Released by Alcon in late 2009, the Alcon Intrepid Polymer I/A tip has brought a sense of increased safety and flexibility into cataract procedures.  Although, not as soft as the Alcon silicone I/A tip, this polycarbonate material still provides the same safety in allowing to polish the capsule and maintaining the integrity of the capsular bag.

In addition to not only providing safety through its design, it is also a “true” single use device that is disposed of after each case thusly reducing potential factors (such as residual, cortical material)  that could attribute to TASS.  The tips come in three configurations, a straight, 20 degree soft curve, and the 35 degree bent tip.  Each of the tip configurations has a .3mm aspiration port and the flange design to allow for proper placement of the sleeve. All of the tips are fully compatible with the threaded Ultraflow handpieces and with all MicroSmooth sleeves.  The Intrepid Polymer I/A tips are unique and quality products to add to any cataract surgeons procedures.

Safety & Flexibility: Alcon Intrepid Polymer I/A Tips

Related posts

• Alcon Reports Solid Financial Results for Second Quarter (0)
• Salmonella-Tainted Raw Alfalfa Sprouts and Other Health News (0)
• Reflections on Convergence 2008-Is Microsoft About to Become Warm and Cuddly on Us? (0)
• Cataract Products: Best of 2008 (0)
• Three B. Braun Products Recognized Among Most Influential Devices of Last 30 Years (0)

The Pinehurst, N.C.-based health system, and Cape Fear Valley Health System, based in Fayetteville, N.C. were previously both given approval to move forward with plans to build facilities in the county.

Cape Fear proposed a 41-bed hospital, which gained greater community support, than FirstHealth’s eight-bed hospital and surgery center proposal, according to the report.

A spokesperson for FirstHealth said in the report that if both health systems were to withdraw their appeals, both systems could move forward with construction.

Read the Fayetteville Observer’s report on FirstHealth’s certificate of need denial.

North Carolina Rejects First Health’s Bid for Surgery Center

Related posts

• Developing Processes for Meeting CMS’ New Conditions for Coverage: Q & A with Dan Short of Medical Web Technologies (0)
• MCOs must move system toward net gain (2)
• Cerner, CDW Healthcare Partner to Expand EHR Systems (0)
• Optical technique can identify early diagnosis (0)
• CMS Announces Anti-Fraud Measures for Durable Medical Equipment Suppliers (1)

As I sat with Ron Pelletier, vice president of market strategy, at a SourceMedical conference in Las Vegas, he stated, healthcare in general, grossly underutilizes the internet. We discussed one of the main reasons outpatient centers have been slow to change. “On the ASC side, things may not have been broken. Reimbursements were good, now that is changing. These centers are under pressure with reimbursements shrinking and costs going up. Many are saying, ‘In order to stay competitive and keep my business afloat, I need to find better ways of doing this.’ The necessity now is driving them.” states Pelletier.

This series of articles will cover some of the key points that need to be addressed when considering the implementation of an EMR in your ASC, including key benefits of EMRs, what to look for in a provider, how to get your staff ready for this impending transition.

To begin, we should consider the many definitions of an EMR. “There have been so many people out there that have said ‘I am selling an EMR’ and all it is is scanning in your paper and saving it to a computer,” says Craig Veach, senior vice president of operations for Amkai. “Then there are others who have a forms-based system. In the PIIM study, of the original 50 that were considered, none of those were even the forms-based systems because PIIM thought they were not commercially viable. You want something that is a true work-flow manager. Our EMR handles communications within the organization using an internal email and instant message (IM) that allows people to pass info and stay HIPAA compliant. It’s customizable on how it is set up to manage an individual organization’s workflow,” Veach adds. The Parsons Institute for Information Mapping (PIIM) study Veach refers to recently reviewed the top six EMR systems available on the market today.

This brings us to some of the key benefits a facility can gain through implementing an EMR. Michael Nolte, vice president and general manager of marketing for GE Healthcare IT, is aware that there are many questions and concerns from administrators and staff, but says that the long-term benefits will by far surpass the short-term apprehension. “In particular, for a smaller business, it’s a pretty big transition. There are three key benefits. First is the quality of care that you can deliver as a provider; when an EMR is used effectively it’s a really powerful tool. Both from a medical and a legal perspective, you have ensured that you have the right documentation in place that you are making good care decisions and that you have the ability to deliver the best quality of care for your patients. Second, is when our providers get really good at using a piece of software, and are transitioning from something that is usually more paper-based, it makes them more efficient. The ability to use their time more effectively, spending more time in the operating room and less time in the office is definitely enhanced by use of the software. And third is accuracy from a billing and reimbursement standpoint. In terms of getting a clear, well documented perspective on activity so that clinicians are getting paid for what they do everyday.”

