Public Policy

Background: Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) provide health care to over 30 million children in the United States.^1,2 As a result, low-income children have had increased access to health care, of all forms, which has increased the utilization of primary care and decreased unnecessary ED visits and hospitalizations. However, this comes at a high cost, both at the state and national level. Medicaid currently subsidizes more than 50% of every state’s public insurance program, spending about $100 billion/year in health care payments for children.³ Given this hefty price tag, there have been myriad strategies proposed to help decrease these costs. One such strategy, includes decreasing enrollment in public insurance through decreasing income eligibility thresholds. As a result, many children from low-income families would lose their public insurance and be eligible for commercial insurance only. Consequently, this would place an undue financial burden on these families and the health care systems that care for them. Furthermore, it is anticipated that poor health care outcomes would increase in these vulnerable populations.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study using 2014 State Inpatient Databases.

Setting: Pediatric hospitalizations (aged less than 18 years) from 14 states during 2014 with public insurance listed as the primary payer. This encompassed about 30% of family households in the United States in 2014.

Synopsis: Simulations were done at three different thresholds of the federal poverty level (FPL), including less than 100%, less than 200% and less than 300%. Of the families included, 43% lived below 300%, 27% below 200% and 11% below 100% of the FPL. Of note, public insurance FPL eligibility limits tended to be lower in states with a greater percentage of the population being below 300% of the FPL. The results, of these reductions, were as follows:

• If reduced to less than 300% of the FPL, about 155,000 hospitalizations became ineligible for reimbursement. The median per-hospitalization estimated costs ranged from approximately $6,000 to approximately $10,000, accumulating $1.2 billion in estimated costs.
• If reduced to less than 200% of the FPL, about 440,000 hospitalizations became ineligible for reimbursement. The median per-hospitalization estimated costs ranged from approximately $2,000 to approximately $10,000, accumulating $3.1 billion in estimated costs.
• If reduced to less than 100% of the FPL, about 650,000 hospitalizations became ineligible for reimbursement. The median per-hospitalization estimated costs ranged from approximately $2,000 to approximately $10,000, accumulating $4.4 billion in estimated costs.

If these reductions occurred, healthy newborns would be disproportionately affected by them, which is important to note because newborn hospitalization is one of the fastest-rising costs in pediatric care. In fact, it can range from approximately $700 to approximately $2,000 per hospitalization, which may represent a huge financial strain for families that are unable to secure commercial insurance. Furthermore, with the average hospitalization of non-newborns ranging from $3,000 to $10,000, it is likely that this cost would constitute a fairly large percentage of a low income family’s annual income, which may represent an untenable financial burden.

Thus, if these families are unable to obtain commercial insurance and/or pay these debts, the financial burden will shift to the institutions that care for these vulnerable populations.

Bottom line: If public insurance eligibility thresholds were decreased, a large number of pediatric hospitalizations would become ineligible for coverage, which would shift the costs to families and institutions that are already financially strained and likely result in poor health care outcomes for some of our most vulnerable pediatric patients.

Citation: Bettenhausen JL et al. The effect of lowering public insurance income limits on hospitalizations for low-income children. Pediatrics. 2018 Aug. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-3486.

Dr. Darden is a pediatric hospitalist at Phoenix Children’s Hospital and clinical assistant professor, University of Arizona, Phoenix.

References

1. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Total Medicaid Spending. 2016. Available at: http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/total-medicaid-spending/.

2. Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission. Trends in Medicaid Spending. 2016. Available at https://www.macpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Trends-in-Medicaid-Spending.pdf.

3. Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission. Medicaid’s share of state budgets. 2017. Available at: https://www.macpac.gov/subtopic/medicaids-share-of-state-budgets/.

Background: Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) provide health care to over 30 million children in the United States.^1,2 As a result, low-income children have had increased access to health care, of all forms, which has increased the utilization of primary care and decreased unnecessary ED visits and hospitalizations. However, this comes at a high cost, both at the state and national level. Medicaid currently subsidizes more than 50% of every state’s public insurance program, spending about $100 billion/year in health care payments for children.³ Given this hefty price tag, there have been myriad strategies proposed to help decrease these costs. One such strategy, includes decreasing enrollment in public insurance through decreasing income eligibility thresholds. As a result, many children from low-income families would lose their public insurance and be eligible for commercial insurance only. Consequently, this would place an undue financial burden on these families and the health care systems that care for them. Furthermore, it is anticipated that poor health care outcomes would increase in these vulnerable populations.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study using 2014 State Inpatient Databases.

Setting: Pediatric hospitalizations (aged less than 18 years) from 14 states during 2014 with public insurance listed as the primary payer. This encompassed about 30% of family households in the United States in 2014.

Synopsis: Simulations were done at three different thresholds of the federal poverty level (FPL), including less than 100%, less than 200% and less than 300%. Of the families included, 43% lived below 300%, 27% below 200% and 11% below 100% of the FPL. Of note, public insurance FPL eligibility limits tended to be lower in states with a greater percentage of the population being below 300% of the FPL. The results, of these reductions, were as follows:

• If reduced to less than 300% of the FPL, about 155,000 hospitalizations became ineligible for reimbursement. The median per-hospitalization estimated costs ranged from approximately $6,000 to approximately $10,000, accumulating $1.2 billion in estimated costs.
• If reduced to less than 200% of the FPL, about 440,000 hospitalizations became ineligible for reimbursement. The median per-hospitalization estimated costs ranged from approximately $2,000 to approximately $10,000, accumulating $3.1 billion in estimated costs.
• If reduced to less than 100% of the FPL, about 650,000 hospitalizations became ineligible for reimbursement. The median per-hospitalization estimated costs ranged from approximately $2,000 to approximately $10,000, accumulating $4.4 billion in estimated costs.

If these reductions occurred, healthy newborns would be disproportionately affected by them, which is important to note because newborn hospitalization is one of the fastest-rising costs in pediatric care. In fact, it can range from approximately $700 to approximately $2,000 per hospitalization, which may represent a huge financial strain for families that are unable to secure commercial insurance. Furthermore, with the average hospitalization of non-newborns ranging from $3,000 to $10,000, it is likely that this cost would constitute a fairly large percentage of a low income family’s annual income, which may represent an untenable financial burden.

Thus, if these families are unable to obtain commercial insurance and/or pay these debts, the financial burden will shift to the institutions that care for these vulnerable populations.

Bottom line: If public insurance eligibility thresholds were decreased, a large number of pediatric hospitalizations would become ineligible for coverage, which would shift the costs to families and institutions that are already financially strained and likely result in poor health care outcomes for some of our most vulnerable pediatric patients.

Citation: Bettenhausen JL et al. The effect of lowering public insurance income limits on hospitalizations for low-income children. Pediatrics. 2018 Aug. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-3486.

Dr. Darden is a pediatric hospitalist at Phoenix Children’s Hospital and clinical assistant professor, University of Arizona, Phoenix.

References

1. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Total Medicaid Spending. 2016. Available at: http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/total-medicaid-spending/.

2. Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission. Trends in Medicaid Spending. 2016. Available at https://www.macpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Trends-in-Medicaid-Spending.pdf.

3. Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission. Medicaid’s share of state budgets. 2017. Available at: https://www.macpac.gov/subtopic/medicaids-share-of-state-budgets/.

Background: Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) provide health care to over 30 million children in the United States.^1,2 As a result, low-income children have had increased access to health care, of all forms, which has increased the utilization of primary care and decreased unnecessary ED visits and hospitalizations. However, this comes at a high cost, both at the state and national level. Medicaid currently subsidizes more than 50% of every state’s public insurance program, spending about $100 billion/year in health care payments for children.³ Given this hefty price tag, there have been myriad strategies proposed to help decrease these costs. One such strategy, includes decreasing enrollment in public insurance through decreasing income eligibility thresholds. As a result, many children from low-income families would lose their public insurance and be eligible for commercial insurance only. Consequently, this would place an undue financial burden on these families and the health care systems that care for them. Furthermore, it is anticipated that poor health care outcomes would increase in these vulnerable populations.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study using 2014 State Inpatient Databases.

Setting: Pediatric hospitalizations (aged less than 18 years) from 14 states during 2014 with public insurance listed as the primary payer. This encompassed about 30% of family households in the United States in 2014.

Synopsis: Simulations were done at three different thresholds of the federal poverty level (FPL), including less than 100%, less than 200% and less than 300%. Of the families included, 43% lived below 300%, 27% below 200% and 11% below 100% of the FPL. Of note, public insurance FPL eligibility limits tended to be lower in states with a greater percentage of the population being below 300% of the FPL. The results, of these reductions, were as follows:

• If reduced to less than 300% of the FPL, about 155,000 hospitalizations became ineligible for reimbursement. The median per-hospitalization estimated costs ranged from approximately $6,000 to approximately $10,000, accumulating $1.2 billion in estimated costs.
• If reduced to less than 200% of the FPL, about 440,000 hospitalizations became ineligible for reimbursement. The median per-hospitalization estimated costs ranged from approximately $2,000 to approximately $10,000, accumulating $3.1 billion in estimated costs.
• If reduced to less than 100% of the FPL, about 650,000 hospitalizations became ineligible for reimbursement. The median per-hospitalization estimated costs ranged from approximately $2,000 to approximately $10,000, accumulating $4.4 billion in estimated costs.

If these reductions occurred, healthy newborns would be disproportionately affected by them, which is important to note because newborn hospitalization is one of the fastest-rising costs in pediatric care. In fact, it can range from approximately $700 to approximately $2,000 per hospitalization, which may represent a huge financial strain for families that are unable to secure commercial insurance. Furthermore, with the average hospitalization of non-newborns ranging from $3,000 to $10,000, it is likely that this cost would constitute a fairly large percentage of a low income family’s annual income, which may represent an untenable financial burden.

Thus, if these families are unable to obtain commercial insurance and/or pay these debts, the financial burden will shift to the institutions that care for these vulnerable populations.

Bottom line: If public insurance eligibility thresholds were decreased, a large number of pediatric hospitalizations would become ineligible for coverage, which would shift the costs to families and institutions that are already financially strained and likely result in poor health care outcomes for some of our most vulnerable pediatric patients.

Citation: Bettenhausen JL et al. The effect of lowering public insurance income limits on hospitalizations for low-income children. Pediatrics. 2018 Aug. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-3486.

Dr. Darden is a pediatric hospitalist at Phoenix Children’s Hospital and clinical assistant professor, University of Arizona, Phoenix.

References

1. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Total Medicaid Spending. 2016. Available at: http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/total-medicaid-spending/.

2. Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission. Trends in Medicaid Spending. 2016. Available at https://www.macpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Trends-in-Medicaid-Spending.pdf.

3. Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission. Medicaid’s share of state budgets. 2017. Available at: https://www.macpac.gov/subtopic/medicaids-share-of-state-budgets/.

Vice Admiral Jerome M. Adams, MD, MPH, is the 20th Surgeon General of the United States, a post created in 1871.

Dr. Adams holds degrees in biochemistry and psychology from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County; a master’s degree in public health from the University of California, Berkeley; and a medical degree from the Indiana University, Indianapolis. He is a board-certified anesthesiologist and associate clinical professor of anesthesia at Indiana University.

At the 2018 Executive Advisory Board meeting of the Doctors Company, Richard E. Anderson, MD, FACP, chairman and chief executive officer of the Doctors Company, spoke with Dr. Adams about the opioid epidemic’s enormous impact on communities and health services in the United States.

Dr. Anderson: Dr. Adams, you’ve been busy since taking over as Surgeon General of the United States. What are some of the key challenges that you’re facing in this office?

Dr. Adams: You know, there are many challenges facing our country, but it boils down to a lack of wellness. We know that only 10% of health is due to health care, 20% of health is genetics, and the rest is a combination of behavior and environment.

My motto is “better health through better partnerships,” because I firmly believe that if we break out of our silos and reach across the traditional barriers that have been put up by funding, by reimbursement, and by infrastructure, then we can ultimately achieve wellness in our communities.

You asked what I’ve been focused on as Surgeon General. Well, I’m focused on three main areas right now.

No. 1 is the opioid epidemic. It is a scourge across our country. A person dies every 12½ minutes from an opioid overdose and that’s far too many. Especially when we know that many of those deaths can be prevented.

Another area I’m focused on is demonstrating the link between community health and economic prosperity. We want folks to invest in health because we know that not only will it achieve better health for individuals and communities but it will create a more prosperous nation, also.

And finally, I’m raising awareness about the links between our nation’s health and our safety and security – particularly our national security. Unfortunately, 7 out of 10 young people between the ages of 18 and 24 years old in our country are ineligible for military service. That’s because they can’t pass the physical, they can’t meet the educational requirements, or they have a criminal record.

So, our nation’s poor health is not just a matter of diabetes or heart disease 20 or 30 years down the road. We are literally a less-safe country right now because we’re an unhealthy country.
 

Dr. Anderson: Regarding the opioid epidemic, what are some of the programs that are available today that you find effective? What would you like to see us do as a nation to respond to the epidemic?

Dr. Adams: Recently, I was at a hospital in Alaska where they have implemented a neonatal abstinence syndrome protocol and program that is being looked at around the country – and others are attempting to replicate it.

We know that if you keep mom and baby together, baby does better, mom does better, hospital stays are shorter, costs go down, and you’re keeping that family unit intact. This prevents future problems for both the baby and the mother. That’s just one small example.

I’m also very happy to see that the prescribing of opioids is going down 20%-25% across the country. And there are even larger decreases in the military and veteran communities. That’s really a testament to doctors and the medical profession finally waking up. And I say this as a physician myself, as an anesthesiologist, as someone who is involved in acute and chronic pain management.

Four out of five people with substance use disorder say they started with a prescription opioid. Many physicians will say, “Those aren’t my patients,” but unfortunately when we look at the PDMP [prescription drug monitoring program] data across the country we do a poor job of predicting who is and who isn’t going to divert. It may not be your patient, but it could be their son or the babysitter who is diverting those overprescribed opioids.

One thing that I really think we need to lean into as health care practitioners is providing medication-assisted treatment, or MAT. We know that the gold standard for treatment and recovery is medication-assisted treatment of some form. But we also know it’s not nearly available enough and that there are barriers on the federal and state levels.

We need you to continue to talk to your congressional representatives and let them know which barriers you perceive because the data waiver comes directly from Congress.

Still, any ER can prescribe up to 3 days of MAT to someone. I’d much rather have our ER doctors putting patients on MAT and then connecting them to treatment, than sending them back out into the arms of a drug dealer after they put them into acute withdrawal with naloxone.

We also have too many pregnant women who want help but can’t find any treatment because no one out there will take care of pregnant moms. We need folks to step up to the plate and get that data waiver in our ob/gyn and primary care sectors.

Ultimately, we need hospitals and health care leaders to create an environment that makes providers feel comfortable providing that service by giving them the training and the support to be able to do it.

We also need to make sure we’re co-prescribing naloxone for those who are at risk for opioid overdose.
 

Dr. Anderson: Just so we are clear, are you in favor of regular prescribing of naloxone, along with prescriptions for opioids? Is that correct?

Dr. Adams: I issued the first Surgeon General’s advisory from more than 10 years earlier this year to help folks understand that over half of our opioid overdoses occur in a home setting. We all know that an anoxic brain injury occurs in 4-5 minutes. We also know that most ambulances and first responders aren’t going to show up in 4-5 minutes.

If we want to make a dent in this overdose epidemic, we need everyone to consider themselves a first responder. We need to look at it the same as we look at CPR; we need everyone carrying naloxone. That was one of the big pushes from my Surgeon General’s advisory.

How can providers help? Well, they can coprescribe naloxone to folks on high morphine milligram equivalents (MME) who are at risk. If grandma has naloxone at home and her grandson overdoses in the garage, then at least it’s in the same house. Naloxone is not the treatment for the opioid epidemic. But we can’t get someone who is dead into treatment.

I have no illusions that simply making naloxone available is going to turn the tide, but it certainly is an important part of it.
 

Dr. Anderson: From your unique viewpoint, how much progress do you see in relation to the opioid epidemic? Do you think we’re approaching an inflection point, or do you think there’s a long way to go before this starts to turn around?

Dr. Adams: When I talk about the opioid epidemic, I have two angles. No.1, I want to raise awareness about the opioid epidemic – the severity of it, and how everyone can lean into it in their own way. Whether it’s community citizens, providers, law enforcement, the business community, whomever.

But in addition to raising awareness, I want to instill hope.

I was in Huntington, West Virginia, just a few weeks ago at the epicenter of the opioid epidemic. They’ve been able to turn their opioid overdose rates around by providing peer recovery coaches to individuals and making sure naloxone is available throughout the community. You save the life and then you connect them to care.

We know that the folks who are at highest risk for overdose deaths are the ones who just overdosed. They come out of the ER where we’ve watched them for a few hours and then we send them right back out into the arms of the drug dealer to do exactly what we know they will do medically because we’ve thrown them into withdrawal and they try to get their next fix.

If we can partner with law enforcement, then we can turn our opioid overdose rates around.

A story of recovery that I want to share with you is about a guy named Jonathan, who I met when I was in Rhode Island.

