hospitalists, who often handle both discharges from the hospital and care provided at SNFs, are in a position to lead discussions on how to sensibly fix the problem.

To that end, a recent SHM letter to the bill’s sponsors casts the issue as one of fiscal responsibility.¹ Medicare not covering beneficiaries’ observation days cost patients out-of-pocket money and could cost hospitals in the long run.

“Patients who are admitted with observation status often choose to return home rather than paying out of pocket for a SNF stay,” SHM’s letter reads. “The resultant lack of appropriate post-acute SNF care can result in additional problems such as dehydration, falls, and many other avoidable complications. These complications can not only lead to otherwise preventable readmissions but also increase costs to Medicare for the treatment of conditions that were not present at the time of the original hospital stay.”

Given the debate on observation, Miller says, adopting the bill into law should be a no-brainer. The biggest sticking point likely is the perceived added cost to Medicare. Still, to streamline care and remove an added hurdle to coordinated care, Dr. Godamunne believes the bill should be embraced. He also says that many private insurers look to Medicare decisions to determine their own coverage approaches.

Basically, if Medicare changes its rules, that will carry a lot of weight in the private insurance world.

“This creates a lot of situations for the provider and the family,” Dr. Godamunne says. “You have to make a difficult decision, to try to help the family. You’re trying to provide good care, but on the other hand, there are rules and regulations and bylaws you work under. They don’t align that well, in this case.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

References

1. SHM. Letter to Congress members. SHM website. Available at: http://www.hospitalmedicine.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Letters_to_Congress_and_Regulatory_Agencies&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=33169. Accessed May 3, 2013.

You have to make a difficult decision, to try to help the family. You’re trying to provide good care, but on the other hand, there are rules and regulations and bylaws you work under. They don’t align that well, in this case.

—Karim Godamunne, MD, MBA, SFHM

Hospitalists are pushing hard for a change to a Medicare rule requiring beneficiaries to accumulate at least three consecutive days of inpatient treatment at a hospital (not counting day of discharge) before it will cover care in a skilled nursing facility (SNF).

The issue was one of the talking points during last month’s Hospitalists on the Hill, SHM’s annual daylong advocacy campaign that this year coincided with the annual meeting in the nation’s capital. The issue gained attention from hospitalists and others in recent years, in part because of penalties hospitals face for readmissions—and also in part because hospitalists increasingly are providing care at SNFs and other post-acute-care facilities.

The spotlight is brighter now because a group of legislators is trying to identify Medicare beneficiaries previously given “observation status” as inpatients. The Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act (H.R. 1179 and S. 569) also would establish a 90-day appeal period for those who have been denied the benefit.

SHM senior vice president Joe Miller says hospitalists used HM13 and the Hospitalists on the Hill advocacy day to discuss the issues and the proposed legislation with members of Congress, their staffs, and federal officials. He urges members to continue lobbying for changes. Although the topic might not have the resonance and impact of a fix to the sustainable growth rate (SGR), Miller says, “anybody that deals with admitting or discharging a patient will recognize the importance of this issue.”

The issue, according to Toby Edelman, a senior policy attorney for the Center for Medicare Advocacy in Washington, D.C, is that Medicare mandates that its program enrollees have at least three days of inpatient treatment before it will pay for SNF care. Medicare also covers the costs of post-acute care in other settings but does not require three days of inpatient treatment before doing so. The construct can be confusing to patients who spend time in a hospital but don’t realize that some or all of their stay is spent in “observation status,” meaning none of that time counts toward Medicare’s three-day threshold for reimbursement.

“Most people can’t believe you could be in a hospital bed for a week and then be told as you leave, ‘By the way, bring your checkbook to the nursing home because you weren’t an inpatient here and so now Medicare won’t pay for your stay in the nursing home,’” Edelman says. “This has been an issue for us for quite a while because the consequence for beneficiaries of being in observation is that people have to pay out of pocket for their nursing home care, and that cost is typically hundreds of dollars a day.”

The particular dilemma for hospitalists is managing transitions of care. Hospitalist Karim Godamunne, MD, MBA, SFHM, chief medical officer of North Fulton Hospital in Roswell, Ga., says hospitalists don’t want financial burdens to dictate care decisions, but they are caught in the middle of decisions that could saddle patients with uncovered costs.

He also worries that the issue will only grow in coming years as baby boomers put more pressure on the health-care system. “We have an aging population,” he adds. “This is not going to go away.”

That is one reason SHM is supporting the Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act. SHM supported the bill when it was first introduced in March and it has been rapidly gaining cosponsors in recent weeks. This uptick in Congressional interest may be partly a response to the efforts of hospitalists during their time on the Hill. SHM staff and hospitalists are continuing their push now as society officials say hospitalists, who often handle both discharges from the hospital and care provided at SNFs, are in a position to lead discussions on how to sensibly fix the problem.

To that end, a recent SHM letter to the bill’s sponsors casts the issue as one of fiscal responsibility.¹ Medicare not covering beneficiaries’ observation days cost patients out-of-pocket money and could cost hospitals in the long run.

“Patients who are admitted with observation status often choose to return home rather than paying out of pocket for a SNF stay,” SHM’s letter reads. “The resultant lack of appropriate post-acute SNF care can result in additional problems such as dehydration, falls, and many other avoidable complications. These complications can not only lead to otherwise preventable readmissions but also increase costs to Medicare for the treatment of conditions that were not present at the time of the original hospital stay.”

Given the debate on observation, Miller says, adopting the bill into law should be a no-brainer. The biggest sticking point likely is the perceived added cost to Medicare. Still, to streamline care and remove an added hurdle to coordinated care, Dr. Godamunne believes the bill should be embraced. He also says that many private insurers look to Medicare decisions to determine their own coverage approaches.

Basically, if Medicare changes its rules, that will carry a lot of weight in the private insurance world.

“This creates a lot of situations for the provider and the family,” Dr. Godamunne says. “You have to make a difficult decision, to try to help the family. You’re trying to provide good care, but on the other hand, there are rules and regulations and bylaws you work under. They don’t align that well, in this case.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

References

1. SHM. Letter to Congress members. SHM website. Available at: http://www.hospitalmedicine.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Letters_to_Congress_and_Regulatory_Agencies&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=33169. Accessed May 3, 2013.