On a more fundamental level, there are cost benefits in paper saving. “A lot of these centers are drowning in paper,” affirms Sean Benson, co-founder of ProVation Medical, part of Wolters Kluwer Health. “They are documenting everything on paper and with that come a lot of cost and inefficiencies. That includes the cost of paper, storage of charts, doing a chart pull, and assembling charts. All of those costs are really taken out of the system when you move to an electronic medical record. You are taking a lot of the redundancies out of the system.”

Oftentimes, hearing the benefits from peers can be most beneficial. Daren Smith, BSN, administrator at Fremont Surgical Center in Fremont, Neb., also shares his thoughts about the benefits. “It has so much capability to increase the level of quality of care that you are able to give to your patients. The EHR system capabilities to cross-check medications and make sure that the required information is there. Also, the ability for that information to be shared widely makes it very important. We have also found that it lends some credibility to your organization; that you are ahead of the game, ahead of the curve.”

What should an ASC look for in a provider? Administrators may want to consider what type of ASC in which they are working. If the ASC is a brand-new facility, it makes sense to start with an EMR. “For new ASCs, it’s almost a no brainer in terms of EMR and full-automation. We find that it is a straight forward conversation when you ask a new ASC, ‘why would you start by duplicating the old paper-based workflow when you have a chance to start fresh?’ The question is usually positively viewed since it just makes sense to go electronic from the outset. Existing ASCs are also interested, but have a little more adaptation to existing processes that they might see necessary. Actually, it’s an opportunity to look at current workflow and adapt it a little to realize the benefits from the software,” Don Fallati, senior vice president of marketing, Amkai states.

The existing ASC wanting to convert to an EMR has various items to address. While a new staff in a new ASC can face the implementation of an EMR with ease, staff members in current less technology-based facilities may be quick to decline the idea of learning anything new. The biggest part of getting ready for an EMR system is to realize there will be change. “If the staff, especially the internal champions or the leaders of the organization are resistant to change then they are going to be real problems. If you can identify key leaders within the organization, who understand that change is an important part of the process, and the short term challenges are worth the longer term benefits moving to an electronic system then you are really on the right track.”, states Benson.

Joe Macies, CEO of Amkai adds, “These systems today are modular. You don’t have to swallow the entire package and it doesn’t have to change every single facet of workflow. My two words of advice would be: get started. The EMR benefits are so great over such a long term, and eventually so necessary, I think, in any healthcare provider organization that you can get started and have a fairly graceful migration of your people at a reasonable pace over time when you’ve got modular software that fits users needs. It’s helpful not to approach EMR as having to find the perfect solution.”

Stay tuned to the second part of this series, EMR 202: How to Get Ready for Implementation where SurgiStrategies speaks to some ASCs that are in the process of EMR implementation or have an EMR in place where they discuss concerns challenges and advice.

EMR 101: An Overview of Key Benefits

Related posts

• N.J. Decision May Cause Big Challenges for State’s Physician-Owned ASCs (0)
• Salmonella-Tainted Pistachios and Other Health News (0)
• Study Examines Role of Colonoscopy in Detection of Interval Colorectal Cancer (0)
• Tips for Hiring and Keeping the Right Candidates (0)
• ASC Communications Launches New Web Site for Orthopedic and Spine Practices (0)

2. Overview of Qui Tam concepts. Qui Tam means “in the name of the king”. The concept of a Qui Tam action is similar to a whistleblower action and allows a private person, referred to as a “relator,” to file suit on behalf of the United States against those who have falsely or fraudulently claimed federal funds. Incentives are built in so that the qui tam relator is able to receive a part of the proceeds of a victory on behalf of the government. Further, the portion of an award amount that the relator retains is greater if the government does not join in the suit and therefore he or she does not receive the help of the government. Alternatively, if the government joins or “intervenes” in the lawsuit, the relator retains a lesser portion of any judgment or settlement obtained.

False Claims Act qui tam actions run the gamut of federally funded programs, from Medicare and Medicaid to defense and other government procurement contracts, federally insured mortgage and other federal housing programs, disaster assistance loans, agricultural subsidies and more. Persons who knowingly make false claims for federal funds are liable for three times the government’s loss plus a civil penalty of $5,500 to $11,000 for each claim. Relators recover 15 to 25 percent of the proceeds of a successful suit if the United States intervenes in the qui tam action, and up to 30 percent if the United States declines to intervene and the relator pursues the action alone. During fiscal year 2009 alone, relators were awarded $255 million. (This figure does not include relator shares awarded after Sept. 30, 2009.)

