The long term care marketplace is one of those sectors in healthcare delivery on the cusp of markedly innovative practices in this young century, buoyed by the sudden proliferation of the senior Boomer demographic. Sky’s the limit on the impact of care services and offerings a market-based approach can muster on the eve of reform. Unfortunately, certain models are ripe for abuse.
The DOJ said today it joined a whistleblower case against AseraCare in federal court in Birmingham, Alabama, accusing the closely held company of seeking to cheat Medicare for the hospice care of patients who weren’t terminally ill. The U.S. is seeking three times the damages and a penalty of $5,500 to $11,000 per claim.
The hospice company is owned by a national company that provides services within LTC. Whistleblowers prompted the government action when the hospice operation recruited Medicare beneficiaries and continued to fraudulently collect payments by inappropriately cycling those patients under the hospice benefit. The process would continue upon initial termination of Medicare payments for those services once the initial LTC services ceased. Multiple referrals for covered services later, the LTC contractor would continue to collect those payments, based upon allegedly fraudulent qualifying practices by the LTC contractor/company.
The case is an interesting one which will, hopefully, provide Medicare reform in yet another overlooked care sector that will only increase in prevalence as the rate of patients diagnosed with chronic disease and disability skyrockets. More here
The cost of the delivery of healthcare in this country always seems to be independent of traditional models of demand in practically any other market-based, for-profit operation. That is, instead of relying on the parameters of patient (consumer) satisfaction or dissatisfaction; further innovation fuels the development of costlier, more advanced technology seemingly designed to break the bank (in one way or another) the very entity it is supposed to benefit: the patient.
An editorial reprint in today’s Minneapolis-St. Paul paper of record, the Star Tribune, makes the case for the unintended costly consequences this very innovation has on the big picture with respect to healthcare delivery in the 2010s. It focuses on the use of nuclear diagnostics developed by the Mayo Clinic as a superfluous and disruptive innovation which does the patient-as-consumer no favors…while benefiting the institution at the hands of government abetting.
Proton beam therapy is a kind of radiation used to treat cancers. The particles are made of atomic nuclei rather than the usual X-rays, and theoretically can be focused more precisely on cancerous tissue, minimizing the danger to healthy tissue surrounding it. [...]
To generate sufficient revenue, proton beam facilities need to treat patients with other types of cancer. Consequently, they have been promoted for patients with lung, esophageal, breast, head and neck cancers.
But the biggest target by far has been prostate cancer, diagnosed in nearly a quarter of a million men each year. [...]
With Medicare reimbursement so generous, and patients and doctors eager for the latest technology, building new machines is sane, profitable business for hospitals like Mayo.
But it is crazy medicine and unsustainable public policy.
Maybe so, but the practice of medicine depends upon the richness of technologies in which parties not only compete toward developing paths of effective treatments for chronic diseases (like cancer, in this case), but also race to spur further research on the nature and behavior of disease. It is within this self-fulfilling prophecy of the cycle of medical education that knowledge moves forward — something the creators of publications like this one thrived upon. And, that’s a good thing. | LINK
When she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, a Minnesota woman thought that her carefully chosen neurologist had her best interests in mind when prescribing initial treatments to modify the disease. That was before a little detective work uncovered the real motivation for her physician’s patterns of prescribing that left her even more debilitated than when she was initially showing symptoms.
It worried me that none of them ever suggested that I discontinue treatment—or switch to another treatment—even after I reported that my injection site reactions were affecting my quality of life. Despite the fact that my neurologist insisted that I begin disease-modifying therapy, I was never contacted by him, his nurse, or anyone else in the neurology clinic with questions about how my Copaxone injections were going.
The patient, a U of M philosophy graduate student, puts into her own words the ethical issue she gradually uncovered while under the specialist’s care. Just how influential are pharma companies’ financial compensations for physicians who choose to prescribe their products? Just how willing are they to prescribe knowingly untested medications without concern as to their problematic and potentially lethal adverse effects? Her answer came at her next appointment, after enduring months of increasingly debilitating pain and enfeebling function from the trial with the first drug.