Jonathan overdosed, but his roommate had access to naloxone, which he administered. Jonathan was taken to the ER and then connected with a peer recovery coach. He is now in recovery and has actually become a peer recovery coach himself. Saving this one life will now enable us to save many more.

Yet we still prescribe more than 80% of the world’s opioids to less than 5% of the world’s population. So, we still have an overprescribing epidemic, but we’ve surpassed the inflection point there. Prescribing is coming down.

But another part of this epidemic was that we squeezed the balloon in one place and, as prescribing opioids went down, lots of people switched over to heroin. That’s when we really first started to see overdose rates go up.

Well, it’s important for folks to know that, through law enforcement, through partnerships with the public health community, through an increase in syringe service programs, and through other touch points, heroin use is now going down in most places.

Unfortunately, now we’re seeing the third wave of the epidemic, and that’s fentanyl and carfentanil.






 

Vice Admiral Jerome M. Adams, MD, MPH, is the 20th Surgeon General of the United States, a post created in 1871.

Dr. Adams holds degrees in biochemistry and psychology from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County; a master’s degree in public health from the University of California, Berkeley; and a medical degree from the Indiana University, Indianapolis. He is a board-certified anesthesiologist and associate clinical professor of anesthesia at Indiana University.

At the 2018 Executive Advisory Board meeting of the Doctors Company, Richard E. Anderson, MD, FACP, chairman and chief executive officer of the Doctors Company, spoke with Dr. Adams about the opioid epidemic’s enormous impact on communities and health services in the United States.

Dr. Anderson: Dr. Adams, you’ve been busy since taking over as Surgeon General of the United States. What are some of the key challenges that you’re facing in this office?

Dr. Adams: You know, there are many challenges facing our country, but it boils down to a lack of wellness. We know that only 10% of health is due to health care, 20% of health is genetics, and the rest is a combination of behavior and environment.

My motto is “better health through better partnerships,” because I firmly believe that if we break out of our silos and reach across the traditional barriers that have been put up by funding, by reimbursement, and by infrastructure, then we can ultimately achieve wellness in our communities.

You asked what I’ve been focused on as Surgeon General. Well, I’m focused on three main areas right now.

No. 1 is the opioid epidemic. It is a scourge across our country. A person dies every 12½ minutes from an opioid overdose and that’s far too many. Especially when we know that many of those deaths can be prevented.

Another area I’m focused on is demonstrating the link between community health and economic prosperity. We want folks to invest in health because we know that not only will it achieve better health for individuals and communities but it will create a more prosperous nation, also.

And finally, I’m raising awareness about the links between our nation’s health and our safety and security – particularly our national security. Unfortunately, 7 out of 10 young people between the ages of 18 and 24 years old in our country are ineligible for military service. That’s because they can’t pass the physical, they can’t meet the educational requirements, or they have a criminal record.

So, our nation’s poor health is not just a matter of diabetes or heart disease 20 or 30 years down the road. We are literally a less-safe country right now because we’re an unhealthy country.
 

Dr. Anderson: Regarding the opioid epidemic, what are some of the programs that are available today that you find effective? What would you like to see us do as a nation to respond to the epidemic?

Dr. Adams: Recently, I was at a hospital in Alaska where they have implemented a neonatal abstinence syndrome protocol and program that is being looked at around the country – and others are attempting to replicate it.

We know that if you keep mom and baby together, baby does better, mom does better, hospital stays are shorter, costs go down, and you’re keeping that family unit intact. This prevents future problems for both the baby and the mother. That’s just one small example.

I’m also very happy to see that the prescribing of opioids is going down 20%-25% across the country. And there are even larger decreases in the military and veteran communities. That’s really a testament to doctors and the medical profession finally waking up. And I say this as a physician myself, as an anesthesiologist, as someone who is involved in acute and chronic pain management.

Four out of five people with substance use disorder say they started with a prescription opioid. Many physicians will say, “Those aren’t my patients,” but unfortunately when we look at the PDMP [prescription drug monitoring program] data across the country we do a poor job of predicting who is and who isn’t going to divert. It may not be your patient, but it could be their son or the babysitter who is diverting those overprescribed opioids.

One thing that I really think we need to lean into as health care practitioners is providing medication-assisted treatment, or MAT. We know that the gold standard for treatment and recovery is medication-assisted treatment of some form. But we also know it’s not nearly available enough and that there are barriers on the federal and state levels.

We need you to continue to talk to your congressional representatives and let them know which barriers you perceive because the data waiver comes directly from Congress.

Still, any ER can prescribe up to 3 days of MAT to someone. I’d much rather have our ER doctors putting patients on MAT and then connecting them to treatment, than sending them back out into the arms of a drug dealer after they put them into acute withdrawal with naloxone.

We also have too many pregnant women who want help but can’t find any treatment because no one out there will take care of pregnant moms. We need folks to step up to the plate and get that data waiver in our ob/gyn and primary care sectors.

Ultimately, we need hospitals and health care leaders to create an environment that makes providers feel comfortable providing that service by giving them the training and the support to be able to do it.

We also need to make sure we’re co-prescribing naloxone for those who are at risk for opioid overdose.
 

Dr. Anderson: Just so we are clear, are you in favor of regular prescribing of naloxone, along with prescriptions for opioids? Is that correct?

Dr. Adams: I issued the first Surgeon General’s advisory from more than 10 years earlier this year to help folks understand that over half of our opioid overdoses occur in a home setting. We all know that an anoxic brain injury occurs in 4-5 minutes. We also know that most ambulances and first responders aren’t going to show up in 4-5 minutes.

If we want to make a dent in this overdose epidemic, we need everyone to consider themselves a first responder. We need to look at it the same as we look at CPR; we need everyone carrying naloxone. That was one of the big pushes from my Surgeon General’s advisory.

How can providers help? Well, they can coprescribe naloxone to folks on high morphine milligram equivalents (MME) who are at risk. If grandma has naloxone at home and her grandson overdoses in the garage, then at least it’s in the same house. Naloxone is not the treatment for the opioid epidemic. But we can’t get someone who is dead into treatment.

I have no illusions that simply making naloxone available is going to turn the tide, but it certainly is an important part of it.
 

Dr. Anderson: From your unique viewpoint, how much progress do you see in relation to the opioid epidemic? Do you think we’re approaching an inflection point, or do you think there’s a long way to go before this starts to turn around?

Dr. Adams: When I talk about the opioid epidemic, I have two angles. No.1, I want to raise awareness about the opioid epidemic – the severity of it, and how everyone can lean into it in their own way. Whether it’s community citizens, providers, law enforcement, the business community, whomever.

But in addition to raising awareness, I want to instill hope.

I was in Huntington, West Virginia, just a few weeks ago at the epicenter of the opioid epidemic. They’ve been able to turn their opioid overdose rates around by providing peer recovery coaches to individuals and making sure naloxone is available throughout the community. You save the life and then you connect them to care.

We know that the folks who are at highest risk for overdose deaths are the ones who just overdosed. They come out of the ER where we’ve watched them for a few hours and then we send them right back out into the arms of the drug dealer to do exactly what we know they will do medically because we’ve thrown them into withdrawal and they try to get their next fix.

If we can partner with law enforcement, then we can turn our opioid overdose rates around.

A story of recovery that I want to share with you is about a guy named Jonathan, who I met when I was in Rhode Island.

Jonathan overdosed, but his roommate had access to naloxone, which he administered. Jonathan was taken to the ER and then connected with a peer recovery coach. He is now in recovery and has actually become a peer recovery coach himself. Saving this one life will now enable us to save many more.

Yet we still prescribe more than 80% of the world’s opioids to less than 5% of the world’s population. So, we still have an overprescribing epidemic, but we’ve surpassed the inflection point there. Prescribing is coming down.

But another part of this epidemic was that we squeezed the balloon in one place and, as prescribing opioids went down, lots of people switched over to heroin. That’s when we really first started to see overdose rates go up.

Well, it’s important for folks to know that, through law enforcement, through partnerships with the public health community, through an increase in syringe service programs, and through other touch points, heroin use is now going down in most places.

Unfortunately, now we’re seeing the third wave of the epidemic, and that’s fentanyl and carfentanil.






 

Vice Admiral Jerome M. Adams, MD, MPH, is the 20th Surgeon General of the United States, a post created in 1871.

Dr. Adams holds degrees in biochemistry and psychology from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County; a master’s degree in public health from the University of California, Berkeley; and a medical degree from the Indiana University, Indianapolis. He is a board-certified anesthesiologist and associate clinical professor of anesthesia at Indiana University.

At the 2018 Executive Advisory Board meeting of the Doctors Company, Richard E. Anderson, MD, FACP, chairman and chief executive officer of the Doctors Company, spoke with Dr. Adams about the opioid epidemic’s enormous impact on communities and health services in the United States.

Dr. Anderson: Dr. Adams, you’ve been busy since taking over as Surgeon General of the United States. What are some of the key challenges that you’re facing in this office?

Dr. Adams: You know, there are many challenges facing our country, but it boils down to a lack of wellness. We know that only 10% of health is due to health care, 20% of health is genetics, and the rest is a combination of behavior and environment.

My motto is “better health through better partnerships,” because I firmly believe that if we break out of our silos and reach across the traditional barriers that have been put up by funding, by reimbursement, and by infrastructure, then we can ultimately achieve wellness in our communities.

You asked what I’ve been focused on as Surgeon General. Well, I’m focused on three main areas right now.

No. 1 is the opioid epidemic. It is a scourge across our country. A person dies every 12½ minutes from an opioid overdose and that’s far too many. Especially when we know that many of those deaths can be prevented.

Another area I’m focused on is demonstrating the link between community health and economic prosperity. We want folks to invest in health because we know that not only will it achieve better health for individuals and communities but it will create a more prosperous nation, also.

And finally, I’m raising awareness about the links between our nation’s health and our safety and security – particularly our national security. Unfortunately, 7 out of 10 young people between the ages of 18 and 24 years old in our country are ineligible for military service. That’s because they can’t pass the physical, they can’t meet the educational requirements, or they have a criminal record.

So, our nation’s poor health is not just a matter of diabetes or heart disease 20 or 30 years down the road. We are literally a less-safe country right now because we’re an unhealthy country.
 

Dr. Anderson: Regarding the opioid epidemic, what are some of the programs that are available today that you find effective? What would you like to see us do as a nation to respond to the epidemic?

Dr. Adams: Recently, I was at a hospital in Alaska where they have implemented a neonatal abstinence syndrome protocol and program that is being looked at around the country – and others are attempting to replicate it.

We know that if you keep mom and baby together, baby does better, mom does better, hospital stays are shorter, costs go down, and you’re keeping that family unit intact. This prevents future problems for both the baby and the mother. That’s just one small example.

I’m also very happy to see that the prescribing of opioids is going down 20%-25% across the country. And there are even larger decreases in the military and veteran communities. That’s really a testament to doctors and the medical profession finally waking up. And I say this as a physician myself, as an anesthesiologist, as someone who is involved in acute and chronic pain management.

Four out of five people with substance use disorder say they started with a prescription opioid. Many physicians will say, “Those aren’t my patients,” but unfortunately when we look at the PDMP [prescription drug monitoring program] data across the country we do a poor job of predicting who is and who isn’t going to divert. It may not be your patient, but it could be their son or the babysitter who is diverting those overprescribed opioids.

One thing that I really think we need to lean into as health care practitioners is providing medication-assisted treatment, or MAT. We know that the gold standard for treatment and recovery is medication-assisted treatment of some form. But we also know it’s not nearly available enough and that there are barriers on the federal and state levels.

We need you to continue to talk to your congressional representatives and let them know which barriers you perceive because the data waiver comes directly from Congress.

Still, any ER can prescribe up to 3 days of MAT to someone. I’d much rather have our ER doctors putting patients on MAT and then connecting them to treatment, than sending them back out into the arms of a drug dealer after they put them into acute withdrawal with naloxone.

We also have too many pregnant women who want help but can’t find any treatment because no one out there will take care of pregnant moms. We need folks to step up to the plate and get that data waiver in our ob/gyn and primary care sectors.

Ultimately, we need hospitals and health care leaders to create an environment that makes providers feel comfortable providing that service by giving them the training and the support to be able to do it.

We also need to make sure we’re co-prescribing naloxone for those who are at risk for opioid overdose.
 

Dr. Anderson: Just so we are clear, are you in favor of regular prescribing of naloxone, along with prescriptions for opioids? Is that correct?

Dr. Adams: I issued the first Surgeon General’s advisory from more than 10 years earlier this year to help folks understand that over half of our opioid overdoses occur in a home setting. We all know that an anoxic brain injury occurs in 4-5 minutes. We also know that most ambulances and first responders aren’t going to show up in 4-5 minutes.

If we want to make a dent in this overdose epidemic, we need everyone to consider themselves a first responder. We need to look at it the same as we look at CPR; we need everyone carrying naloxone. That was one of the big pushes from my Surgeon General’s advisory.

How can providers help? Well, they can coprescribe naloxone to folks on high morphine milligram equivalents (MME) who are at risk. If grandma has naloxone at home and her grandson overdoses in the garage, then at least it’s in the same house. Naloxone is not the treatment for the opioid epidemic. But we can’t get someone who is dead into treatment.

I have no illusions that simply making naloxone available is going to turn the tide, but it certainly is an important part of it.
 

Dr. Anderson: From your unique viewpoint, how much progress do you see in relation to the opioid epidemic? Do you think we’re approaching an inflection point, or do you think there’s a long way to go before this starts to turn around?

Dr. Adams: When I talk about the opioid epidemic, I have two angles. No.1, I want to raise awareness about the opioid epidemic – the severity of it, and how everyone can lean into it in their own way. Whether it’s community citizens, providers, law enforcement, the business community, whomever.

But in addition to raising awareness, I want to instill hope.

I was in Huntington, West Virginia, just a few weeks ago at the epicenter of the opioid epidemic. They’ve been able to turn their opioid overdose rates around by providing peer recovery coaches to individuals and making sure naloxone is available throughout the community. You save the life and then you connect them to care.

We know that the folks who are at highest risk for overdose deaths are the ones who just overdosed. They come out of the ER where we’ve watched them for a few hours and then we send them right back out into the arms of the drug dealer to do exactly what we know they will do medically because we’ve thrown them into withdrawal and they try to get their next fix.

If we can partner with law enforcement, then we can turn our opioid overdose rates around.

A story of recovery that I want to share with you is about a guy named Jonathan, who I met when I was in Rhode Island.

Jonathan overdosed, but his roommate had access to naloxone, which he administered. Jonathan was taken to the ER and then connected with a peer recovery coach. He is now in recovery and has actually become a peer recovery coach himself. Saving this one life will now enable us to save many more.

Yet we still prescribe more than 80% of the world’s opioids to less than 5% of the world’s population. So, we still have an overprescribing epidemic, but we’ve surpassed the inflection point there. Prescribing is coming down.

But another part of this epidemic was that we squeezed the balloon in one place and, as prescribing opioids went down, lots of people switched over to heroin. That’s when we really first started to see overdose rates go up.

Well, it’s important for folks to know that, through law enforcement, through partnerships with the public health community, through an increase in syringe service programs, and through other touch points, heroin use is now going down in most places.

Unfortunately, now we’re seeing the third wave of the epidemic, and that’s fentanyl and carfentanil.






 

For the first time ever, on March 7, 2019, tens of thousands of hospitalists across the United States and around the world will celebrate their day, National Hospitalist Day.

On this day, we will honor the hard work and dedication of hospitalists in the care of millions of hospitalized patients. With more than 62,000 hospitalists across the United States, hospital medicine has been the fastest growing medical specialty and among the largest of all specialties in medicine. Hospitalists now lead clinical care in over 75% of U.S. hospitals, caring for patients in their communities. We educate the future providers of health care by serving as teachers and mentors. We push the boundaries of science in hospital care through innovative research that defines the evidence-based practices for our field. Hospitalists, proudly celebrate all that we have accomplished together on March 7, and moving forward, every first Thursday in March annually.

The Society for Hospital Medicine’s celebration of National Hospitalist Day will include spotlights on hospitalists, a social medical campaign, downloadable customizable posters, and much more. Stay tuned for details!

Attend the only meeting designed just for you

Be among the thousands of hospitalists who will celebrate hospital medicine in person at Hospital Medicine 2019 (HM19), March 24-27 in National Harbor, Md.

While at HM19, check out more than 20 educational tracks, including clinical updates, diagnostic reasoning, and health policy. New this year are two mini tracks: “Between the Guidelines” and “Clinical Mastery”. Between the Guidelines explores how we can address some of the most challenging cases we encounter in hospital medicine, where clear guidelines don’t exist. Clinical Mastery is designed to enhance our bedside diagnostic skills, from ECGs to ultrasounds.