3. Top hospital recoveries. To see a list of the top 20 False Claims recoveries to date, go to www.taf.org/top20. Several hospitals and hospital companies have paid massive settlements to resolve false claims actions against them, including St. Barnabas Hospitals, a non-profit hospital chain in New Jersey, which paid $265 million in 2006 to settle allegations related to improperly claiming “outlier” Medicare payments (additional payments for particularly difficult or complex procedures). Also in 2006, Tenet Healthcare, a national hospital system, agreed to pay the federal government $900 million for billing violations also involving manipulation of outlier payments, as well as kickbacks, upcoding and bill padding. Similarly, in 2000, Columbia HCA, the largest for-profit hospital chain in the country paid more than $731 million to settle False Claims Act allegations against it. Currently, Toumey Healthcare System in South Carolina is involved in a False Claims litigation based on physician self-referral law violations that resulted in the submission of false claims, a legal theory that proved successful against a medical practice management company in the 2008 case U.S. v. Rogan in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

4. 2009 recoveries. In 2009, the U.S. government recovered $2.4 billion dollars under the False Claims Act. This was the second highest annual collection amount recorded in history, thanks in large part to an enormous settlement between the government and Pfizer Inc. The Department of Justice made the following statement regarding the Pfizer settlement in Sept. 2009:

American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. hereinafter together “Pfizer”) have agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, the Justice Department announced today.

Pharmacia & Upjohn Company has agreed to plead guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for misbranding Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead. Bextra is an anti-inflammatory drug that Pfizer pulled from the market in 2005. Under the provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, a company must specify the intended uses of a product in its new drug application to FDA. Once approved, the drug may not be marketed or promoted for so-called “off-label” uses – i.e., any use not specified in an application and approved by FDA. Pfizer promoted the sale of Bextra for several uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve due to safety concerns. The company will pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion, the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter. Pharmacia & Upjohn will also forfeit $105 million, for a total criminal resolution of $1.3 billion.

In addition, Pfizer has agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve allegations under the civil False Claims Act that the company illegally promoted four drugs – Bextra; Geodon, an anti-psychotic drug; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, an anti-epileptic drug – and caused false claims to be submitted to government health care programs for uses that were not medically accepted indications and therefore not covered by those programs.

5. Healthcare fraud — Top industry for False Claims recovery. Healthcare fraud represents the largest and most profitable industry for Qui Tam false claims collections. Healthcare fraud recoveries accounted for approximately $1.6 billion, more than two-thirds of the $2.4 billion dollars collected under the False Claims Act in total during 2009. Numerous federal agencies shared in these recoveries, including the Department of Health and Human Services, in connection with its Medicare and Medicaid programs; the Office of Personnel Management, which administers the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program; the Department of Defense for its TRICARE insurance program; and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

6. Pharmaceutical and medical device companies – Main targets. The largest qui tam settlements in 2009 came from pharmaceutical and medical device companies, including Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Bayer HealthCare, Quest Diagnostics and Eli Lilly, amongst others. The DOJ reported that pharmaceutical and device companies accounted for $866.7 million in settlements for federal recoveries, in addition to $402 million being returned to state Medicaid programs.

7. Retention of overpayments now can be considered a False Claims Act violation. In 2009, President Obama signed into law the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 which implemented significant changes to the False Claims Act, including the expansion of prohibited conduct under the False Claims Act to include not just the improper filing to collect monies, but also the known retention of overpayments by hospitals or other health care providers. The 2009 amendments also make clear that false claims submission to a state Medicaid program, although not directly submitted to the federal government, does constitute a violation of the False Claims Act.

8. Hospital sample False Claims policy. All health care providers and businesses submitting claims to the government for payment should have health care regulatory and false claims policies in place to educate its employees and agents and minimize the submission of false claims and the potential liability attached thereto. A good sample policy is available online at www.centralcommunityhospital.com. This sample policy is particularly designed to address a community hospital’s approach to false claims and other policies, and may need to be modified depending on the size of the entity, breadth of practice, or type of industry or provider submitting the claims.

9. Plaintiff’s law firms focus on Qui Tam. Over the past several years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of Qui Tam suits. As a result, there are now law firms that focus exclusively on qui tam actions. One such firm, Warren Benson Law Group, states on its website, www.warrenbensonlaw.com/medicare-fraud.com:

In recent years, Medicare fraud and Medicaid fraud have been the two most active areas of qui tam litigation, outnumbering qui tam cases involving defense contractor fraud. It is estimated that Medicare fraud and other fraud cost the federal government billions of dollars each year.

There are numerous frauds Medicare and other healthcare providers and companies have devised to cheat the Government…[such as:]

- Services not rendered
- Upcoding schemes and Unbundling
- Kickbacks and Self Referrals
- Falsely Certifying and Giving False Information
- Lack of Medical Necessity
- Fraudulent Cost Reports
- Grant or Research Fraud

These firms generally take qui tam cases on a contingency fee basis, making it enticing for potential relators to come forward and initiate litigation against the alleged wrong-doers.