[M]y neurologist informed me that I’d begun to develop lesions inside my brain stem. He explained that this was a very bad place to have lesions, occupied as it is with regulating some of the body’s basic functions, such as breathing. He strongly recommended that I go back on MS treatment, suggesting this time a drug called Tysabri (natalizumab), which had worked wonders for some of his patients but also carried some amount of risk. Worried about the new lesions, but knowing little about the drug he was advising, I told him I’d think about it. I needed to be convinced through my own investigations that this drug would be worth taking.
Her investigations were not only telling, but they are also indicative of an all-to-familiar refrain for patients of (mostly specialist) physicians who pocket major coin from pharma companies to get these ridiculously expensive agents to the marketplace, at the risk of patient harm. In Minnesota, the patient was assisted by a database which lists pharmaceutical third parties with which a prescribing physician has a financial interest. She makes little doubt of her eagerness for this requirement to spread nationally as the result of the reform law. | PDF LINK
The federal government finally announces that it will open up its Medicare claims database to allow third party access (advocacy groups, insurers, hospitals, etc). This follows a few years of speculation on the part of pundits and legislators alike on what such a move could entail and how it would impact heatlhcare reform — in particular, enhancing quality parameters. The benefits of availability of such information gleaned from billing, requisitions, and payments will vary among groups seeking such data.
Though the data aggregate is invaluable for constructing tools for everything from clinical trials to arranging care delivery based upon demographics, there is always the specter of misrepresentation of that data. For years, many clinicians (including professional associations like the AMA) have lobbied against the release of such info on the gounds that internal reviews should be made before that info is released to the general public. End data may not always be reflected by the healthcare delivery means for many difficult-to-treat patients, for example.
Still, the move is a win for groups wanting to move beyond the formerly impenetrable wall imposed and maintained by physicians and physician groups in order to access that gold mine of clinical, financial, and parametric information. | LINK
Medicare will now expand its breadth of covered preventive services to include obesity treatment and management. In what could be a sign of the increasing population of beneficiaries who were weaned in the Boomer mentality, treatment coverage for such a hot-button topic among politicians, lobbyists, healthcare advocates, and physicians themselves — will remain, indeed, controversial. According to CMS, obese Medicare beneficiaries (defined as those with a body mass index of 30 or higher) may see their primary care physician for one face-to-face visit every week for the first month. Then, Medicare will pay for one face-to-face visit every other week for the next five months. If the patient loses at least 3 kg (6.6 lbs.) over the first six months, Medicare will pay for an additional six months of once-a-month face-to-face visits with the doctor.
Insurance remains above the fray here. While the feds may explain away this coverage as putting a dent in future healthcare costs associated with the obese patient, the fact remains, that outside of a universally defined pragmatic treatment regimen (ie, dedicated drugs = dedicated reimbursements/payments) — provider acceptance of this latest move by CMS will continue to advance at a trickle. It’s hard to get on board with yet another taxpayer funded government initiative whose intentions really haven’t been proven to lower across-the-board healthcare costs, lower all-cause mortality, and assume that all physicians are competent weight-loss counselors. Also: about 30 percent of beneficiaries are projected to qualify for this latest Medicare preventive care benefit. | LINK
The year was 1989. Late summer. The pressure was on to perform. Whether it was due to studying inertia, laziness, or simply hubris — I elected to take the dreaded MCAT (the medical college admissions test) at the latest possible offering. Yes, I was reasonably confident of my standardized test-taking abilities, and I knew that my GPA could definitely hold its own. Still, as I look back on my senior year in college, delaying such an important and redoubtable requirement was pretty foolhardy.
Nineteen eighty-nine was also approximately the period in which the test gurus who formulated the exam took a curious turn and seemed to bend over backwards answering critics’ and educators’ assertions that the exam was too narrowly focused on the left-brain aspect of scholarship. What was needed, the sage designers of the MCAT decided, was a tool to measure the non-scientific literacy of those who were audacious enough to consider a career in medicine. Thus, the maligned essay question was introduced.
The body tasked with reviewing the MCAT’s current state of affairs has made its concerns with the exam’s future known, and it reflects a growing reality in the state of preparing those with an interest in medicine to be able to succeed in medical school. That medicine is constantly changing with respect to rapid advances in basic science research and social and economic healthcare policy trends is a complete understatement, one that is highlighted by the committee’s recommendations.