Get ready to vote in HM19’s “The Great Debate” – pairing two talented clinicians who will debate opposing sides of challenging clinical decisions that we encounter on the front lines of health care delivery. Attendees have the opportunity to hear the two sides and then vote on who they believe has the right approach. There are six precourses planned for HM19, with a new offering in Palliative Care and Pain Management. This year, the annual conference also features additional sessions for our NP/PA attendees. They include specific workshops as well as a track that includes 4 didactic sessions. Lastly, HM19 will offer CME, MOC, AOS, AAFP, and Pharmacology credits to address the needs of our attendees.

Looking into the future

While hospitalists are a vital part of U.S. health care, our delivery systems are in transition with greater focus on value-based care. To ensure hospital medicine continues to thrive in today’s dynamic scene, SHM’s Board of Directors held a strategic meeting in October 2018 to focus on the role of hospitalists and hospital medicine in population health management.

There are many hospitalists across the nation who are currently involved in population health management. These range from medical directors to vice presidents of accountable care organizations, population health management, or value-based care. Hospitalists are seeking communities focused on population health management to share best practices and learn from each other. To address this, SHM’s Advocacy and Public Policy HMX community has served as a meeting point to discuss issues related to value-based care. To join the discussion, visit the community by logging in at hospitalmedicine.org/hmx. Furthermore, at HM19, hospitalists will have the opportunity to meet face to face regarding these issues in the Advocacy Special Interest Forum.

Key points: Population health management

• Source of truth

SHM has served as the source of reliable and trusted information about hospital medicine. We will continue to develop content and resources specific to population health management on our website so hospitalists can easily access this information. To increase our awareness about population health management, presenters at HM19 will integrate a slide about the implications of population health management on their clinical topic. These slides will illustrate the clinical and nonclinical services that are necessary to enhance the patient’s quality of care and life. In addition to best practice care, these slides will highlight topics like the role of style modification and prevention, risk stratification, chronic disease management, and care coordination throughout the continuum of care.

• Advocating for us

In addition to providing a home for hospitalists to collaborate regarding population health management, SHM will advance this agenda from a regulatory perspective. The Public Policy and Performance Measurement & Reporting Committees are actively evaluating and leading the transition from value to volume. SHM is also working with potential key partners and organizations in the areas of primary care, skilled nursing facilities, and accountable care organizations that will help improve the effectiveness of delivering population health management.

• Creating expertise

SHM will lead best practice development for tools and skills that are necessary for hospitalists to lead population health management. Telemedicine is an increasingly critical tool as we help manage our patients in other facilities, inpatient or skilled nursing facilities, as well as at home. SHM has developed a white paper about telemedicine in hospital medicine that highlights modalities, offerings, implementation of programs, and work flows necessary for success. You can find it under “Resources” at hospitalmedicine.org/telemedicine.

SHM will continue to actively develop tools that appropriately address the challenges we’re facing. From National Hospitalist Day to population health management, this is an exciting time in hospital medicine – I hope to see you at HM19 to celebrate our specialty and our bright future.

Dr. Afsar is president of the Society of Hospital Medicine, and chief ambulatory officer and chief medical officer for accountable care organizations at UC Irvine Health.

For the first time ever, on March 7, 2019, tens of thousands of hospitalists across the United States and around the world will celebrate their day, National Hospitalist Day.

On this day, we will honor the hard work and dedication of hospitalists in the care of millions of hospitalized patients. With more than 62,000 hospitalists across the United States, hospital medicine has been the fastest growing medical specialty and among the largest of all specialties in medicine. Hospitalists now lead clinical care in over 75% of U.S. hospitals, caring for patients in their communities. We educate the future providers of health care by serving as teachers and mentors. We push the boundaries of science in hospital care through innovative research that defines the evidence-based practices for our field. Hospitalists, proudly celebrate all that we have accomplished together on March 7, and moving forward, every first Thursday in March annually.

The Society for Hospital Medicine’s celebration of National Hospitalist Day will include spotlights on hospitalists, a social medical campaign, downloadable customizable posters, and much more. Stay tuned for details!

Attend the only meeting designed just for you

Be among the thousands of hospitalists who will celebrate hospital medicine in person at Hospital Medicine 2019 (HM19), March 24-27 in National Harbor, Md.

While at HM19, check out more than 20 educational tracks, including clinical updates, diagnostic reasoning, and health policy. New this year are two mini tracks: “Between the Guidelines” and “Clinical Mastery”. Between the Guidelines explores how we can address some of the most challenging cases we encounter in hospital medicine, where clear guidelines don’t exist. Clinical Mastery is designed to enhance our bedside diagnostic skills, from ECGs to ultrasounds.

Get ready to vote in HM19’s “The Great Debate” – pairing two talented clinicians who will debate opposing sides of challenging clinical decisions that we encounter on the front lines of health care delivery. Attendees have the opportunity to hear the two sides and then vote on who they believe has the right approach. There are six precourses planned for HM19, with a new offering in Palliative Care and Pain Management. This year, the annual conference also features additional sessions for our NP/PA attendees. They include specific workshops as well as a track that includes 4 didactic sessions. Lastly, HM19 will offer CME, MOC, AOS, AAFP, and Pharmacology credits to address the needs of our attendees.

Looking into the future

While hospitalists are a vital part of U.S. health care, our delivery systems are in transition with greater focus on value-based care. To ensure hospital medicine continues to thrive in today’s dynamic scene, SHM’s Board of Directors held a strategic meeting in October 2018 to focus on the role of hospitalists and hospital medicine in population health management.

There are many hospitalists across the nation who are currently involved in population health management. These range from medical directors to vice presidents of accountable care organizations, population health management, or value-based care. Hospitalists are seeking communities focused on population health management to share best practices and learn from each other. To address this, SHM’s Advocacy and Public Policy HMX community has served as a meeting point to discuss issues related to value-based care. To join the discussion, visit the community by logging in at hospitalmedicine.org/hmx. Furthermore, at HM19, hospitalists will have the opportunity to meet face to face regarding these issues in the Advocacy Special Interest Forum.

Key points: Population health management

• Source of truth

SHM has served as the source of reliable and trusted information about hospital medicine. We will continue to develop content and resources specific to population health management on our website so hospitalists can easily access this information. To increase our awareness about population health management, presenters at HM19 will integrate a slide about the implications of population health management on their clinical topic. These slides will illustrate the clinical and nonclinical services that are necessary to enhance the patient’s quality of care and life. In addition to best practice care, these slides will highlight topics like the role of style modification and prevention, risk stratification, chronic disease management, and care coordination throughout the continuum of care.

• Advocating for us

In addition to providing a home for hospitalists to collaborate regarding population health management, SHM will advance this agenda from a regulatory perspective. The Public Policy and Performance Measurement & Reporting Committees are actively evaluating and leading the transition from value to volume. SHM is also working with potential key partners and organizations in the areas of primary care, skilled nursing facilities, and accountable care organizations that will help improve the effectiveness of delivering population health management.

• Creating expertise

SHM will lead best practice development for tools and skills that are necessary for hospitalists to lead population health management. Telemedicine is an increasingly critical tool as we help manage our patients in other facilities, inpatient or skilled nursing facilities, as well as at home. SHM has developed a white paper about telemedicine in hospital medicine that highlights modalities, offerings, implementation of programs, and work flows necessary for success. You can find it under “Resources” at hospitalmedicine.org/telemedicine.

SHM will continue to actively develop tools that appropriately address the challenges we’re facing. From National Hospitalist Day to population health management, this is an exciting time in hospital medicine – I hope to see you at HM19 to celebrate our specialty and our bright future.

Dr. Afsar is president of the Society of Hospital Medicine, and chief ambulatory officer and chief medical officer for accountable care organizations at UC Irvine Health.

For the first time ever, on March 7, 2019, tens of thousands of hospitalists across the United States and around the world will celebrate their day, National Hospitalist Day.

On this day, we will honor the hard work and dedication of hospitalists in the care of millions of hospitalized patients. With more than 62,000 hospitalists across the United States, hospital medicine has been the fastest growing medical specialty and among the largest of all specialties in medicine. Hospitalists now lead clinical care in over 75% of U.S. hospitals, caring for patients in their communities. We educate the future providers of health care by serving as teachers and mentors. We push the boundaries of science in hospital care through innovative research that defines the evidence-based practices for our field. Hospitalists, proudly celebrate all that we have accomplished together on March 7, and moving forward, every first Thursday in March annually.

The Society for Hospital Medicine’s celebration of National Hospitalist Day will include spotlights on hospitalists, a social medical campaign, downloadable customizable posters, and much more. Stay tuned for details!

Attend the only meeting designed just for you

Be among the thousands of hospitalists who will celebrate hospital medicine in person at Hospital Medicine 2019 (HM19), March 24-27 in National Harbor, Md.

While at HM19, check out more than 20 educational tracks, including clinical updates, diagnostic reasoning, and health policy. New this year are two mini tracks: “Between the Guidelines” and “Clinical Mastery”. Between the Guidelines explores how we can address some of the most challenging cases we encounter in hospital medicine, where clear guidelines don’t exist. Clinical Mastery is designed to enhance our bedside diagnostic skills, from ECGs to ultrasounds.

Get ready to vote in HM19’s “The Great Debate” – pairing two talented clinicians who will debate opposing sides of challenging clinical decisions that we encounter on the front lines of health care delivery. Attendees have the opportunity to hear the two sides and then vote on who they believe has the right approach. There are six precourses planned for HM19, with a new offering in Palliative Care and Pain Management. This year, the annual conference also features additional sessions for our NP/PA attendees. They include specific workshops as well as a track that includes 4 didactic sessions. Lastly, HM19 will offer CME, MOC, AOS, AAFP, and Pharmacology credits to address the needs of our attendees.

Looking into the future

While hospitalists are a vital part of U.S. health care, our delivery systems are in transition with greater focus on value-based care. To ensure hospital medicine continues to thrive in today’s dynamic scene, SHM’s Board of Directors held a strategic meeting in October 2018 to focus on the role of hospitalists and hospital medicine in population health management.

There are many hospitalists across the nation who are currently involved in population health management. These range from medical directors to vice presidents of accountable care organizations, population health management, or value-based care. Hospitalists are seeking communities focused on population health management to share best practices and learn from each other. To address this, SHM’s Advocacy and Public Policy HMX community has served as a meeting point to discuss issues related to value-based care. To join the discussion, visit the community by logging in at hospitalmedicine.org/hmx. Furthermore, at HM19, hospitalists will have the opportunity to meet face to face regarding these issues in the Advocacy Special Interest Forum.

Key points: Population health management

• Source of truth

SHM has served as the source of reliable and trusted information about hospital medicine. We will continue to develop content and resources specific to population health management on our website so hospitalists can easily access this information. To increase our awareness about population health management, presenters at HM19 will integrate a slide about the implications of population health management on their clinical topic. These slides will illustrate the clinical and nonclinical services that are necessary to enhance the patient’s quality of care and life. In addition to best practice care, these slides will highlight topics like the role of style modification and prevention, risk stratification, chronic disease management, and care coordination throughout the continuum of care.

• Advocating for us

In addition to providing a home for hospitalists to collaborate regarding population health management, SHM will advance this agenda from a regulatory perspective. The Public Policy and Performance Measurement & Reporting Committees are actively evaluating and leading the transition from value to volume. SHM is also working with potential key partners and organizations in the areas of primary care, skilled nursing facilities, and accountable care organizations that will help improve the effectiveness of delivering population health management.

• Creating expertise

SHM will lead best practice development for tools and skills that are necessary for hospitalists to lead population health management. Telemedicine is an increasingly critical tool as we help manage our patients in other facilities, inpatient or skilled nursing facilities, as well as at home. SHM has developed a white paper about telemedicine in hospital medicine that highlights modalities, offerings, implementation of programs, and work flows necessary for success. You can find it under “Resources” at hospitalmedicine.org/telemedicine.

SHM will continue to actively develop tools that appropriately address the challenges we’re facing. From National Hospitalist Day to population health management, this is an exciting time in hospital medicine – I hope to see you at HM19 to celebrate our specialty and our bright future.

Dr. Afsar is president of the Society of Hospital Medicine, and chief ambulatory officer and chief medical officer for accountable care organizations at UC Irvine Health.

Inflation in existing drugs’ prices and the debut of new drugs are both contributing to the overall rising costs of pharmaceuticals.

Kenishirotie/Thinkstock

According to new research, the costs of oral and injectable brand-name drugs increased annually during 2008-2016 by 9.2% and 15.1%, respectively, largely driven by existing drug prices.

For oral and injectable specialty drugs, costs increased 20.6% and 12.5%, respectively, with 71.1% and 52.4% attributable to new drugs. Costs of oral and injectable generic drugs grew by 4.4% and 7.3%, also driven by entrants into the market.

Researchers looked at monthly wholesale acquisition costs of 24,877 National Drug Codes for oral drugs and 3,049 injectable drugs from 2005 to 2016. They compared them with pharmacy claims from the UPMC Health Plan, which offers insurance products to more than 3.2 million members across the spectrum of private and public arenas.

“Our analyses yielded three main findings,” explained Inmaculada Hernandez, PharmD, PhD, University of Pittsburgh, and her colleagues in a report published in the January 2019 issue of Health Affairs.

“First, costs increased considerably faster than inflation across all drug classes, and increases were highest for oral specialty drugs and lowest for oral generics,” Dr. Hernandez and her colleagues wrote.

“Second, rising costs of brand-name drugs were driven by inflation in the prices of widely used existing drugs,” they added. A combination of new products and price inflation in existing drugs drove the rising costs of specialty drugs, with new drugs accounting for a larger share of the price increases.

Third, “existing generics tended to decrease the average cost of generic drugs,” Dr. Hernandez noted. However, new generic products cost more than those already on the market, which fueled the annual increases in average costs.

The authors noted that their estimates demonstrate the role of inflation on pharmaceutical cost increases and support policy efforts to control that inflation.

“In the current value-based landscape, increasing drug costs attributable to new products can sometimes be justified on the basis of improved outcomes,” Dr. Hernandez and colleagues stated. “However, rising costs due to inflation do not reflect improved value for patients.”

The researchers noted that the data are limited by the lack of rebate information, which is generally proprietary. Thus, “the contribution of existing drugs may have been lower than we estimated,” they noted. In addition, “because the magnitude of rebates has increased in the past decade, our findings likely overestimated cost increases for brand-name drugs.” The researchers also didn’t examine the effect of drugs transitioning from brand to generic offerings.

The authors provided no disclosures.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hernandez I et al. Health Aff (Millwood). 2019 Jan 2019. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05147.

Inflation in existing drugs’ prices and the debut of new drugs are both contributing to the overall rising costs of pharmaceuticals.

Kenishirotie/Thinkstock

According to new research, the costs of oral and injectable brand-name drugs increased annually during 2008-2016 by 9.2% and 15.1%, respectively, largely driven by existing drug prices.

For oral and injectable specialty drugs, costs increased 20.6% and 12.5%, respectively, with 71.1% and 52.4% attributable to new drugs. Costs of oral and injectable generic drugs grew by 4.4% and 7.3%, also driven by entrants into the market.

Researchers looked at monthly wholesale acquisition costs of 24,877 National Drug Codes for oral drugs and 3,049 injectable drugs from 2005 to 2016. They compared them with pharmacy claims from the UPMC Health Plan, which offers insurance products to more than 3.2 million members across the spectrum of private and public arenas.

“Our analyses yielded three main findings,” explained Inmaculada Hernandez, PharmD, PhD, University of Pittsburgh, and her colleagues in a report published in the January 2019 issue of Health Affairs.

“First, costs increased considerably faster than inflation across all drug classes, and increases were highest for oral specialty drugs and lowest for oral generics,” Dr. Hernandez and her colleagues wrote.

“Second, rising costs of brand-name drugs were driven by inflation in the prices of widely used existing drugs,” they added. A combination of new products and price inflation in existing drugs drove the rising costs of specialty drugs, with new drugs accounting for a larger share of the price increases.

Third, “existing generics tended to decrease the average cost of generic drugs,” Dr. Hernandez noted. However, new generic products cost more than those already on the market, which fueled the annual increases in average costs.

The authors noted that their estimates demonstrate the role of inflation on pharmaceutical cost increases and support policy efforts to control that inflation.

“In the current value-based landscape, increasing drug costs attributable to new products can sometimes be justified on the basis of improved outcomes,” Dr. Hernandez and colleagues stated. “However, rising costs due to inflation do not reflect improved value for patients.”

The researchers noted that the data are limited by the lack of rebate information, which is generally proprietary. Thus, “the contribution of existing drugs may have been lower than we estimated,” they noted. In addition, “because the magnitude of rebates has increased in the past decade, our findings likely overestimated cost increases for brand-name drugs.” The researchers also didn’t examine the effect of drugs transitioning from brand to generic offerings.

The authors provided no disclosures.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hernandez I et al. Health Aff (Millwood). 2019 Jan 2019. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05147.

Inflation in existing drugs’ prices and the debut of new drugs are both contributing to the overall rising costs of pharmaceuticals.

Kenishirotie/Thinkstock

According to new research, the costs of oral and injectable brand-name drugs increased annually during 2008-2016 by 9.2% and 15.1%, respectively, largely driven by existing drug prices.