10. Broad provider responsibility – Scope of liability. In the face of the increasing scrutiny of claims and the relatively new era of Recovery Audit Contractors, parties should understand the broad scope of what can be considered a false claim and their obligations to properly bill for services. A good discussion of the breadth of the provider’s responsibility is set forth in an article by Charlie Artz, a well-regarded healthcare attorney. See False Claims Act Implications in Physician’s News Digest www.physiciansnews.com/law/805artz.html. A few of the key concepts discussed by Mr. Artz are excerpted below:

In Re: Cardiac Devices Qui Tam Litigation, the U.S. District Court in Connecticut refused to dismiss a whistleblower’s case against health care providers who submitted claims for services that were not covered by Medicare, held that the health care providers had a duty to familiarize themselves with all requirements for reimbursement, and allowed the False Claims Act case to proceed exposing the health care providers to millions of dollars in refunds and civil fines.

Although the opinion was close to 100 pages in length, the key facts can be summarized as follows. Then-HCFA published a manual over 1,000 pages in length containing literally hundreds of reimbursement rules and requirements. These billing guidelines were not statutes passed by Congress after the people had an opportunity to debate them. These were not regulations published with notice and comment by the general public or the health care community to make improvements or to object to certain clauses. These were purely interpretive guidelines published by the federal government. One of those several hundred billing guidelines contained a provision prohibiting reimbursement for any non-FDA approved device or service. The 40 hospital defendants in this massive federal court litigation submitted claims to Medicare and received payment for services provided to patients who participated in clinical trials involving several different investigational cardiac devices that had not been approved for marketing by the FDA.
One clause in the hospital payment manual stated that medical devices not approved for marketing by FDA are considered investigational by Medicare and are not reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis and treatment of illness or injury under the Medicare statutory definition of medical necessity. Apparently, the hospitals billed these services by mistake, believing that since the clinical trial was approved, the provider was allowed to bill Medicare for the device and related services.

A whistleblower realized many hospitals were billing Medicare for non-FDA approved cardiac devices and filed a civil false claims case in federal court. The federal government intervened and is now prosecuting the False Claims Act case against hospitals. The hospitals asked the federal court to dismiss the case for several reasons. One of the key defenses is that a simple violation of a statute or regulation does not, by itself, trigger False Claims Act liability. The federal court rejected that analysis and made the following key points that should guide your compliance efforts.
11. Heightened regulatory and enforcement environment – False Claims Act and Anti-kickback Statute. The government has looked to regulatory mechanisms like the False Claims Act to recover money spent improperly as a politically palatable way to attack healthcare providers and healthcare costs. Given the demonstrated success of this strategy, we expect more, not less, recovery of claims of this sort. As William Corr, Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, stated on October 28, 2009:
As a result of the priority given to combating health care fraud by President Obama, the government has been able to achieve a more rapid response to fraudulent schemes and increase its recovery of more funds lost to fraud than in previous years. For example, HHS Office of Inspector General investigations have resulted in $4.0 billion in receivables for FY 2009, increase from $3.2 billion in DIG investigative receivables in FY2008. Strike force cases typically are indicted and litigated faster than traditional criminal health care fraud cases.

Since March 2007 strike force cases that included HHS agents have obtained 189 convictions, 443 indictments, and total an estimated $227 million in expected recoveries. During this time, the Department of Justice also secured the largest health care fraud settlement in history against a pharmaceutical company for Medicare and Medicaid fraud and for violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. I refer to the $2.3 billion settlement with Pfizer to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products.

11 Things to Know About the False Claims Act

Related posts

• WellCare Agrees to Pay $80M in Florida Healthcare Fraud Case (0)
• Health Reform Bill Reminds Texas Orthopedic Surgeon of HMOs in 1990s (0)
• Survey Finds Most Americans Believe Healthcare Costs Threaten Personal Financial Security (0)
• Pleasing Your Surgeons (0)
• Plans still fighting policy nuances (0)

The plan is focused on protecting people’s health during a large-scale emergency, according to a statement from HHS, and includes 10 objectives and an implementation guide to assist public and private healthcare organizations prepare for and manage health threats.

The policy is unlikely to receive adequate funding in the near future, according to Joseph White, professor of public policy, epidemiology and biostatistics, and director of the Center for Policy Studies at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

“The details in the interim strategy seem reasonably well-considered, [but] the overall rhetoric is boilerplate,” says White. “There won’t be much result because the budget situation is awful, and there is unlikely to be real money.”

BIRD FLU PROMPTS NEW PLAN

The security strategy was mandated in the Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act, passed shortly after the avian flu scare in 2005 and the SARS epidemic in 2003. The legislation directed the HHS secretary to develop the plan with an accompanying implementation process by 2009 and to revise the documents every four years. HHS stated, however, that it will update the implementation plan every two years to reflect advances in public health and medicine.

“As we’ve learned in the response to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, responsibility for improving our nation’s ability to address existing and emerging health threats must be broadly shared by everyone—governments, communities, families, and individuals,” HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement. “The National Health Security Strategy is a call to action for each of us so that every community becomes fully prepared and ready to recover quickly after an emergency.”

White believes this policy is, in part, the Obama administration’s attempt to better define duties between the HHS and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which joined the Department of Homeland Security after 9/11. Before the terrorist attacks, FEMA took an “all hazards” approach to disaster management, which included health epidemics, White says.