The new MCAT will preserve the best features of the previous exam, while ineffective sections (e.g.,the writing sample) will be jettisoned. The two natural science sections will be revised to focus on relevance to living systems, emphasis on critical analysis, and reasoning skills will increase in a revised verbal section; and a section on behavioral and social sciences will be added.
Yes, it has taken the testing gods some twenty years to kill the essay section. Well, here’s hoping that future practitioners of medicine will have the intestinal fortitude that successive iterations of the MCAT (starting in 2015) will now require — the quality of endurance. As it stands, testing length will increase by over 40 percent — to 6 hrs and 15 min. Ouch! Guess I’m glad my laziness didn’t get the best of me some 22 years ago! | LINK [PDF]
This item comes as no surprise to those of us who primarily treat the elderly.
According to researchers, nearly 100,000 hospitalizations every year are linked to adverse drug events such as allergic reactions and unintentional overdoses. Nearly half, or 48.1 percent, of those hospitalized were adults 80 years old or older.
Those agents? Insulin, older generation anti-diabetic drugs (oral), aspirin, and warfarin. It is quite true — and as equally disturbing — that these medications are not only responsible for discrete adverse drug reactions in their own right, but their pharmacological behaviors are responsible for a substantial number of interactions whose iterative clinical manifestations are truly logarithmic in scope. | LINK | Abstract LINK
The DOJ decision has been handed down. Merck Co. will pay $321.6 million in criminal fines and $628.4 million as a civil settlement agreement. It also will plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge stemming from the premature marketing of the market-recalled drug targeted to treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, usurping FDA approval for that indication.
Merck agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to the states of Florida, New York and South Carolina to resolve suits alleging the drug maker failed to adequately warn patients of Vioxx’s risks before halting sales in 2004, Russ Herman, a lawyer for former users of the drug, said in the Nov. 10 filing.
For those who have already forgotten, Vioxx was yanked from the pharma marketplace in 2004 after evidence showed the drug doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke. In 2007, three years later, the company paid $4.85 billion to settle approx. 50,000 Vioxx-related lawsuits. | LINK
Okay, here’s what we do know about the current state of solvency of Medicaid post-stimulus funding: states are grappling with a larger share of Medicaid liabilities than before, and they are immediately reacting with a combination of cuts to providers/hospitals and pulling in the reins on certain services.
Although states are bearing a bigger share of the Medicaid burden this year than they have in the recent past, overall Medicaid spending (state and federal dollars) is projected to grow by only 2.2 percent, the lowest amount since 2006, [a] Kaiser report [shows]. That is because the stimulus funding ended, and program costs are stabilizing as the national economy shows tentative signs of recovery and enrollment growth slows.
The article is a lengthy one, but worth a read. The Kaiser-funded survey trial of states with respect to this question suggests many states are implementing myriad Medicaid spending stopgaps in the short term. All this is on the table as the bipartisan so-called congressional supercommittee gets ready to release its report on trimming the current budgetary deficit.
Originating from Saint Paul, Minnesota, [doctorpundit.com] is a weblog about the policy of healthcare and where it intersects with politics and public opinion; it is edited by Michael Douglas, MD, MBA. Welcome, and please consider my take on what is Healthcare 2.0, complemented by a few of my thoughts on my personal avocations and guilty pleasures: music, prose, and writing. Follow Doctor Pundit via RSS above.
Distinguishing Between Medical Coding and Medical Billing http://t.co/JQ4I17ZF #abstract #accomplished #assign #biller #billing
RT @ehrandhit #EMR gap grows between large, small hospitals | Hospital EMR and #EHR http://t.co/EtfeIGq7 #HITECH
3 Tips That Can Help You Understand EDI Software Financing & 3... http://t.co/XNXSelbb #business #company #easy #edi #emr #experience
http://t.co/EeF9DISv Housekeeper Utility - Edward Hospital - Full Time - Nights - Edward Hospital & Health Services... #DC #Hospital #RN
http://t.co/yBKyIBwj Patient Transporter - All Hospitals - All Shifts - Florida Hospital Careers - Orlando, FL #Florida #Hospital $
DOCTOR PUNDIT @ ONE YEAR | An occasional DP series from 2010 highlighting healthcare policy trends over the period from 2009-2010 in a compare/contrast format.