For oral and injectable specialty drugs, costs increased 20.6% and 12.5%, respectively, with 71.1% and 52.4% attributable to new drugs. Costs of oral and injectable generic drugs grew by 4.4% and 7.3%, also driven by entrants into the market.

Researchers looked at monthly wholesale acquisition costs of 24,877 National Drug Codes for oral drugs and 3,049 injectable drugs from 2005 to 2016. They compared them with pharmacy claims from the UPMC Health Plan, which offers insurance products to more than 3.2 million members across the spectrum of private and public arenas.

“Our analyses yielded three main findings,” explained Inmaculada Hernandez, PharmD, PhD, University of Pittsburgh, and her colleagues in a report published in the January 2019 issue of Health Affairs.

“First, costs increased considerably faster than inflation across all drug classes, and increases were highest for oral specialty drugs and lowest for oral generics,” Dr. Hernandez and her colleagues wrote.

“Second, rising costs of brand-name drugs were driven by inflation in the prices of widely used existing drugs,” they added. A combination of new products and price inflation in existing drugs drove the rising costs of specialty drugs, with new drugs accounting for a larger share of the price increases.

Third, “existing generics tended to decrease the average cost of generic drugs,” Dr. Hernandez noted. However, new generic products cost more than those already on the market, which fueled the annual increases in average costs.

The authors noted that their estimates demonstrate the role of inflation on pharmaceutical cost increases and support policy efforts to control that inflation.

“In the current value-based landscape, increasing drug costs attributable to new products can sometimes be justified on the basis of improved outcomes,” Dr. Hernandez and colleagues stated. “However, rising costs due to inflation do not reflect improved value for patients.”

The researchers noted that the data are limited by the lack of rebate information, which is generally proprietary. Thus, “the contribution of existing drugs may have been lower than we estimated,” they noted. In addition, “because the magnitude of rebates has increased in the past decade, our findings likely overestimated cost increases for brand-name drugs.” The researchers also didn’t examine the effect of drugs transitioning from brand to generic offerings.

The authors provided no disclosures.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hernandez I et al. Health Aff (Millwood). 2019 Jan 2019. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05147.

Data security experts say three HIPAA violations that resulted in significant fines by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in 2018 hold important lessons for health professionals about safeguarding records and training staff in HIPAA compliance.

Read on to learn how the cases unfolded and what knowledge practices can gain from the common HIPAA mistakes.

Who? Allergy Associates of Hartford, Conn.

What happened? A patient contacted a local television station to complain about a dispute between herself and a physician at Allergy Associates in Hartford, Conn. The disagreement stemmed from the office turning away the patient because she allegedly brought her service animal, according to a Nov. 26 announcement by the Department of Health & Human Services. The reporter contacted the doctor in question for a news story and, in responding, the physician disclosed protected patient information to the reporter.

razihusin/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Lessons learned: Had the practice disciplined the physician or taken corrective action after the disclosure, the OCR may not have penalized the group so severely, according to Jennifer Mitchell, a Cincinnati-based health law attorney and vice chair of the American Bar Association eHealth, Privacy, & Security Interest Group.

“In my opinion, the government levied these penalties because the provider did not sanction the doctor,” Ms. Mitchell said in an interview. “Health care entities need to take proper steps to remediate and, at a minimum, hold their workforce responsible for their behavior and ensure that it won’t happen again.”

The case emphasizes the need to train team members on media protocols and to ensure that protected health information is not mistakenly released. In addition to implementing policies and procedures, practices must also be willing to discipline health professionals when violations occur.

“A health care provider’s natural inclination is to defend themselves if they are being accused by a patient,” she said. “However, under the HIPAA rules, health care providers have to understand that they are prohibited from making such public statements about any patient.”

Who? Advanced Care Hospitalists of Lakeland, Fla.
 

What happened? Advanced Care Hospitalists (ACH) received billing services from an individual who represented himself to be affiliated with a Florida-based company named Doctor’s First Choice Billing. A local hospital later notified ACH that patient information, including names and Social Security numbers, were viewable on the First Choice website. ACH identified at least 400 patients affected by the breach and reported the breach to the OCR. However, ACH later determined that an additional 8,855 patients may have been affected and revised its OCR notification.

Kameleon007/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Under HIPAA, a business associate is defined as a person or entity, other than a member of the workforce of a covered entity, who “performs functions or activities on behalf of, or provides certain services to, a covered entity that involve access by the business associate to protected health information.”

HIPAA requires that covered entities enter into contracts with business associates to ensure appropriate safeguarding of protected health information.

“If your business associate has a breach, your practice must report the breach to OCR and your patients,” Mr. Mikel said in an interview. “The OCR will then investigate your practice and your relationship with the business associate. Just because the breach and fault clearly happened elsewhere, you will still be investigated, and could face a penalty if HIPAA requirements weren’t met.”

Who? Filefax of Northbrook, Ill.
 

What happened? The OCR opened an investigation after receiving an anonymous complaint that medical records obtained from Filefax, a company that provided storage, maintenance, and delivery of medical records for health professionals, were left unmonitored at a shredding and recycling facility. OCR’s investigation revealed that a person left the records of 2,150 patients at the recycling plant and that the records contained protected health information, according to an HHS announcement. It is unclear if the person worked for Filefax.

MarkLevant/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“[Such a case is] ripe for a patient to complain to OCR,” he said. “OCR doesn’t care if you’re closed or retired, they’re going to look.”

HIPAA requires thatcovered entities apply appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect the privacy of protected health information in any form when moving or closing. The safeguards must prevent prohibited uses and disclosures of protected health information in connection with the disposal of such information, according to the rule. The HHS provides guidance for the disposing of medical records; further, the American Academy of Family Physicians has created a checklist on closing a practice that addresses the transferring of medical records.

Without taking the correct measures, doctors may end up drawing scrutiny from OCR and face a potential fine if violations are found, experts said.

“Covered entities and business associates need to be aware that OCR is committed to enforcing HIPAA regardless of whether a covered entity is opening its doors or closing them,” Mr. Severino of the OCR said in a statement. “HIPAA still applies.”

Data security experts say three HIPAA violations that resulted in significant fines by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in 2018 hold important lessons for health professionals about safeguarding records and training staff in HIPAA compliance.

Read on to learn how the cases unfolded and what knowledge practices can gain from the common HIPAA mistakes.

Who? Allergy Associates of Hartford, Conn.

What happened? A patient contacted a local television station to complain about a dispute between herself and a physician at Allergy Associates in Hartford, Conn. The disagreement stemmed from the office turning away the patient because she allegedly brought her service animal, according to a Nov. 26 announcement by the Department of Health & Human Services. The reporter contacted the doctor in question for a news story and, in responding, the physician disclosed protected patient information to the reporter.

razihusin/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Lessons learned: Had the practice disciplined the physician or taken corrective action after the disclosure, the OCR may not have penalized the group so severely, according to Jennifer Mitchell, a Cincinnati-based health law attorney and vice chair of the American Bar Association eHealth, Privacy, & Security Interest Group.

“In my opinion, the government levied these penalties because the provider did not sanction the doctor,” Ms. Mitchell said in an interview. “Health care entities need to take proper steps to remediate and, at a minimum, hold their workforce responsible for their behavior and ensure that it won’t happen again.”

The case emphasizes the need to train team members on media protocols and to ensure that protected health information is not mistakenly released. In addition to implementing policies and procedures, practices must also be willing to discipline health professionals when violations occur.

“A health care provider’s natural inclination is to defend themselves if they are being accused by a patient,” she said. “However, under the HIPAA rules, health care providers have to understand that they are prohibited from making such public statements about any patient.”

Who? Advanced Care Hospitalists of Lakeland, Fla.
 

What happened? Advanced Care Hospitalists (ACH) received billing services from an individual who represented himself to be affiliated with a Florida-based company named Doctor’s First Choice Billing. A local hospital later notified ACH that patient information, including names and Social Security numbers, were viewable on the First Choice website. ACH identified at least 400 patients affected by the breach and reported the breach to the OCR. However, ACH later determined that an additional 8,855 patients may have been affected and revised its OCR notification.

Kameleon007/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Under HIPAA, a business associate is defined as a person or entity, other than a member of the workforce of a covered entity, who “performs functions or activities on behalf of, or provides certain services to, a covered entity that involve access by the business associate to protected health information.”

HIPAA requires that covered entities enter into contracts with business associates to ensure appropriate safeguarding of protected health information.

“If your business associate has a breach, your practice must report the breach to OCR and your patients,” Mr. Mikel said in an interview. “The OCR will then investigate your practice and your relationship with the business associate. Just because the breach and fault clearly happened elsewhere, you will still be investigated, and could face a penalty if HIPAA requirements weren’t met.”

Who? Filefax of Northbrook, Ill.
 

What happened? The OCR opened an investigation after receiving an anonymous complaint that medical records obtained from Filefax, a company that provided storage, maintenance, and delivery of medical records for health professionals, were left unmonitored at a shredding and recycling facility. OCR’s investigation revealed that a person left the records of 2,150 patients at the recycling plant and that the records contained protected health information, according to an HHS announcement. It is unclear if the person worked for Filefax.

MarkLevant/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“[Such a case is] ripe for a patient to complain to OCR,” he said. “OCR doesn’t care if you’re closed or retired, they’re going to look.”

HIPAA requires thatcovered entities apply appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect the privacy of protected health information in any form when moving or closing. The safeguards must prevent prohibited uses and disclosures of protected health information in connection with the disposal of such information, according to the rule. The HHS provides guidance for the disposing of medical records; further, the American Academy of Family Physicians has created a checklist on closing a practice that addresses the transferring of medical records.

Without taking the correct measures, doctors may end up drawing scrutiny from OCR and face a potential fine if violations are found, experts said.

“Covered entities and business associates need to be aware that OCR is committed to enforcing HIPAA regardless of whether a covered entity is opening its doors or closing them,” Mr. Severino of the OCR said in a statement. “HIPAA still applies.”

Data security experts say three HIPAA violations that resulted in significant fines by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in 2018 hold important lessons for health professionals about safeguarding records and training staff in HIPAA compliance.

Read on to learn how the cases unfolded and what knowledge practices can gain from the common HIPAA mistakes.

Who? Allergy Associates of Hartford, Conn.

What happened? A patient contacted a local television station to complain about a dispute between herself and a physician at Allergy Associates in Hartford, Conn. The disagreement stemmed from the office turning away the patient because she allegedly brought her service animal, according to a Nov. 26 announcement by the Department of Health & Human Services. The reporter contacted the doctor in question for a news story and, in responding, the physician disclosed protected patient information to the reporter.

razihusin/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Lessons learned: Had the practice disciplined the physician or taken corrective action after the disclosure, the OCR may not have penalized the group so severely, according to Jennifer Mitchell, a Cincinnati-based health law attorney and vice chair of the American Bar Association eHealth, Privacy, & Security Interest Group.

“In my opinion, the government levied these penalties because the provider did not sanction the doctor,” Ms. Mitchell said in an interview. “Health care entities need to take proper steps to remediate and, at a minimum, hold their workforce responsible for their behavior and ensure that it won’t happen again.”

The case emphasizes the need to train team members on media protocols and to ensure that protected health information is not mistakenly released. In addition to implementing policies and procedures, practices must also be willing to discipline health professionals when violations occur.

“A health care provider’s natural inclination is to defend themselves if they are being accused by a patient,” she said. “However, under the HIPAA rules, health care providers have to understand that they are prohibited from making such public statements about any patient.”

Who? Advanced Care Hospitalists of Lakeland, Fla.
 

What happened? Advanced Care Hospitalists (ACH) received billing services from an individual who represented himself to be affiliated with a Florida-based company named Doctor’s First Choice Billing. A local hospital later notified ACH that patient information, including names and Social Security numbers, were viewable on the First Choice website. ACH identified at least 400 patients affected by the breach and reported the breach to the OCR. However, ACH later determined that an additional 8,855 patients may have been affected and revised its OCR notification.

Kameleon007/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Under HIPAA, a business associate is defined as a person or entity, other than a member of the workforce of a covered entity, who “performs functions or activities on behalf of, or provides certain services to, a covered entity that involve access by the business associate to protected health information.”

HIPAA requires that covered entities enter into contracts with business associates to ensure appropriate safeguarding of protected health information.

“If your business associate has a breach, your practice must report the breach to OCR and your patients,” Mr. Mikel said in an interview. “The OCR will then investigate your practice and your relationship with the business associate. Just because the breach and fault clearly happened elsewhere, you will still be investigated, and could face a penalty if HIPAA requirements weren’t met.”

Who? Filefax of Northbrook, Ill.
 

What happened? The OCR opened an investigation after receiving an anonymous complaint that medical records obtained from Filefax, a company that provided storage, maintenance, and delivery of medical records for health professionals, were left unmonitored at a shredding and recycling facility. OCR’s investigation revealed that a person left the records of 2,150 patients at the recycling plant and that the records contained protected health information, according to an HHS announcement. It is unclear if the person worked for Filefax.

MarkLevant/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“[Such a case is] ripe for a patient to complain to OCR,” he said. “OCR doesn’t care if you’re closed or retired, they’re going to look.”

HIPAA requires thatcovered entities apply appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect the privacy of protected health information in any form when moving or closing. The safeguards must prevent prohibited uses and disclosures of protected health information in connection with the disposal of such information, according to the rule. The HHS provides guidance for the disposing of medical records; further, the American Academy of Family Physicians has created a checklist on closing a practice that addresses the transferring of medical records.

Without taking the correct measures, doctors may end up drawing scrutiny from OCR and face a potential fine if violations are found, experts said.

“Covered entities and business associates need to be aware that OCR is committed to enforcing HIPAA regardless of whether a covered entity is opening its doors or closing them,” Mr. Severino of the OCR said in a statement. “HIPAA still applies.”

Do food delivery programs reduce the use of costly health services and decrease medical spending in a population of patients dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid?

Researchers in Massachusetts wanted to determine whether home meal delivery of either medically tailored food or nontailored food reduces the use of selected health care services and medical spending in a sample of adult “dual eligibles.”

“Compared with matched nonparticipants, participants had fewer emergency department visits in both the medically tailored meal program and the nontailored food program,” the investigators found. “Participants in the medically tailored meal program also had fewer inpatient admissions and lower medical spending. Participation in the nontailored food program was not associated with fewer inpatient admissions but was associated with lower medical spending.”
 

Reference

Berkowitz SA et al. Meal delivery programs reduce the use of costly health care in dually eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. Health Aff (Millwood). 2018 Apr;37(4):535-42.

Do food delivery programs reduce the use of costly health services and decrease medical spending in a population of patients dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid?

Researchers in Massachusetts wanted to determine whether home meal delivery of either medically tailored food or nontailored food reduces the use of selected health care services and medical spending in a sample of adult “dual eligibles.”

“Compared with matched nonparticipants, participants had fewer emergency department visits in both the medically tailored meal program and the nontailored food program,” the investigators found. “Participants in the medically tailored meal program also had fewer inpatient admissions and lower medical spending. Participation in the nontailored food program was not associated with fewer inpatient admissions but was associated with lower medical spending.”
 

Reference

Berkowitz SA et al. Meal delivery programs reduce the use of costly health care in dually eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. Health Aff (Millwood). 2018 Apr;37(4):535-42.

Do food delivery programs reduce the use of costly health services and decrease medical spending in a population of patients dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid?

Researchers in Massachusetts wanted to determine whether home meal delivery of either medically tailored food or nontailored food reduces the use of selected health care services and medical spending in a sample of adult “dual eligibles.”

“Compared with matched nonparticipants, participants had fewer emergency department visits in both the medically tailored meal program and the nontailored food program,” the investigators found. “Participants in the medically tailored meal program also had fewer inpatient admissions and lower medical spending. Participation in the nontailored food program was not associated with fewer inpatient admissions but was associated with lower medical spending.”
 

Reference

Berkowitz SA et al. Meal delivery programs reduce the use of costly health care in dually eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. Health Aff (Millwood). 2018 Apr;37(4):535-42.

A group of internists is suing the American Board of Internal Medicine over its maintenance of certification (MOC) process, alleging that the board is monopolizing the MOC market.

jsmith/iStockphoto

The lawsuit, filed Dec. 6 in Pennsylvania district court, claims that ABIM is charging inflated monopoly prices for maintaining certification, that the organization is forcing physicians to purchase MOC, and that ABIM is inducing employers and others to require ABIM certification. The four plaintiff-physicians are asking a judge to find ABIM in violation of federal antitrust law and to bar the board from continuing its MOC process. The suit is filed as a class action on behalf of all internists and subspecialists required by ABIM to purchase MOC to maintain their ABIM certifications. The plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief, plus lawsuit and attorney costs arising from ABIM’s alleged antitrust violations.

In a statement, ABIM expressed disappointment at the lawsuit and said the organization will vigorously defend itself, adding that doing so will “consume resources far better dedicated to continuous improvement of its programs.”

ABIM declined to answer questions addressing specific accusations from the lawsuit. However, in an interview, ABIM President Richard Baron, MD, said that “ABIM board-certified physicians have taken the initiative to distinguish themselves. This is a credential that physicians earn. We offer certified physicians the opportunity to demonstrate to the medical community, their peers, and the public that they are current and have special expertise.”