“A lot of serious public administration people whom I know said at the time that putting FEMA in DHS was a terrible idea,” he says. “So ‘all hazards’ was eliminated, and FEMA basically stopped paying attention to little things like hurricanes and epidemics.”

The goals of HHS’s strategy, such as building community resilience and strengthening and sustaining emergency response systems make sense, he says, but are unlikely to be high priorities.

“I’d be shocked if there is real money behind it,” he says.

HHS pandemic plan unlikely to receive adequate funding

Related posts

• Statistics on Surgery Center Leverage Ratios (0)
• Health Net reviews businesses (0)
• Part D tiers cost patients more (0)
• WellCare Agrees to Pay $80M in Florida Healthcare Fraud Case (0)
• Two California Surgery Centers to Merge (0)

1. Getting started. When you receive the payor’s proposed contract, including the entire proposed fee schedule, be aware that just about everything in there is negotiable.

• You can start by requesting an increase in all fees.
• The vast majority of pain management procedures fall into one to three categories. If the payor is objecting to the entire increase, try to focus on a few specific issues, such as two or three group rates that are significantly low and are your most frequently billed codes.
• Using objective data to back up your points will always give you a stronger case.Data sources may include:
  • Your practice’s accountant or reports you run on average billed procedures and average number of procedures per patient encounter.
  • AMA Annual Socioeconomic Survey
  • MGMA publications
  • Medical Economics Survey
  • Department of Commerce Web site

• Be sure to identify all payor policies that could undermine your practice. Watch for requirements that do not agree with requirements of other payors. Multiple or conflicting rules will wear down your billing staff. A contract is going to create more work if it requires invoices while other contracts do not, or if it reimburses for multiple procedures at 100/50/50 when others reimburse at 100/50/25.

• Consider using a “requesting a standard” addendum for all your contracts. This addendum typically lists the fee schedule, and how multiple procedures, implants and supplies will be paid. Identifying these items in the contract will help you build leverage, create a good political base and record successful agreements.

2. Negotiating grouper payments. Many payors still base ASC reimbursements on the old “grouper” methodology, which Medicare phased out in calendar year 2008.

• Payors that use the old groupers often add a tenth grouper, Group 0, which typically includes minor, office-based procedures such as trigger point injections and non-fluoroscopic guided procedures (nerve blocks) and sometimes even off-list procedures that are not in the payor’s regular list, such as discography. Carefully check rates for this added group because they may include procedures you perform (or plan to) and could be undervalued.
• Add-on codes such as those for each additional level (facets joint injections, transforaminal epidural injections and neurolytics) should all have the same “mapping” — assigning them to the same group — as in other contracts. Otherwise, you will find discrepancies when you perform a cost-to-reimbursement analysis. Moreover, some payments may turn out to be below Medicare rates, which is hardly a good idea.
• Find out the payment methodology for off-list procedures. These are referred to as “no Medicare value” or “non-grouped procedures.” This is vitally important for both the old groupers system as well as the new APCs. The old grouper payment system had a significant number of procedures that were off-list, many of which were typically office-based procedures without fluoroscopy guidance. However, discography (CPT 62290 and 62291), a popular diagnostic pain management procedure, was and still is off-list.
• It is critical to ascertain the payment amount and methodology. You may find that requesting mapping to a specific payment group is better than a percentage of billed charges. Payment arrangements based on a percentage of billed charges typically carries a default amount, called a ceiling, which may not be cost effective.
• Find out how implantable devices are handled. Devices such as spinal cord electrodes and stimulators and drug infusion pumps may be carved out and billed separately, or the price of the implanted device may be added to the group. If devices are carved out, make sure the margin is above the current Medicare rate.
• Placing electrode arrays for a spinal cord stimulator trial (CPT 63650) is a popular procedure and Medicare’s current reimbursement is actually quite good. Remember that Medicare’s payment indicator of H8 means the procedure is not subject to multiple-procedure discounting. Since many pain management physicians place two-electrode arrays, make sure the payor won’t reduce the payment of the second placement, whether or not the device is included in the reimbursement.

3. Dealing with plans using the new APC methodology. Commercial payors are increasingly transitioning from groupers to the new ambulatory payment methodology system developed for Medicare.

• For APCs, ask whether the payor’s mapping is precisely the same as Medicare’s. If it is different, your procedures may turn out to pay less than you expected.
• How are off-list procedures such as discography paid? These should be defined with a default rate at a percentage of billed charges, with or without a ceiling. If there is a ceiling, make certain your fee is high enough for the discount. The other option would be to suggest the payor add these off-list procedures to a particular group.
• Ask about additional carve-outs for drugs, supplies or fluoroscopy you would like to have. It doesn’t hurt to ask how these will be reimbursed rather than if they will be.
• With APCs, it’s better to negotiate the all-inclusive rate or negotiate an amount for the device plus a reasonable handling fee. You do not want to have a contract that forces you to send a paper claim with an invoice.

4. If the payor offers both methodologies. Determine your top 15 most frequently billed codes. You may actually be better off with the calendar year 2007rates and groupers, especially if you have a lot of minor procedures and the default rate for off-list procedures is favorable.

5. Negotiating any kind of contract. Here are some basic tips that will apply to any kind of payment system you negotiate.

• For procedures requiring a costly one-time use device, such as a spinal wand for percutaneous discectomy (62287), which costs about $1,000 per case, ask if its pass-through code (C2614) would be carved out. This is important because the payor may have grouped this with a rate that does not cover the costs of the one-time use device.
• Inquire about the new CPT codes for facet joint injections. Prior to 2010, these injections were billed with two CPT codes, one code for the first level and another for each additional level. But under the new 2010 codes, these injections are billed as three codes: single, second and third, plus each additional injection. If the reimbursement is the same as last year, try to make sure facet injections for the third and additional levels (64492 & 64495) get a higher fee.
• Ask for the payment policies and rates for multiple procedures during the same patient encounter. If you don’t settle this, you could end up with a contract that pays below Medicare rates. You should get 100 percent of the fee schedule for the first procedure and then 50 percent for each additional procedure. You do not want to let it go down to 25 percent for any further additional procedures after the second. Ask if there is a maximum number of procedures allowed per patient encounter. This is not the same as medical necessity precedence.
• Agreeing to an all-inclusive case rate is not a good idea for most pain management procedures, unless the rate is high enough to cover multiple pain procedures involving bilateral and/or additional levels injections. Make sure this does not somehow include the professional component of a fluoroscopy.
• Ask for additional payment for the technical component of the use of the C-arm for fluoroscopy guidance and interpretive reports. The most frequently billed codes as follows:
  • 77002-tc Fluoroscopic guidance for needle placement for spinal injection procedures
  • 77003-tc Fluoroscopic guidance for needle placement for nerve blocks
  • 72275-tc (Epidurogram (with dictation) w/o use 76005)
  • 72285-tc (Radiological interpretation, cervical)
  • 72295-tc (Radiological interpretation, lumbar)

6. Final tips. Remember to read the entire contract and assess all the ways it could impact you now and in the future before you sign.

• If you can’t reach a reasonable agreement, ask yourself: Would losing this contract benefit or hurt my practice? How much of a market presence does this payor have? And do we see a significant amount of this payor’s enrollees?
• It’s essential that the contract is a friendly, mutually beneficial agreement. You have a lot of mutual interests. For example, what benefits the plan’s enrollees benefits your patients. And if the contract is cumbersome for you to administer, it will probably be cumbersome for the payor as well. Remember to work closely with your payor representative. People respond positively to people they know and respect.

6 Best Practices for Negotiating Managed Care Contracts for ASC Pain Management

Related posts

• Barry Lachman, MD, Medical Director, Parkland Community Health Plan (0)
• CMS Establishes New ASC Conditions for Coverage (0)
• AMA Releases CPT Codes for H1N1 Vaccinations (0)
• Children’s health worthy of investment (0)
• Social networking gone bad (0)

“Every medical center in our region has tuberculosis on its risk assessment list, that is, its list of potential issues to monitor on a continuing basis,” says Stephen Parodi, MD, chief of infectious disease for Kaiser Permanente, Northern California. “We make it a priority to ensure that patients at risk for infection with TB are screened for latent infections.”

The region includes 20 medical centers serving 3.1 million members. Dr. Parodi says the plan encourages screening for those who have been incarcerated or have a history of IV drug use and has educated primary care physicians and pediatricians to screen for TB.

“We saw a significant surge in TB cases when the HIV epidemic first hit; since then we’ve seen a leveling off,” he says. “In terms of epidemiology, it’s interesting to note that many cases we’re now seeing are in foreign-born individuals. We live in a global world, and we need to be aware that constant vigilance and aggressive, early recognition of latent and active disease will prevent further spread.”

Most people infected with tuberculosis don’t have any symptoms. When a patient is positive for latent TB, the clinician looks at the risk factors and determines (based on criteria from the Centers for Disease Control) whether the person is a candidate for preventive medicine.

“Preventive medicine is a lot easier than treating the active form of the disease,” Dr. Parodi says. “With latent disease we can treat with one drug, as opposed to active disease, where we typically have to use a minimum of four drugs initially.”

Patients who develop active TB experience symptoms such as weight loss, fever, night sweats, cough, chest pain and bloody sputum.

“Until susceptibility results are available, empiric initial treatment for active TB should include four drugs: isoniazid, rifampin, pyrazinamide and ethambutol,” says Mark Abramowicz, MD, editor-in-chief of The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics, a non-profit newsletter that critically appraises drugs. “When susceptibility to isoniazid, rifampin and pyrazinamide has been documented, ethambutol can be omitted.”