ABIM has not yet filed a formal response to the lawsuit, which was due by Jan. 6. Court documents show that in January, ABIM entered the appearances of four attorneys that will represent the board in the case. From there, discovery and evidence gathering in the case will begin.

Katherine Murray Leisure, MD, an infectious disease specialist based in Plymouth, Mass., is one of the plaintiffs. While she said that she could not comment specifically on the lawsuit, she has written publicly about her ABIM concerns in the past.

In a 2015 letter to Dr. Baron and posted on an anti-MOC website, Dr. Murray outlined a litany of complaints against ABIM’s MOC process and called on the U.S. Congress to investigate ABIM’s financial, legal, and ethical conduct.

“[The American Board of Medical Specialties] and ABIM collected more than $10,000 in fees and lost practice hours every decade from each [diplomate] doing MOC,” Dr. Murray Leisure wrote. “MOC took weeks away from our offices, clinics, patients, families, specialty societies, and individual research. ABMS MOC removed hundreds, perhaps thousands … of America’s best, once board-certified physicians from full hospital careers and earnings whenever [diplomates] did not complete these high-stakes MOC programs. … The righteous and fast solution to such moral, ethical, scientific, and constitutional problems is to end MOC now.”

Plaintiffs Glen Dela Cruz Manalo, MD; Alexa Joshua, MD; and Gerard Kenney, MD, did not return messages seeking comment. When contacted, attorneys for the plaintiffs declined to comment.

The doctors’ 32-page lawsuit characterizes ABIM as an organization motivated by money that has made its MOC process increasingly more burdensome for physicians over the years without evidence that MOC has any beneficial impact on doctors, patients, or the public. Complying with ABIM’s MOC costs internists an average of $23,607 in financial cost and time lost over 10 years, and costs up to $40,495 for some specialists, according to the suit.

The physicians allege that ABIM controls in excess of 95% of the market for MOC of internists, in violation of federal antitrust laws, and that the organization has unlawfully obtained and maintained monopoly power for MOC services.

The board’s illegal tying of its initial certification to its MOC results in burdensome conditions, including “raising the cost of the practice of medicine, constraining the supply of internists thereby harming competition, decreasing the supply of certified internists, and increasing the cost of medical services to patients and consumers,” the suit claims.

The legal challenge details how MOC has personally and professionally impacted each of the four plaintiffs. Dr. Manalo, a gastroenterologist, lost his privileges at St. Vincent Healthcare in Billings, Mont., and was subsequently terminated after he declined to maintain his ABIM certification as a gastroenterologist. In a letter to ABIM, Dr. Manalo wrote that it was “unfair and outright discriminatory that practitioners certified on or after 1990 are the only ones required to certify,” according to the lawsuit. Dr. Manalo later took a position as staff gastroenterologist at Jonathan M. Wainwright Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Walla Walla, Wash., at a substantially reduced salary. He became unemployed in 2017.

Dr. Murray Leisure obtained an initial and lifelong board certification in internal medicine from ABIM in 1984 and an infectious disease certification in 1990. ABlM terminated Dr. Murray’s infectious diseases certification after she failed her MOC examination in 2009, which led to lost privileges at Jordan Hospital in Plymouth, Mass. The loss caused significant damage to Dr. Murray, including lost income, a tarnished reputation, and the lost opportunity to help patients, according to the lawsuit. Jordan Hospital restored her privileges after Dr. Murray passed her MOC examination in 2012.

Dr. Kenney lost a job opportunity with Mount Nittany Physicians Group in State College, Pa., after he declined to renew his ABIM certification in gastroenterology. He is currently a physician with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Seneca, Pa.

That the ABIM website lists him as “not certified,” is misleading, and makes it appear that his initial certifications were revoked due to failure to pass a MOC examination or misconduct, rather than because the certifications lapsed, according to the suit. The description makes Dr. Kenney appear less qualified to patients, hospitals, insurance companies, medical corporations, other employers, and others, he claims.

Dr. Joshua could not renew her consulting and admitting privileges at Detroit Medical Center after she failed an MOC examination in 2014 and became uncertified in internal medicine, according to the suit. In addition, Blue Cross Blue Shield informed Dr. Joshua it would no longer cover her because it required ABIM certification for coverage. She unsuccessfully appealed based on her certification with the National Board of Physicians and Surgeons. As a result of her certification termination, Dr. Joshua can only practice outpatient medicine at Detroit Medical Center.

In an interview, Dr. Baron emphasized the number of modifications made to its MOC process in recent years after responding to physician concerns. This includes an overhaul of the organization’s governance structure to include more than 200 practicing physicians and opening new avenues for physicians to engage in the creation of assessment content that more closely reflects what they see in practice, he said. In addition, ABIM now surveys all specialists to contribute to the exam blueprint review and the creation of the new Item Writing Task Force.

*This story was updated on Feb. 6, 2019.

A group of internists is suing the American Board of Internal Medicine over its maintenance of certification (MOC) process, alleging that the board is monopolizing the MOC market.

jsmith/iStockphoto

The lawsuit, filed Dec. 6 in Pennsylvania district court, claims that ABIM is charging inflated monopoly prices for maintaining certification, that the organization is forcing physicians to purchase MOC, and that ABIM is inducing employers and others to require ABIM certification. The four plaintiff-physicians are asking a judge to find ABIM in violation of federal antitrust law and to bar the board from continuing its MOC process. The suit is filed as a class action on behalf of all internists and subspecialists required by ABIM to purchase MOC to maintain their ABIM certifications. The plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief, plus lawsuit and attorney costs arising from ABIM’s alleged antitrust violations.

In a statement, ABIM expressed disappointment at the lawsuit and said the organization will vigorously defend itself, adding that doing so will “consume resources far better dedicated to continuous improvement of its programs.”

ABIM declined to answer questions addressing specific accusations from the lawsuit. However, in an interview, ABIM President Richard Baron, MD, said that “ABIM board-certified physicians have taken the initiative to distinguish themselves. This is a credential that physicians earn. We offer certified physicians the opportunity to demonstrate to the medical community, their peers, and the public that they are current and have special expertise.”

ABIM has not yet filed a formal response to the lawsuit, which was due by Jan. 6. Court documents show that in January, ABIM entered the appearances of four attorneys that will represent the board in the case. From there, discovery and evidence gathering in the case will begin.

Katherine Murray Leisure, MD, an infectious disease specialist based in Plymouth, Mass., is one of the plaintiffs. While she said that she could not comment specifically on the lawsuit, she has written publicly about her ABIM concerns in the past.

In a 2015 letter to Dr. Baron and posted on an anti-MOC website, Dr. Murray outlined a litany of complaints against ABIM’s MOC process and called on the U.S. Congress to investigate ABIM’s financial, legal, and ethical conduct.

“[The American Board of Medical Specialties] and ABIM collected more than $10,000 in fees and lost practice hours every decade from each [diplomate] doing MOC,” Dr. Murray Leisure wrote. “MOC took weeks away from our offices, clinics, patients, families, specialty societies, and individual research. ABMS MOC removed hundreds, perhaps thousands … of America’s best, once board-certified physicians from full hospital careers and earnings whenever [diplomates] did not complete these high-stakes MOC programs. … The righteous and fast solution to such moral, ethical, scientific, and constitutional problems is to end MOC now.”

Plaintiffs Glen Dela Cruz Manalo, MD; Alexa Joshua, MD; and Gerard Kenney, MD, did not return messages seeking comment. When contacted, attorneys for the plaintiffs declined to comment.

The doctors’ 32-page lawsuit characterizes ABIM as an organization motivated by money that has made its MOC process increasingly more burdensome for physicians over the years without evidence that MOC has any beneficial impact on doctors, patients, or the public. Complying with ABIM’s MOC costs internists an average of $23,607 in financial cost and time lost over 10 years, and costs up to $40,495 for some specialists, according to the suit.

The physicians allege that ABIM controls in excess of 95% of the market for MOC of internists, in violation of federal antitrust laws, and that the organization has unlawfully obtained and maintained monopoly power for MOC services.

The board’s illegal tying of its initial certification to its MOC results in burdensome conditions, including “raising the cost of the practice of medicine, constraining the supply of internists thereby harming competition, decreasing the supply of certified internists, and increasing the cost of medical services to patients and consumers,” the suit claims.

The legal challenge details how MOC has personally and professionally impacted each of the four plaintiffs. Dr. Manalo, a gastroenterologist, lost his privileges at St. Vincent Healthcare in Billings, Mont., and was subsequently terminated after he declined to maintain his ABIM certification as a gastroenterologist. In a letter to ABIM, Dr. Manalo wrote that it was “unfair and outright discriminatory that practitioners certified on or after 1990 are the only ones required to certify,” according to the lawsuit. Dr. Manalo later took a position as staff gastroenterologist at Jonathan M. Wainwright Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Walla Walla, Wash., at a substantially reduced salary. He became unemployed in 2017.

Dr. Murray Leisure obtained an initial and lifelong board certification in internal medicine from ABIM in 1984 and an infectious disease certification in 1990. ABlM terminated Dr. Murray’s infectious diseases certification after she failed her MOC examination in 2009, which led to lost privileges at Jordan Hospital in Plymouth, Mass. The loss caused significant damage to Dr. Murray, including lost income, a tarnished reputation, and the lost opportunity to help patients, according to the lawsuit. Jordan Hospital restored her privileges after Dr. Murray passed her MOC examination in 2012.

Dr. Kenney lost a job opportunity with Mount Nittany Physicians Group in State College, Pa., after he declined to renew his ABIM certification in gastroenterology. He is currently a physician with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Seneca, Pa.

That the ABIM website lists him as “not certified,” is misleading, and makes it appear that his initial certifications were revoked due to failure to pass a MOC examination or misconduct, rather than because the certifications lapsed, according to the suit. The description makes Dr. Kenney appear less qualified to patients, hospitals, insurance companies, medical corporations, other employers, and others, he claims.

Dr. Joshua could not renew her consulting and admitting privileges at Detroit Medical Center after she failed an MOC examination in 2014 and became uncertified in internal medicine, according to the suit. In addition, Blue Cross Blue Shield informed Dr. Joshua it would no longer cover her because it required ABIM certification for coverage. She unsuccessfully appealed based on her certification with the National Board of Physicians and Surgeons. As a result of her certification termination, Dr. Joshua can only practice outpatient medicine at Detroit Medical Center.

In an interview, Dr. Baron emphasized the number of modifications made to its MOC process in recent years after responding to physician concerns. This includes an overhaul of the organization’s governance structure to include more than 200 practicing physicians and opening new avenues for physicians to engage in the creation of assessment content that more closely reflects what they see in practice, he said. In addition, ABIM now surveys all specialists to contribute to the exam blueprint review and the creation of the new Item Writing Task Force.

*This story was updated on Feb. 6, 2019.

A group of internists is suing the American Board of Internal Medicine over its maintenance of certification (MOC) process, alleging that the board is monopolizing the MOC market.

jsmith/iStockphoto

The lawsuit, filed Dec. 6 in Pennsylvania district court, claims that ABIM is charging inflated monopoly prices for maintaining certification, that the organization is forcing physicians to purchase MOC, and that ABIM is inducing employers and others to require ABIM certification. The four plaintiff-physicians are asking a judge to find ABIM in violation of federal antitrust law and to bar the board from continuing its MOC process. The suit is filed as a class action on behalf of all internists and subspecialists required by ABIM to purchase MOC to maintain their ABIM certifications. The plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief, plus lawsuit and attorney costs arising from ABIM’s alleged antitrust violations.

In a statement, ABIM expressed disappointment at the lawsuit and said the organization will vigorously defend itself, adding that doing so will “consume resources far better dedicated to continuous improvement of its programs.”

ABIM declined to answer questions addressing specific accusations from the lawsuit. However, in an interview, ABIM President Richard Baron, MD, said that “ABIM board-certified physicians have taken the initiative to distinguish themselves. This is a credential that physicians earn. We offer certified physicians the opportunity to demonstrate to the medical community, their peers, and the public that they are current and have special expertise.”

ABIM has not yet filed a formal response to the lawsuit, which was due by Jan. 6. Court documents show that in January, ABIM entered the appearances of four attorneys that will represent the board in the case. From there, discovery and evidence gathering in the case will begin.

Katherine Murray Leisure, MD, an infectious disease specialist based in Plymouth, Mass., is one of the plaintiffs. While she said that she could not comment specifically on the lawsuit, she has written publicly about her ABIM concerns in the past.

In a 2015 letter to Dr. Baron and posted on an anti-MOC website, Dr. Murray outlined a litany of complaints against ABIM’s MOC process and called on the U.S. Congress to investigate ABIM’s financial, legal, and ethical conduct.

“[The American Board of Medical Specialties] and ABIM collected more than $10,000 in fees and lost practice hours every decade from each [diplomate] doing MOC,” Dr. Murray Leisure wrote. “MOC took weeks away from our offices, clinics, patients, families, specialty societies, and individual research. ABMS MOC removed hundreds, perhaps thousands … of America’s best, once board-certified physicians from full hospital careers and earnings whenever [diplomates] did not complete these high-stakes MOC programs. … The righteous and fast solution to such moral, ethical, scientific, and constitutional problems is to end MOC now.”

Plaintiffs Glen Dela Cruz Manalo, MD; Alexa Joshua, MD; and Gerard Kenney, MD, did not return messages seeking comment. When contacted, attorneys for the plaintiffs declined to comment.

The doctors’ 32-page lawsuit characterizes ABIM as an organization motivated by money that has made its MOC process increasingly more burdensome for physicians over the years without evidence that MOC has any beneficial impact on doctors, patients, or the public. Complying with ABIM’s MOC costs internists an average of $23,607 in financial cost and time lost over 10 years, and costs up to $40,495 for some specialists, according to the suit.

The physicians allege that ABIM controls in excess of 95% of the market for MOC of internists, in violation of federal antitrust laws, and that the organization has unlawfully obtained and maintained monopoly power for MOC services.

The board’s illegal tying of its initial certification to its MOC results in burdensome conditions, including “raising the cost of the practice of medicine, constraining the supply of internists thereby harming competition, decreasing the supply of certified internists, and increasing the cost of medical services to patients and consumers,” the suit claims.

The legal challenge details how MOC has personally and professionally impacted each of the four plaintiffs. Dr. Manalo, a gastroenterologist, lost his privileges at St. Vincent Healthcare in Billings, Mont., and was subsequently terminated after he declined to maintain his ABIM certification as a gastroenterologist. In a letter to ABIM, Dr. Manalo wrote that it was “unfair and outright discriminatory that practitioners certified on or after 1990 are the only ones required to certify,” according to the lawsuit. Dr. Manalo later took a position as staff gastroenterologist at Jonathan M. Wainwright Memorial Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Walla Walla, Wash., at a substantially reduced salary. He became unemployed in 2017.

Dr. Murray Leisure obtained an initial and lifelong board certification in internal medicine from ABIM in 1984 and an infectious disease certification in 1990. ABlM terminated Dr. Murray’s infectious diseases certification after she failed her MOC examination in 2009, which led to lost privileges at Jordan Hospital in Plymouth, Mass. The loss caused significant damage to Dr. Murray, including lost income, a tarnished reputation, and the lost opportunity to help patients, according to the lawsuit. Jordan Hospital restored her privileges after Dr. Murray passed her MOC examination in 2012.

Dr. Kenney lost a job opportunity with Mount Nittany Physicians Group in State College, Pa., after he declined to renew his ABIM certification in gastroenterology. He is currently a physician with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Seneca, Pa.

That the ABIM website lists him as “not certified,” is misleading, and makes it appear that his initial certifications were revoked due to failure to pass a MOC examination or misconduct, rather than because the certifications lapsed, according to the suit. The description makes Dr. Kenney appear less qualified to patients, hospitals, insurance companies, medical corporations, other employers, and others, he claims.

Dr. Joshua could not renew her consulting and admitting privileges at Detroit Medical Center after she failed an MOC examination in 2014 and became uncertified in internal medicine, according to the suit. In addition, Blue Cross Blue Shield informed Dr. Joshua it would no longer cover her because it required ABIM certification for coverage. She unsuccessfully appealed based on her certification with the National Board of Physicians and Surgeons. As a result of her certification termination, Dr. Joshua can only practice outpatient medicine at Detroit Medical Center.

In an interview, Dr. Baron emphasized the number of modifications made to its MOC process in recent years after responding to physician concerns. This includes an overhaul of the organization’s governance structure to include more than 200 practicing physicians and opening new avenues for physicians to engage in the creation of assessment content that more closely reflects what they see in practice, he said. In addition, ABIM now surveys all specialists to contribute to the exam blueprint review and the creation of the new Item Writing Task Force.

*This story was updated on Feb. 6, 2019.

A new federal proposal aims to move you away from the keyboard and back face-to-face with your patients.

The draft strategy from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT has three aims: to reduce the time and effort to record information in EHRs; to reduce the time and effort required to meet regulatory requirements; and to improve the functionality and ease of use of EHRs.