DIRECT PATIENT OBSERVATION NEEDED

One of the greatest problems in TB treatment today is the emergence of drug-resistant strains of the bacteria.

“Poor adherence to TB therapy is the most common cause of treatment failure, and can lead to drug resistance,” says Dr. Abramowicz. “Medical Letter consultants recommend that most patients, including those with disease due to drug-susceptible strains, take drugs for active TB under direct observation.”

At Kaiser, patients with active TB are monitored closely, typically with a monthly office visit. Kaiser physicians sign the orders for directly observed therapy, which is provided by the county public health department.

“We provide medications, lab testing to monitor potential side effects, symptom assessments, and imaging, x-rays or CT scans as needed,” Dr. Parodi says. “Protocols differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction in terms of exactly who gets directly observed therapy, but in our experience, most counties are aggressive. If there is an identified case of active, potentially contagious TB, that person is receiving directly observed therapy.”

Extensively drug-resistant TB is a form of the disease caused by strains that are resistant to all the most effective anti-TB drugs. The World Health Organization reports that 41 countries have cases of extensively drug-resistant TB, including the United States.

“Confirmed multidrug-resistant tuberculosis and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis should be treated with directly observed therapy in collaboration with a clinician familiar with management of these conditions,” says Dr. Abramowicz. “Regimens for these conditions must include at least four drugs to which the organism is susceptible; the duration of therapy usually should be 18 to 24 months.”

In recent years, researchers have made considerable progress toward developing new medications that could treat tuberculosis more effectively. Eleven new medications from seven different drug classes are currently in clinical trials for tuberculosis.

“The medications that are farthest along are antibiotics called fluoroquinolones, which have the potential to shorten the duration of therapy,” says Eric Nuermberger, MD, associate professor of medicine and international health at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, who is on the faculty of Hopkins’ Center for Tuberculosis Research. “Current medications require six to nine months; we hope fluoroquinolones will reduce that to four months. Four phase II studies of fluoroquinolones are currently underway, and we should have an answer in about two years.”

Fluoroquinolone drugs are already on the market in the United States for acute conditions such as community-acquired respiratory tract infections and urinary tract infections.

Of the medications that are being developed solely for tuberculosis, the one that’s furthest along is TMC207, developed by Tibotec.

According to a recent study in The New England Journal of Medicine, when researchers added TMC207 to a standard regimen for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, a significantly higher proportion of patients had negative sputum cultures at two months.

Elaine Zablocki has been reporting on healthcare for more than 20 years. She is based in Oregon.

This article is based on information supplied by The Medical Letter (www.medicalletter.org), a non-profit organization that publishes newsletters offering critical appraisals of new drugs and comparative reviews of older drugs. The Medical Letter is independent of the pharmaceutical industry and supported entirely by subscription sales. Institutional site license inquiries can be sent to info@medicalletter.org [info@medicalletter.org]

Tuberculosis treatment requires medication and monitoring

Related posts

• Federal Insurance Czar debated (0)
• Increased Use of Drugs for Mental Illness and Other Health News (0)
• HHS Sec. Sebelius Calls on Anthem Blue Cross of California to Justify Rate Hikes (0)
• Richardson Death, Head Injuries, and Other Health News (0)
• Miami Woman Pleads Guilty to Medicare Fraud in Georgia District Court (0)

President Obama accused the Republicans of being obstructionist but called on Democratic leaders to “put aside matters of party for the good of the country.” He said he would be willing to consider reforms that:

• “bring down costs for all Americans as well as for the federal government”;
• provide adequate protection against abuses by the insurance industry;
• make coverage affordable and available to the uninsured; and
• help the federal government “get on a path of fiscal sustainability.”

President Obama added that he would like “to work on ways to limit medical malpractice lawsuits” but indicted he might not support tort reforms that could only have a modest effect on healthcare costs.

The president, who plans to meet with Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders in a healthcare summit on Feb. 25, seems to have ambiguous support from the American public.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 57 percent of Americans view the loss of Senate Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority as a “good thing,” but 63 percent still want Congress to deal with health reform.

The Post added that the president’s 20-point advantage over Republicans last summer on handling healthcare issues has slipped.

Read the White House’s transcript of the president’s news conference.

After Meeting With GOP, President Lays Out Reforms He’d Consider

Related posts

• Number of Uninsured Will Rise to 54M by 2019 (0)
• Advantedge Healthcare Solutions to Combine Operations (0)
• GAO Report Calls for Better Data on Healthcare-Associated Infections in Surgery Centers (0)
• Comparative effectiveness needs reimbursement reform (0)
• Cogdell Spencer Announces New Regional Presidents for Erdman (0)

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the single most common cause of death in women and men. Despite widespread assumptions to the contrary, women have accounted for more than one-half of the almost 1 million deaths due to heart disease and stroke in the United States annually since 1984. Women, compared to men, especially those under the age of 50 years, experience higher rates of recurrent myocardial infarction, heart failure and mortality after a first myocardial infarction, and are more likely to be misdiagnosed or diagnosed late in the course of their illness.