“This draft strategy includes recommendations that will allow physicians and other clinicians to provide effective care to their patients with a renewed sense of satisfaction for them and their patients,” Andrew Gettinger, MD, chief clinical officer at ONC, and Kate Goodrich, MD, chief medical officer at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, wrote in a recent blog post. “We are taking one more step toward improving the interoperability and usability of health information by establishing a goal, strategy, and recommendations to reduce regulatory and administrative burdens relating to the use of EHRs.”

To ease documentation burdens, the proposal seeks to “mitigate the EHR-related burden associated with a variety of administrative processes,” the draft strategy notes. “We are considering how reforming certain administrative requirements or optimizing out-of-date requirements for health IT–enabled health care provider work flows can reduce the burden of clinical documentation.”

Specifically, ONC proposes to reduce the overall regulatory burden, leverage data present in the electronic record to reduce the redocumentation, waive certain documentation requirements for participants in advanced alternative payment models (APMs), and promote standardized documentation for ordering and prior authorization.

To improve health IT usability, the draft strategy aims to “address how improvements in the design and use of health IT systems” can reduce burden and calls on clinicians, software developers, and other vendors to collaborate.

To do so, ONC recommends better alignment between EHR design and clinical work flow and making improvements to clinical decision support, as well as improving the presentation of clinical data within EHRs and clinical documentation functionality.

ONC also recommends standardizing basic clinical operations across all EHRs, designing EHR interfaces that are standard to health care delivery, and better integration of the EHR with the exam room.

The draft strategy also includes recommendations to help doctors better understand the financial requirements for successful implementation and optimize the log-in procedures to help reduce burden.

thinkstockphotos.com

EHR reporting strategies “are designed to address many of the programmatic, technical, and operational challenges raised by stakeholders to reduce EHR-related burden associated with program reporting.”

ONC wants to simplify scoring for the “promoting interoperability” performance category in the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) track of the Quality Payment Program and improving other measures of health IT usage; applying additional data standards to make data access, extraction, and integration across multiple systems easier and less costly; and exploring alternate, less burdensome approaches to electronic quality measurement through pilot programs and reporting program incentives.

Finally, public health reporting strategies “look at a set of topics linked to federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal government policies and public health programs, with a specific focus on EPCS [electronic prescribing for controlled substances] and PDMPs [prescription drug monitoring programs]. Where EHR-related burden remains a key barrier to progress in these areas, there are several recommendations for how stakeholders can advance these burden reduction goals related to public health.”

In this area, ONC is recommending increasing adoption of e-prescribing of controlled substances with access to medication history to better inform prescribing of controlled substances, harmonizing reporting requirements across federally funded programs to streamline reporting requirements, and providing better guidance about HIPPA and federal confidentially requirements governing substance abuse disorder to better facilitate the electronic exchange of health information for patient care.

Comments on the report may be submitted electronically through Jan. 28, 2019.

[email protected]

A new federal proposal aims to move you away from the keyboard and back face-to-face with your patients.

The draft strategy from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT has three aims: to reduce the time and effort to record information in EHRs; to reduce the time and effort required to meet regulatory requirements; and to improve the functionality and ease of use of EHRs.

“This draft strategy includes recommendations that will allow physicians and other clinicians to provide effective care to their patients with a renewed sense of satisfaction for them and their patients,” Andrew Gettinger, MD, chief clinical officer at ONC, and Kate Goodrich, MD, chief medical officer at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, wrote in a recent blog post. “We are taking one more step toward improving the interoperability and usability of health information by establishing a goal, strategy, and recommendations to reduce regulatory and administrative burdens relating to the use of EHRs.”

To ease documentation burdens, the proposal seeks to “mitigate the EHR-related burden associated with a variety of administrative processes,” the draft strategy notes. “We are considering how reforming certain administrative requirements or optimizing out-of-date requirements for health IT–enabled health care provider work flows can reduce the burden of clinical documentation.”

Specifically, ONC proposes to reduce the overall regulatory burden, leverage data present in the electronic record to reduce the redocumentation, waive certain documentation requirements for participants in advanced alternative payment models (APMs), and promote standardized documentation for ordering and prior authorization.

To improve health IT usability, the draft strategy aims to “address how improvements in the design and use of health IT systems” can reduce burden and calls on clinicians, software developers, and other vendors to collaborate.

To do so, ONC recommends better alignment between EHR design and clinical work flow and making improvements to clinical decision support, as well as improving the presentation of clinical data within EHRs and clinical documentation functionality.

ONC also recommends standardizing basic clinical operations across all EHRs, designing EHR interfaces that are standard to health care delivery, and better integration of the EHR with the exam room.

The draft strategy also includes recommendations to help doctors better understand the financial requirements for successful implementation and optimize the log-in procedures to help reduce burden.

thinkstockphotos.com

EHR reporting strategies “are designed to address many of the programmatic, technical, and operational challenges raised by stakeholders to reduce EHR-related burden associated with program reporting.”

ONC wants to simplify scoring for the “promoting interoperability” performance category in the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) track of the Quality Payment Program and improving other measures of health IT usage; applying additional data standards to make data access, extraction, and integration across multiple systems easier and less costly; and exploring alternate, less burdensome approaches to electronic quality measurement through pilot programs and reporting program incentives.

Finally, public health reporting strategies “look at a set of topics linked to federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal government policies and public health programs, with a specific focus on EPCS [electronic prescribing for controlled substances] and PDMPs [prescription drug monitoring programs]. Where EHR-related burden remains a key barrier to progress in these areas, there are several recommendations for how stakeholders can advance these burden reduction goals related to public health.”

In this area, ONC is recommending increasing adoption of e-prescribing of controlled substances with access to medication history to better inform prescribing of controlled substances, harmonizing reporting requirements across federally funded programs to streamline reporting requirements, and providing better guidance about HIPPA and federal confidentially requirements governing substance abuse disorder to better facilitate the electronic exchange of health information for patient care.

Comments on the report may be submitted electronically through Jan. 28, 2019.

[email protected]

A new federal proposal aims to move you away from the keyboard and back face-to-face with your patients.

The draft strategy from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT has three aims: to reduce the time and effort to record information in EHRs; to reduce the time and effort required to meet regulatory requirements; and to improve the functionality and ease of use of EHRs.

“This draft strategy includes recommendations that will allow physicians and other clinicians to provide effective care to their patients with a renewed sense of satisfaction for them and their patients,” Andrew Gettinger, MD, chief clinical officer at ONC, and Kate Goodrich, MD, chief medical officer at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, wrote in a recent blog post. “We are taking one more step toward improving the interoperability and usability of health information by establishing a goal, strategy, and recommendations to reduce regulatory and administrative burdens relating to the use of EHRs.”

To ease documentation burdens, the proposal seeks to “mitigate the EHR-related burden associated with a variety of administrative processes,” the draft strategy notes. “We are considering how reforming certain administrative requirements or optimizing out-of-date requirements for health IT–enabled health care provider work flows can reduce the burden of clinical documentation.”

Specifically, ONC proposes to reduce the overall regulatory burden, leverage data present in the electronic record to reduce the redocumentation, waive certain documentation requirements for participants in advanced alternative payment models (APMs), and promote standardized documentation for ordering and prior authorization.

To improve health IT usability, the draft strategy aims to “address how improvements in the design and use of health IT systems” can reduce burden and calls on clinicians, software developers, and other vendors to collaborate.

To do so, ONC recommends better alignment between EHR design and clinical work flow and making improvements to clinical decision support, as well as improving the presentation of clinical data within EHRs and clinical documentation functionality.

ONC also recommends standardizing basic clinical operations across all EHRs, designing EHR interfaces that are standard to health care delivery, and better integration of the EHR with the exam room.

The draft strategy also includes recommendations to help doctors better understand the financial requirements for successful implementation and optimize the log-in procedures to help reduce burden.

thinkstockphotos.com

EHR reporting strategies “are designed to address many of the programmatic, technical, and operational challenges raised by stakeholders to reduce EHR-related burden associated with program reporting.”

ONC wants to simplify scoring for the “promoting interoperability” performance category in the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) track of the Quality Payment Program and improving other measures of health IT usage; applying additional data standards to make data access, extraction, and integration across multiple systems easier and less costly; and exploring alternate, less burdensome approaches to electronic quality measurement through pilot programs and reporting program incentives.

Finally, public health reporting strategies “look at a set of topics linked to federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal government policies and public health programs, with a specific focus on EPCS [electronic prescribing for controlled substances] and PDMPs [prescription drug monitoring programs]. Where EHR-related burden remains a key barrier to progress in these areas, there are several recommendations for how stakeholders can advance these burden reduction goals related to public health.”

In this area, ONC is recommending increasing adoption of e-prescribing of controlled substances with access to medication history to better inform prescribing of controlled substances, harmonizing reporting requirements across federally funded programs to streamline reporting requirements, and providing better guidance about HIPPA and federal confidentially requirements governing substance abuse disorder to better facilitate the electronic exchange of health information for patient care.

Comments on the report may be submitted electronically through Jan. 28, 2019.

[email protected]

When the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services make a significant change to the inpatient hospital rules, hospitalists are among the first to feel the effects.

You probably remember that, starting in October 2013, when a resident, nurse practitioner (NP), or physician assistant (PA) entered an inpatient admission order on your behalf, you were told to cosign that order before discharge or the hospital would forfeit payment for the entire stay. This policy was put in place by an annual piece of governmental policy known as the Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) Final Rule – the same one, in fact, that established the Two Midnight Rule.

The CMS felt that the decision to admit a Medicare beneficiary to inpatient care is such a significant event that it was appropriate to require the attending physician to complete a series of certification requirements to justify every inpatient stay. If not completed and finalized prior to discharge, the CMS would not pay for the stay. After 15 months of enforcing that policy, the CMS backed off on most of the certification requirements for most stays. However, the requirement for an authenticated inpatient order prior to discharge was kept in place for all stays. (“Authenticated” is CMS-speak for signed, or, in the case of inpatient orders initially placed by a resident/NP/PA without admitting privileges, cosigned, by a practitioner with admitting privileges.)

In the spring of 2018, the CMS proposed a change to “revise the admission order documentation requirements by removing the requirement that written inpatient admission orders are a specific requirement for Medicare Part A [inpatient hospital] payment.” The CMS also stated that it did not intend for Medicare auditors to deny hospital inpatient claims based solely on a deficiency in the inpatient order, such as a missing order or one signed after discharge, which the CMS found out was happening.

The description sounded great. In comments to the CMS, many providers assumed that they, too, would be provided similar discretion if they discovered the order defect. Are inpatient orders now optional? What rate of inpatient order technical deficiencies is acceptable to still submit inpatient claims for payment? Can 2-day observation stays where medical necessity for hospital care was present, but no inpatient order given, be billed as an inpatient now?

But these providers had not read the fine print. Consider that the annual IPPS Final Rule has a length of about 2,000 pages. Of those, only about 30 pages represent changes to a group of policies known as the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The CFR carries the weight of law (as long as it does not contradict law). When you appeal a Medicare denial to a judge, she will ask what portion of the CFR supports your viewpoint. The other 1,970 pages can be thought of as supporting analysis and reasoning to justify the 30 pages of changes. What changes were actually made to the CFR?

Consider the following two sentences.

• “For purposes of payment under Medicare Part A, an individual is considered an inpatient of a hospital, including a critical access hospital, if formally admitted as an inpatient pursuant to an order for inpatient admission by a physician or other qualified practitioner.”
• “This physician order must be present in the medical record and be supported by the physician admission and progress notes, in order for the hospital to be paid for hospital inpatient services under Medicare Part A.”

These are the first two sentences of 42 CFR 412.3(a), the regulation that defines the inpatient order requirement. On Oct. 1, 2018, the second sentence was removed, but the first sentence still remains. That’s the only change for this section. Does removal of the second sentence absolve providers of the requirement to document inpatient admission orders? Does it absolve providers of the requirement to cosign a resident’s admission order prior to discharge? The Medicare Benefit Policy Manual (MBPM) Chapter 1, Section 10(B) still reads “if the order is not properly documented in the medical record prior to discharge, the hospital should not submit a claim for Part A payment.”

Understanding what changed and what did not change in the CFR is key to understanding why, in this year’s IPPS Final Rule, the CMS repeatedly responded to providers that an inpatient order is still a requirement for a Part A stay and that none of the MBPM guidance regarding the inpatient order, such as the excerpt above, is changing.

At this point, we can only be reasonably certain that if a claim a hospital submits for Part A payment happens to get audited and found to have only one deficiency which is related to the inpatient order, per this guidance it probably won’t get denied. That is very different from saying the attending physician no longer has to provide a signed (or cosigned) inpatient admission order prior to discharge, or at all.

Providers actually did ask the CMS if a hospital could still submit a claim the hospital knows has a missing or incomplete inpatient admission order at the time of discharge. The CMS responded that Medicare contractors have the discretion in extremely rare circumstances to approve cases where an order to admit may be missing or defective, and yet the intent, decision, and recommendation of the ordering practitioner to admit as inpatient can be clearly derived from the medical record. However, note that the discretion belongs to the Medicare contractor, not the provider.

The American College of Physician Advisors (ACPA) asked the CMS the following question about the inpatient order policy change during the 2019 IPPS Final Rule Open Door Forum held on Sept. 11, 2018: “Can providers thus submit a claim, that the provider believes meets all other requirements for Part A payment, in the rare circumstance of an inpatient order deficiency, such as an inpatient order that was cosigned shortly after discharge?”

The CMS declined to answer the question on the call, asking us to submit the question to the Open Door Forum electronic mailbox. If the inpatient order was truly no longer being required for the CMS to pay for inpatient hospital stays, the answer would have been an easy “yes,” but it was not. Subsequently, the CMS responded in writing to the ACPA that “the responsibilities of providers regarding inpatient admission orders is unchanged.” In other words, Medicare auditors have been given discretion to overlook an inpatient order flaw, but providers have not.

At this time, our recommendation is to continue your processes to ensure that the inpatient admission order is completed and signed (or cosigned) prior to discharge by the attending physician for every Medicare patient. This will not only help make sure that the decision to make a hospitalized Medicare beneficiary an inpatient remains with the attending physician, but it will also reduce the risk of nonpayment.

Dr. Hu is executive director of physician advisor services of University of North Carolina Health Care System in Chapel Hill, N.C., and president of the ACPA. Dr. Locke is senior physician advisor at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, and president-elect of the ACPA.

When the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services make a significant change to the inpatient hospital rules, hospitalists are among the first to feel the effects.

You probably remember that, starting in October 2013, when a resident, nurse practitioner (NP), or physician assistant (PA) entered an inpatient admission order on your behalf, you were told to cosign that order before discharge or the hospital would forfeit payment for the entire stay. This policy was put in place by an annual piece of governmental policy known as the Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) Final Rule – the same one, in fact, that established the Two Midnight Rule.

The CMS felt that the decision to admit a Medicare beneficiary to inpatient care is such a significant event that it was appropriate to require the attending physician to complete a series of certification requirements to justify every inpatient stay. If not completed and finalized prior to discharge, the CMS would not pay for the stay. After 15 months of enforcing that policy, the CMS backed off on most of the certification requirements for most stays. However, the requirement for an authenticated inpatient order prior to discharge was kept in place for all stays. (“Authenticated” is CMS-speak for signed, or, in the case of inpatient orders initially placed by a resident/NP/PA without admitting privileges, cosigned, by a practitioner with admitting privileges.)

In the spring of 2018, the CMS proposed a change to “revise the admission order documentation requirements by removing the requirement that written inpatient admission orders are a specific requirement for Medicare Part A [inpatient hospital] payment.” The CMS also stated that it did not intend for Medicare auditors to deny hospital inpatient claims based solely on a deficiency in the inpatient order, such as a missing order or one signed after discharge, which the CMS found out was happening.

The description sounded great. In comments to the CMS, many providers assumed that they, too, would be provided similar discretion if they discovered the order defect. Are inpatient orders now optional? What rate of inpatient order technical deficiencies is acceptable to still submit inpatient claims for payment? Can 2-day observation stays where medical necessity for hospital care was present, but no inpatient order given, be billed as an inpatient now?

But these providers had not read the fine print. Consider that the annual IPPS Final Rule has a length of about 2,000 pages. Of those, only about 30 pages represent changes to a group of policies known as the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The CFR carries the weight of law (as long as it does not contradict law). When you appeal a Medicare denial to a judge, she will ask what portion of the CFR supports your viewpoint. The other 1,970 pages can be thought of as supporting analysis and reasoning to justify the 30 pages of changes. What changes were actually made to the CFR?

Consider the following two sentences.

• “For purposes of payment under Medicare Part A, an individual is considered an inpatient of a hospital, including a critical access hospital, if formally admitted as an inpatient pursuant to an order for inpatient admission by a physician or other qualified practitioner.”
• “This physician order must be present in the medical record and be supported by the physician admission and progress notes, in order for the hospital to be paid for hospital inpatient services under Medicare Part A.”

These are the first two sentences of 42 CFR 412.3(a), the regulation that defines the inpatient order requirement. On Oct. 1, 2018, the second sentence was removed, but the first sentence still remains. That’s the only change for this section. Does removal of the second sentence absolve providers of the requirement to document inpatient admission orders? Does it absolve providers of the requirement to cosign a resident’s admission order prior to discharge? The Medicare Benefit Policy Manual (MBPM) Chapter 1, Section 10(B) still reads “if the order is not properly documented in the medical record prior to discharge, the hospital should not submit a claim for Part A payment.”

Understanding what changed and what did not change in the CFR is key to understanding why, in this year’s IPPS Final Rule, the CMS repeatedly responded to providers that an inpatient order is still a requirement for a Part A stay and that none of the MBPM guidance regarding the inpatient order, such as the excerpt above, is changing.

At this point, we can only be reasonably certain that if a claim a hospital submits for Part A payment happens to get audited and found to have only one deficiency which is related to the inpatient order, per this guidance it probably won’t get denied. That is very different from saying the attending physician no longer has to provide a signed (or cosigned) inpatient admission order prior to discharge, or at all.

Providers actually did ask the CMS if a hospital could still submit a claim the hospital knows has a missing or incomplete inpatient admission order at the time of discharge. The CMS responded that Medicare contractors have the discretion in extremely rare circumstances to approve cases where an order to admit may be missing or defective, and yet the intent, decision, and recommendation of the ordering practitioner to admit as inpatient can be clearly derived from the medical record. However, note that the discretion belongs to the Medicare contractor, not the provider.

The American College of Physician Advisors (ACPA) asked the CMS the following question about the inpatient order policy change during the 2019 IPPS Final Rule Open Door Forum held on Sept. 11, 2018: “Can providers thus submit a claim, that the provider believes meets all other requirements for Part A payment, in the rare circumstance of an inpatient order deficiency, such as an inpatient order that was cosigned shortly after discharge?”

The CMS declined to answer the question on the call, asking us to submit the question to the Open Door Forum electronic mailbox. If the inpatient order was truly no longer being required for the CMS to pay for inpatient hospital stays, the answer would have been an easy “yes,” but it was not. Subsequently, the CMS responded in writing to the ACPA that “the responsibilities of providers regarding inpatient admission orders is unchanged.” In other words, Medicare auditors have been given discretion to overlook an inpatient order flaw, but providers have not.

At this time, our recommendation is to continue your processes to ensure that the inpatient admission order is completed and signed (or cosigned) prior to discharge by the attending physician for every Medicare patient. This will not only help make sure that the decision to make a hospitalized Medicare beneficiary an inpatient remains with the attending physician, but it will also reduce the risk of nonpayment.

Dr. Hu is executive director of physician advisor services of University of North Carolina Health Care System in Chapel Hill, N.C., and president of the ACPA. Dr. Locke is senior physician advisor at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, and president-elect of the ACPA.

When the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services make a significant change to the inpatient hospital rules, hospitalists are among the first to feel the effects.

You probably remember that, starting in October 2013, when a resident, nurse practitioner (NP), or physician assistant (PA) entered an inpatient admission order on your behalf, you were told to cosign that order before discharge or the hospital would forfeit payment for the entire stay. This policy was put in place by an annual piece of governmental policy known as the Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) Final Rule – the same one, in fact, that established the Two Midnight Rule.

The CMS felt that the decision to admit a Medicare beneficiary to inpatient care is such a significant event that it was appropriate to require the attending physician to complete a series of certification requirements to justify every inpatient stay. If not completed and finalized prior to discharge, the CMS would not pay for the stay. After 15 months of enforcing that policy, the CMS backed off on most of the certification requirements for most stays. However, the requirement for an authenticated inpatient order prior to discharge was kept in place for all stays. (“Authenticated” is CMS-speak for signed, or, in the case of inpatient orders initially placed by a resident/NP/PA without admitting privileges, cosigned, by a practitioner with admitting privileges.)

In the spring of 2018, the CMS proposed a change to “revise the admission order documentation requirements by removing the requirement that written inpatient admission orders are a specific requirement for Medicare Part A [inpatient hospital] payment.” The CMS also stated that it did not intend for Medicare auditors to deny hospital inpatient claims based solely on a deficiency in the inpatient order, such as a missing order or one signed after discharge, which the CMS found out was happening.

The description sounded great. In comments to the CMS, many providers assumed that they, too, would be provided similar discretion if they discovered the order defect. Are inpatient orders now optional? What rate of inpatient order technical deficiencies is acceptable to still submit inpatient claims for payment? Can 2-day observation stays where medical necessity for hospital care was present, but no inpatient order given, be billed as an inpatient now?

But these providers had not read the fine print. Consider that the annual IPPS Final Rule has a length of about 2,000 pages. Of those, only about 30 pages represent changes to a group of policies known as the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The CFR carries the weight of law (as long as it does not contradict law). When you appeal a Medicare denial to a judge, she will ask what portion of the CFR supports your viewpoint. The other 1,970 pages can be thought of as supporting analysis and reasoning to justify the 30 pages of changes. What changes were actually made to the CFR?

Consider the following two sentences.

• “For purposes of payment under Medicare Part A, an individual is considered an inpatient of a hospital, including a critical access hospital, if formally admitted as an inpatient pursuant to an order for inpatient admission by a physician or other qualified practitioner.”
• “This physician order must be present in the medical record and be supported by the physician admission and progress notes, in order for the hospital to be paid for hospital inpatient services under Medicare Part A.”

These are the first two sentences of 42 CFR 412.3(a), the regulation that defines the inpatient order requirement. On Oct. 1, 2018, the second sentence was removed, but the first sentence still remains. That’s the only change for this section. Does removal of the second sentence absolve providers of the requirement to document inpatient admission orders? Does it absolve providers of the requirement to cosign a resident’s admission order prior to discharge? The Medicare Benefit Policy Manual (MBPM) Chapter 1, Section 10(B) still reads “if the order is not properly documented in the medical record prior to discharge, the hospital should not submit a claim for Part A payment.”

Understanding what changed and what did not change in the CFR is key to understanding why, in this year’s IPPS Final Rule, the CMS repeatedly responded to providers that an inpatient order is still a requirement for a Part A stay and that none of the MBPM guidance regarding the inpatient order, such as the excerpt above, is changing.

At this point, we can only be reasonably certain that if a claim a hospital submits for Part A payment happens to get audited and found to have only one deficiency which is related to the inpatient order, per this guidance it probably won’t get denied. That is very different from saying the attending physician no longer has to provide a signed (or cosigned) inpatient admission order prior to discharge, or at all.

Providers actually did ask the CMS if a hospital could still submit a claim the hospital knows has a missing or incomplete inpatient admission order at the time of discharge. The CMS responded that Medicare contractors have the discretion in extremely rare circumstances to approve cases where an order to admit may be missing or defective, and yet the intent, decision, and recommendation of the ordering practitioner to admit as inpatient can be clearly derived from the medical record. However, note that the discretion belongs to the Medicare contractor, not the provider.

The American College of Physician Advisors (ACPA) asked the CMS the following question about the inpatient order policy change during the 2019 IPPS Final Rule Open Door Forum held on Sept. 11, 2018: “Can providers thus submit a claim, that the provider believes meets all other requirements for Part A payment, in the rare circumstance of an inpatient order deficiency, such as an inpatient order that was cosigned shortly after discharge?”

The CMS declined to answer the question on the call, asking us to submit the question to the Open Door Forum electronic mailbox. If the inpatient order was truly no longer being required for the CMS to pay for inpatient hospital stays, the answer would have been an easy “yes,” but it was not. Subsequently, the CMS responded in writing to the ACPA that “the responsibilities of providers regarding inpatient admission orders is unchanged.” In other words, Medicare auditors have been given discretion to overlook an inpatient order flaw, but providers have not.

At this time, our recommendation is to continue your processes to ensure that the inpatient admission order is completed and signed (or cosigned) prior to discharge by the attending physician for every Medicare patient. This will not only help make sure that the decision to make a hospitalized Medicare beneficiary an inpatient remains with the attending physician, but it will also reduce the risk of nonpayment.

Dr. Hu is executive director of physician advisor services of University of North Carolina Health Care System in Chapel Hill, N.C., and president of the ACPA. Dr. Locke is senior physician advisor at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, and president-elect of the ACPA.

More states are expanding their telehealth policies to reach patients, and pulling back on rigid in-person requirements.   

Several state Medicaid programs now explicitly allow the home to serve as an originating site for telehealth, with 10 states – Delaware, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming – adding the home as an approved site since 2016.

In addition, 16 jurisdictions now allow schools to serve as originating sites for telehealth, although some have restrictions about when the sites are acceptable, said Mei Kwong, an attorney and executive director for the Center for Connected Health Policy and the author of the center’s Spring 2018 report on telehealth trends.   

At the same time, nearly all states have now dropped Medicaid restrictions that limited reimbursable telehealth services to rural or underserved areas. Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Missouri are the most recent states to remove such geographic restrictions.

“[The expanded locations are] extremely helpful in providing greater access for patients to needed services,” Ms. Kwong said in an interview. “For example, a person who has difficulty leaving his or her home for a physical or other reason, they can get care, [or] a child having a rough time in school, can seek out a mental health counselor while at school.”
 

More telehealth providers

In addition to expanding teleheath sites, states are increasing acceptance for telehealth providers beyond physicians. Most recently, New Jersey enacted a broad telemedicine law that includes doctors, nurses, psychologists, social workers, physician assistants, counselors, respiratory therapists, speech pathologists, and optometrists, among others. The New Jersey law addresses telemedicine practice standards, prescribing, patient consent, privacy, and other requirements for providers.

In addition, more states are carving out telehealth regulations. Since 2016, 11 states have revised or adopted new scope of practice restrictions for counselors providing telemedicine, according to a state telehealth analysis published in July 2018 by law firm Epstein, Becker, Green.

Arkansas, Idaho, Maine, New Jersey, and Rhode Island recently imposed regulations for the practice of telepsychology. In addition, seven states have new or revised scope of practice restrictions for advanced practice registered nurses (APRN) providing telehealth services, while eight states have new licensing requirements specific to telehealth practice by APRNs, according to the Epstein analysis.

A telehealth compact that would allow APRNs to practice nursing via telemedicine across state lines is also in the works. Similar to the physician Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, the APRN Compact would establish an interstate commission and guidelines for uniform licensing requirements and criminal background checks. The compact will become effective when 10 states enact the compact legislation. So far, three states – Wyoming, North Dakota, and Idaho – have enacted the model legislation.

Another telemedicine compact for psychologists is getting ready to launch. In August, Illinois became the seventh state to join the Psychology Interjurisdictional Compact (PSYPACT). The pact requires seven states to enact compact legislation to become effective, however Illinois law does not go into effect until 2020.

The developments highlight the rise in more mid- and lower-level providers practicing telemedicine, said Anjali B. Dooley, an attorney and chief legal and compliance officer for Forefront Telecare, a telehealth platform for behavioral health services. While the increase allows greater care access, the expansion also poses scope of practice challenges, she notes.

“Increasing scope of practice extensions also increases risk if physician extenders are not trained properly in telehealth technology use and protocols,” Ms. Dooley said in an interview. “Providers and provider extenders need to be educated and learned in human factors such as communication, empathy, and etiquette.”

A greater number of nonphysician telemedicine providers is beneficial as long as the providers are adhering to appropriate standards of care and consulting with supervising physicians when necessary, adds Jean R. Sumner, MD, dean of the School of Medicine at Mercer University in Macon, Georgia, and a telemedicine internist.  

“The standard should always be equal to an in-person visit,” she said in an interview. “The patient has a right to know who is seeing them, too, to understand [their credentials]. They need to know the person on the telehealth unit is qualified to provide the care.”
 

Responding to the opioid crisis

The need for increased access to mental health care is a primary driver behind state efforts to expand the pool of telemedicine providers, adds Amy Lerman, an attorney at Epstein, Becker, Green and lead author of her firm’s report.

“The reason it is important for states to continue expanding the scope of health professionals, other than physicians, who can provide behavioral health telemedicine services, is not only to address an overall nationwide shortage of behavioral health providers, but also to expand access to behavioral health services because a wider range of providers are equipped to provide these services,” she said in an interview.

In the same vein, more states are using telehealth to address the opioid crisis, according to both the Epstein report and the Center for Connected Health Policy analysis.

In September, California enacted a law that would allow Medicaid reimbursement for certified substance use disorder counselors who provide treatment via telehealth. In August, Illinois approved a similar law that mandates reimbursement for behavioral and mental health experts who treat Medicaid patients through telehealth technologies.

The laws come after a June 2018 letter from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that encouraged states to utilize health technology efforts to address the opioid crisis, including through telemedicine and telepsychiatry, said Daniel Kim, an attorney with Epstein, Becker, Green and a coauthor of his firm’s report.

At the same time, a number of states have expanded their controlled substance laws to allow remote prescribing through telehealth for the treatment of psychiatric or substance use disorders. Connecticut’s law, for instance, allows providers to prescribe Schedule I-III controlled substances through telehealth platforms, while banning opioid prescribing. In Indiana, 2017 legislation expanded the types of controlled medications that providers can prescribe through telehealth platforms, primarily drugs used to treat or manage opioid dependence. The states join an increasing number that have enacted laws allowing the remote prescribing of controlled substances, including Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, and West Virginia.

The new laws will enhance the availability of behavioral health services, while allowing more treatment flexibility and privacy for patients, said Ms. Dooley.

“Treatment in one’s own environment where the addiction takes place is often more effective,” she said. People with addiction disorders “can also receive treatment without having to drive long distances.”
 

The disappearing in-person requirement

As states define their telehealth policies, they are fading out a once-prevalent requirement – the in-person visit. There is no longer a single state that requires physicians to meet with patients in-person before providing telemedicine services, according to the Epstein report.

States realized that requiring in-person visits before doctors can provide telemedicine creates a barrier to care, said Mr. Kim. A move to eliminate the requirement in Texas influenced other states in phasing out the common regulation. In the widely publicized Teladoc case, the national telemedicine company sued the Texas Medical Board in 2011 over its rule requiring Texas physicians to conduct a face-to-face evaluation before treating a patient via telemedicine. The legal battle continued for years, until Teladoc voluntarily dropped its lawsuit in 2017 after Texas adopted a new law that allowed doctors to treat first-time patients through telemedicine.

“The medical board [understood] that the in-person requirement wasn’t really a benefit to patients,” Mr. Kim said in an interview. “Once they changed it, a lot of other states have recognized the same and have moved toward getting rid of the requirement.”

In some states, midlevel providers still must see patients face-to-face before providing telehealth care. Arkansas for instance, requires that psychologists, counselors, and APRNs conduct an in-person exam before rendering telehealth. Professional boards in Colorado and Massachusetts recommend a face-to-face visit by midlevel providers as a best practice.
 

Reimbursement growing, but restrictions remain

Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia reimburse for some form of telehealth, mainly live video services. At least 20 states now pay providers for remote payment monitoring (RPM), according to the Center for Connected Health Policy report. The reimbursement is often restricted, however, to certain clinical conditions and/or rules that limit the type of monitoring device allowed. Colorado, for instance, only reimburses RPM for patients with congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, or diabetes and requires that the patient was hospitalized at least twice in the last 12 months for reasons associated with one of the conditions. Missouri has similar RPM criteria associated with hospitalizations, but allows for a greater number of conditions including pregnancy, stroke, and cancer.

Most states have yet to pay for store-and-forward services, technologies that enable the electronic transfer of photos, prerecorded videos, or documents. Only about 14 states reimburse for such technology, and many policies include limitations. California, for example, only reimburses for store-and-forward services in teledermatology, teledentistry, and teleophthalmology. Connecticut allows for store-and-forward payment between physicians through email. Missouri allows for store-and-forward services in orthopedics, dermatology, optometry, ophthalmology, and in cases of retinopathy, burn and wound care, dental services, and maternal-fetal ultrasounds.

Reimbursement for telehealth is still a challenge for many physicians, Dr. Sumner said. Part of the problem is the wide discrepancy in how telehealth is defined among states, she said. Some states only consider live or interactive two-way technology as telehealth, excluding services such as store-and-forward and RPM. Other states reimburse for certain technology-based services, but they do not consider them telehealth. Maryland’s Medicaid program for example, does not reimburse for store and forward under its telehealth policy. However, store and forward used in dermatology, radiology, and ophthalmology is reimbursed by Maryland under an alternate billing code, though not considered telehealth.

Establishing best practices in telehealth through careful evaluation and research would improve reimbursement, said S. David McSwain, MD, interim chief medical information officer at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and medical director for telehealth optimization.

“We can use that evidence to reduce the variation in telehealth payment policies across the states,” Dr. McSwain said in an interview. “By leveraging reimbursement models to promote best practices, we can encourage the spread of telehealth services that have the greatest impacts on patients, their families, and the health care system.”

More states are expanding their telehealth policies to reach patients, and pulling back on rigid in-person requirements.   

Several state Medicaid programs now explicitly allow the home to serve as an originating site for telehealth, with 10 states – Delaware, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming – adding the home as an approved site since 2016.

In addition, 16 jurisdictions now allow schools to serve as originating sites for telehealth, although some have restrictions about when the sites are acceptable, said Mei Kwong, an attorney and executive director for the Center for Connected Health Policy and the author of the center’s Spring 2018 report on telehealth trends.   

At the same time, nearly all states have now dropped Medicaid restrictions that limited reimbursable telehealth services to rural or underserved areas. Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Missouri are the most recent states to remove such geographic restrictions.

“[The expanded locations are] extremely helpful in providing greater access for patients to needed services,” Ms. Kwong said in an interview. “For example, a person who has difficulty leaving his or her home for a physical or other reason, they can get care, [or] a child having a rough time in school, can seek out a mental health counselor while at school.”
 

More telehealth providers

In addition to expanding teleheath sites, states are increasing acceptance for telehealth providers beyond physicians. Most recently, New Jersey enacted a broad telemedicine law that includes doctors, nurses, psychologists, social workers, physician assistants, counselors, respiratory therapists, speech pathologists, and optometrists, among others. The New Jersey law addresses telemedicine practice standards, prescribing, patient consent, privacy, and other requirements for providers.

In addition, more states are carving out telehealth regulations. Since 2016, 11 states have revised or adopted new scope of practice restrictions for counselors providing telemedicine, according to a state telehealth analysis published in July 2018 by law firm Epstein, Becker, Green.

Arkansas, Idaho, Maine, New Jersey, and Rhode Island recently imposed regulations for the practice of telepsychology. In addition, seven states have new or revised scope of practice restrictions for advanced practice registered nurses (APRN) providing telehealth services, while eight states have new licensing requirements specific to telehealth practice by APRNs, according to the Epstein analysis.

A telehealth compact that would allow APRNs to practice nursing via telemedicine across state lines is also in the works. Similar to the physician Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, the APRN Compact would establish an interstate commission and guidelines for uniform licensing requirements and criminal background checks. The compact will become effective when 10 states enact the compact legislation. So far, three states – Wyoming, North Dakota, and Idaho – have enacted the model legislation.

Another telemedicine compact for psychologists is getting ready to launch. In August, Illinois became the seventh state to join the Psychology Interjurisdictional Compact (PSYPACT). The pact requires seven states to enact compact legislation to become effective, however Illinois law does not go into effect until 2020.

The developments highlight the rise in more mid- and lower-level providers practicing telemedicine, said Anjali B. Dooley, an attorney and chief legal and compliance officer for Forefront Telecare, a telehealth platform for behavioral health services. While the increase allows greater care access, the expansion also poses scope of practice challenges, she notes.

“Increasing scope of practice extensions also increases risk if physician extenders are not trained properly in telehealth technology use and protocols,” Ms. Dooley said in an interview. “Providers and provider extenders need to be educated and learned in human factors such as communication, empathy, and etiquette.”

A greater number of nonphysician telemedicine providers is beneficial as long as the providers are adhering to appropriate standards of care and consulting with supervising physicians when necessary, adds Jean R. Sumner, MD, dean of the School of Medicine at Mercer University in Macon, Georgia, and a telemedicine internist.  

“The standard should always be equal to an in-person visit,” she said in an interview. “The patient has a right to know who is seeing them, too, to understand [their credentials]. They need to know the person on the telehealth unit is qualified to provide the care.”
 

Responding to the opioid crisis

The need for increased access to mental health care is a primary driver behind state efforts to expand the pool of telemedicine providers, adds Amy Lerman, an attorney at Epstein, Becker, Green and lead author of her firm’s report.

“The reason it is important for states to continue expanding the scope of health professionals, other than physicians, who can provide behavioral health telemedicine services, is not only to address an overall nationwide shortage of behavioral health providers, but also to expand access to behavioral health services because a wider range of providers are equipped to provide these services,” she said in an interview.

In the same vein, more states are using telehealth to address the opioid crisis, according to both the Epstein report and the Center for Connected Health Policy analysis.

In September, California enacted a law that would allow Medicaid reimbursement for certified substance use disorder counselors who provide treatment via telehealth. In August, Illinois approved a similar law that mandates reimbursement for behavioral and mental health experts who treat Medicaid patients through telehealth technologies.

The laws come after a June 2018 letter from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that encouraged states to utilize health technology efforts to address the opioid crisis, including through telemedicine and telepsychiatry, said Daniel Kim, an attorney with Epstein, Becker, Green and a coauthor of his firm’s report.

At the same time, a number of states have expanded their controlled substance laws to allow remote prescribing through telehealth for the treatment of psychiatric or substance use disorders. Connecticut’s law, for instance, allows providers to prescribe Schedule I-III controlled substances through telehealth platforms, while banning opioid prescribing. In Indiana, 2017 legislation expanded the types of controlled medications that providers can prescribe through telehealth platforms, primarily drugs used to treat or manage opioid dependence. The states join an increasing number that have enacted laws allowing the remote prescribing of controlled substances, including Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, and West Virginia.

The new laws will enhance the availability of behavioral health services, while allowing more treatment flexibility and privacy for patients, said Ms. Dooley.

“Treatment in one’s own environment where the addiction takes place is often more effective,” she said. People with addiction disorders “can also receive treatment without having to drive long distances.”
 

The disappearing in-person requirement

As states define their telehealth policies, they are fading out a once-prevalent requirement – the in-person visit. There is no longer a single state that requires physicians to meet with patients in-person before providing telemedicine services, according to the Epstein report.

States realized that requiring in-person visits before doctors can provide telemedicine creates a barrier to care, said Mr. Kim. A move to eliminate the requirement in Texas influenced other states in phasing out the common regulation. In the widely publicized Teladoc case, the national telemedicine company sued the Texas Medical Board in 2011 over its rule requiring Texas physicians to conduct a face-to-face evaluation before treating a patient via telemedicine. The legal battle continued for years, until Teladoc voluntarily dropped its lawsuit in 2017 after Texas adopted a new law that allowed doctors to treat first-time patients through telemedicine.

“The medical board [understood] that the in-person requirement wasn’t really a benefit to patients,” Mr. Kim said in an interview. “Once they changed it, a lot of other states have recognized the same and have moved toward getting rid of the requirement.”

In some states, midlevel providers still must see patients face-to-face before providing telehealth care. Arkansas for instance, requires that psychologists, counselors, and APRNs conduct an in-person exam before rendering telehealth. Professional boards in Colorado and Massachusetts recommend a face-to-face visit by midlevel providers as a best practice.
 

Reimbursement growing, but restrictions remain

Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia reimburse for some form of telehealth, mainly live video services. At least 20 states now pay providers for remote payment monitoring (RPM), according to the Center for Connected Health Policy report. The reimbursement is often restricted, however, to certain clinical conditions and/or rules that limit the type of monitoring device allowed. Colorado, for instance, only reimburses RPM for patients with congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, or diabetes and requires that the patient was hospitalized at least twice in the last 12 months for reasons associated with one of the conditions. Missouri has similar RPM criteria associated with hospitalizations, but allows for a greater number of conditions including pregnancy, stroke, and cancer.

Most states have yet to pay for store-and-forward services, technologies that enable the electronic transfer of photos, prerecorded videos, or documents. Only about 14 states reimburse for such technology, and many policies include limitations. California, for example, only reimburses for store-and-forward services in teledermatology, teledentistry, and teleophthalmology. Connecticut allows for store-and-forward payment between physicians through email. Missouri allows for store-and-forward services in orthopedics, dermatology, optometry, ophthalmology, and in cases of retinopathy, burn and wound care, dental services, and maternal-fetal ultrasounds.

Reimbursement for telehealth is still a challenge for many physicians, Dr. Sumner said. Part of the problem is the wide discrepancy in how telehealth is defined among states, she said. Some states only consider live or interactive two-way technology as telehealth, excluding services such as store-and-forward and RPM. Other states reimburse for certain technology-based services, but they do not consider them telehealth. Maryland’s Medicaid program for example, does not reimburse for store and forward under its telehealth policy. However, store and forward used in dermatology, radiology, and ophthalmology is reimbursed by Maryland under an alternate billing code, though not considered telehealth.

Establishing best practices in telehealth through careful evaluation and research would improve reimbursement, said S. David McSwain, MD, interim chief medical information officer at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and medical director for telehealth optimization.

“We can use that evidence to reduce the variation in telehealth payment policies across the states,” Dr. McSwain said in an interview. “By leveraging reimbursement models to promote best practices, we can encourage the spread of telehealth services that have the greatest impacts on patients, their families, and the health care system.”

More states are expanding their telehealth policies to reach patients, and pulling back on rigid in-person requirements.   

Several state Medicaid programs now explicitly allow the home to serve as an originating site for telehealth, with 10 states – Delaware, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming – adding the home as an approved site since 2016.

In addition, 16 jurisdictions now allow schools to serve as originating sites for telehealth, although some have restrictions about when the sites are acceptable, said Mei Kwong, an attorney and executive director for the Center for Connected Health Policy and the author of the center’s Spring 2018 report on telehealth trends.   

At the same time, nearly all states have now dropped Medicaid restrictions that limited reimbursable telehealth services to rural or underserved areas. Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Missouri are the most recent states to remove such geographic restrictions.

“[The expanded locations are] extremely helpful in providing greater access for patients to needed services,” Ms. Kwong said in an interview. “For example, a person who has difficulty leaving his or her home for a physical or other reason, they can get care, [or] a child having a rough time in school, can seek out a mental health counselor while at school.”
 

More telehealth providers

In addition to expanding teleheath sites, states are increasing acceptance for telehealth providers beyond physicians. Most recently, New Jersey enacted a broad telemedicine law that includes doctors, nurses, psychologists, social workers, physician assistants, counselors, respiratory therapists, speech pathologists, and optometrists, among others. The New Jersey law addresses telemedicine practice standards, prescribing, patient consent, privacy, and other requirements for providers.

In addition, more states are carving out telehealth regulations. Since 2016, 11 states have revised or adopted new scope of practice restrictions for counselors providing telemedicine, according to a state telehealth analysis published in July 2018 by law firm Epstein, Becker, Green.

Arkansas, Idaho, Maine, New Jersey, and Rhode Island recently imposed regulations for the practice of telepsychology. In addition, seven states have new or revised scope of practice restrictions for advanced practice registered nurses (APRN) providing telehealth services, while eight states have new licensing requirements specific to telehealth practice by APRNs, according to the Epstein analysis.

A telehealth compact that would allow APRNs to practice nursing via telemedicine across state lines is also in the works. Similar to the physician Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, the APRN Compact would establish an interstate commission and guidelines for uniform licensing requirements and criminal background checks. The compact will become effective when 10 states enact the compact legislation. So far, three states – Wyoming, North Dakota, and Idaho – have enacted the model legislation.

Another telemedicine compact for psychologists is getting ready to launch. In August, Illinois became the seventh state to join the Psychology Interjurisdictional Compact (PSYPACT). The pact requires seven states to enact compact legislation to become effective, however Illinois law does not go into effect until 2020.

The developments highlight the rise in more mid- and lower-level providers practicing telemedicine, said Anjali B. Dooley, an attorney and chief legal and compliance officer for Forefront Telecare, a telehealth platform for behavioral health services. While the increase allows greater care access, the expansion also poses scope of practice challenges, she notes.

“Increasing scope of practice extensions also increases risk if physician extenders are not trained properly in telehealth technology use and protocols,” Ms. Dooley said in an interview. “Providers and provider extenders need to be educated and learned in human factors such as communication, empathy, and etiquette.”

A greater number of nonphysician telemedicine providers is beneficial as long as the providers are adhering to appropriate standards of care and consulting with supervising physicians when necessary, adds Jean R. Sumner, MD, dean of the School of Medicine at Mercer University in Macon, Georgia, and a telemedicine internist.  

“The standard should always be equal to an in-person visit,” she said in an interview. “The patient has a right to know who is seeing them, too, to understand [their credentials]. They need to know the person on the telehealth unit is qualified to provide the care.”
 

Responding to the opioid crisis

The need for increased access to mental health care is a primary driver behind state efforts to expand the pool of telemedicine providers, adds Amy Lerman, an attorney at Epstein, Becker, Green and lead author of her firm’s report.

“The reason it is important for states to continue expanding the scope of health professionals, other than physicians, who can provide behavioral health telemedicine services, is not only to address an overall nationwide shortage of behavioral health providers, but also to expand access to behavioral health services because a wider range of providers are equipped to provide these services,” she said in an interview.

In the same vein, more states are using telehealth to address the opioid crisis, according to both the Epstein report and the Center for Connected Health Policy analysis.

In September, California enacted a law that would allow Medicaid reimbursement for certified substance use disorder counselors who provide treatment via telehealth. In August, Illinois approved a similar law that mandates reimbursement for behavioral and mental health experts who treat Medicaid patients through telehealth technologies.

The laws come after a June 2018 letter from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that encouraged states to utilize health technology efforts to address the opioid crisis, including through telemedicine and telepsychiatry, said Daniel Kim, an attorney with Epstein, Becker, Green and a coauthor of his firm’s report.

At the same time, a number of states have expanded their controlled substance laws to allow remote prescribing through telehealth for the treatment of psychiatric or substance use disorders. Connecticut’s law, for instance, allows providers to prescribe Schedule I-III controlled substances through telehealth platforms, while banning opioid prescribing. In Indiana, 2017 legislation expanded the types of controlled medications that providers can prescribe through telehealth platforms, primarily drugs used to treat or manage opioid dependence. The states join an increasing number that have enacted laws allowing the remote prescribing of controlled substances, including Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, and West Virginia.

The new laws will enhance the availability of behavioral health services, while allowing more treatment flexibility and privacy for patients, said Ms. Dooley.

“Treatment in one’s own environment where the addiction takes place is often more effective,” she said. People with addiction disorders “can also receive treatment without having to drive long distances.”
 

The disappearing in-person requirement

As states define their telehealth policies, they are fading out a once-prevalent requirement – the in-person visit. There is no longer a single state that requires physicians to meet with patients in-person before providing telemedicine services, according to the Epstein report.

States realized that requiring in-person visits before doctors can provide telemedicine creates a barrier to care, said Mr. Kim. A move to eliminate the requirement in Texas influenced other states in phasing out the common regulation. In the widely publicized Teladoc case, the national telemedicine company sued the Texas Medical Board in 2011 over its rule requiring Texas physicians to conduct a face-to-face evaluation before treating a patient via telemedicine. The legal battle continued for years, until Teladoc voluntarily dropped its lawsuit in 2017 after Texas adopted a new law that allowed doctors to treat first-time patients through telemedicine.

“The medical board [understood] that the in-person requirement wasn’t really a benefit to patients,” Mr. Kim said in an interview. “Once they changed it, a lot of other states have recognized the same and have moved toward getting rid of the requirement.”

In some states, midlevel providers still must see patients face-to-face before providing telehealth care. Arkansas for instance, requires that psychologists, counselors, and APRNs conduct an in-person exam before rendering telehealth. Professional boards in Colorado and Massachusetts recommend a face-to-face visit by midlevel providers as a best practice.
 

Reimbursement growing, but restrictions remain

Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia reimburse for some form of telehealth, mainly live video services. At least 20 states now pay providers for remote payment monitoring (RPM), according to the Center for Connected Health Policy report. The reimbursement is often restricted, however, to certain clinical conditions and/or rules that limit the type of monitoring device allowed. Colorado, for instance, only reimburses RPM for patients with congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, or diabetes and requires that the patient was hospitalized at least twice in the last 12 months for reasons associated with one of the conditions. Missouri has similar RPM criteria associated with hospitalizations, but allows for a greater number of conditions including pregnancy, stroke, and cancer.

Most states have yet to pay for store-and-forward services, technologies that enable the electronic transfer of photos, prerecorded videos, or documents. Only about 14 states reimburse for such technology, and many policies include limitations. California, for example, only reimburses for store-and-forward services in teledermatology, teledentistry, and teleophthalmology. Connecticut allows for store-and-forward payment between physicians through email. Missouri allows for store-and-forward services in orthopedics, dermatology, optometry, ophthalmology, and in cases of retinopathy, burn and wound care, dental services, and maternal-fetal ultrasounds.

Reimbursement for telehealth is still a challenge for many physicians, Dr. Sumner said. Part of the problem is the wide discrepancy in how telehealth is defined among states, she said. Some states only consider live or interactive two-way technology as telehealth, excluding services such as store-and-forward and RPM. Other states reimburse for certain technology-based services, but they do not consider them telehealth. Maryland’s Medicaid program for example, does not reimburse for store and forward under its telehealth policy. However, store and forward used in dermatology, radiology, and ophthalmology is reimbursed by Maryland under an alternate billing code, though not considered telehealth.

Establishing best practices in telehealth through careful evaluation and research would improve reimbursement, said S. David McSwain, MD, interim chief medical information officer at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and medical director for telehealth optimization.

“We can use that evidence to reduce the variation in telehealth payment policies across the states,” Dr. McSwain said in an interview. “By leveraging reimbursement models to promote best practices, we can encourage the spread of telehealth services that have the greatest impacts on patients, their families, and the health care system.”