Annual hospitalizations and mortality for heart failure and total CVD expenditures are greater for women than men. While mortality from cardiovascular diseases has significantly declined over the past three decades, women have not experienced the same reductions in death and disability as have men. This significant gender-related mortality gap persists due to a combination of low awareness, misconceptions by physicians and women, gender-based physiologic differences, and disparities in care.

While these data might initially appear discouraging, improving these measures represents a significant opportunity to improve women’s CVD outcomes as well reduce overall healthcare expenditures by providing optimal screening and preventive services, appropriate and accurate diagnostic tests and timely cardiac care.

LESS THERAPY FOR WOMEN

The underlying causes for these disparities are multifactorial and the solutions complex. Gender-based disparities in preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic interventions are present on multiple levels. Women receive fewer cardiac diagnostic evaluations and less intensive therapy, from preventive interventions, to revascularization procedures to aspirin prescriptions. Even after a diagnosis of heart disease, gender-based differences in provision of care are present.

Women hospitalized with myocardial infarction are more likely than men to be managed by generalists, rather than referred for cardiology consultation, and are less likely to be transferred from community hospitals to centers for advanced care—practices associated with poorer short-term outcomes.

Additionally, societal and individual misconceptions about cardiovascular risk and what a heart patient “looks like,” along with inadequate gender-specific research data on cardiovascular disease and risk factors, contribute to lower awareness and poorer outcomes. While women’s symptoms can sometimes be challenging to address, both women and their physicians can be too quick to attribute potential manifestations of cardiac disease to menopause or aging. It is important to counteract the widely held belief that women do not develop heart disease except at advanced ages by raising physicians’ “index of suspicion” for cardiovascular disease in women.

There is also a growing body of literature documenting important biologic gender differences in CVD that may impact clinical care delivery. There are obvious differences due to the effects of gonadal hormones. However, differences in symptoms, accuracy of diagnostic tests, response to therapy, prevalence and relative risk of cardiovascular risk factors, as well as social and behavioral issues have all been identified. It is not always apparent whether or not these differences warrant a variation in established practice.

Many early cardiovascular clinical trials routinely exclude women or make no effort to enroll women in sufficient numbers to draw gender-based conclusions. With few exceptions, women currently make up only 20% to 30% of participants in cardiovascular clinical trials. Even when women are included as research subjects, it is often difficult to determine their outcomes from published reports. Only a quarter of recent cardiovascular trial results published in major U.S. internal medicine and cardiology journals reported gender-specific outcomes.

The lack of relevant research in women has resulted in a substantial and persistent gender-based knowledge gap about everything from the symptoms of heart attack in women, to the risks and benefits of commonly used cardiovascular diagnostic tests and therapies. Better evidence from properly designed research studies can better serve women with CVD.

An important example is the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI)-funded multi-center Women’s Ischemic Syndrome Evaluation (WISE) study of approximately 900 women who underwent coronary angiography for chest pain symptoms and a multitude of other investigations designed to better characterize ischemic heart disease in women. We have already learned a great deal from numerous WISE publications that have underscored the value of gender-specific research and fundamentally changed the understanding of chest pain, CVD risk factors, vascular function, hormone interactions and atherosclerosis in women.

Cardiovascular clinical trial design must include women in adequate numbers to provide gender-specific data, and that data must be analyzed and reported by gender.

Systemic contributions to differences in cardiovascular care for women also include physician practice and referral patterns. In the United States, many women receive all or most of their medical care from specialists in obstetrics and gynecology during their reproductive years and continue those relationships well past menopause, or until a significant non-gynecologic illness occurs. Traditionally, there has been a greater focus on reproductive and breast health than on other health risks, and less awareness and self efficacy among these specialists about early cardiovascular risk identification and treatment.

RISK FACTORS ON THE RISE

The rise in risk factor prevalence in younger women, especially smoking, obesity and diabetes, has led to a growing number of individuals at high risk who do not look like typical heart patients. Reducing women’s future burden of CVD will depend heavily on improved preventive measures which currently fall short of recommendations. Simply taking what has been proven effective, and widely and appropriately applying it to women, can markedly improve care and outcomes.

Critical to this effort is continued education about women’s cardiovascular risks, symptoms and the use of appropriate diagnostic tests and therapies.

The most recent guideline, published in 2007 by the American Heart Assn. and endorsed by multiple professional and patient organizations, has simplified the risk assessment and decision-making process for easier implementation in daily practice.

The guidelines encourage clinicians and patients to focus on reducing long-term, rather than 10-year CVD risk. With few exceptions, those therapies that have been shown efficacious in men also prevent CVD in women and should be recommended to women at risk.

Sharonne Hayes, MD, FACC, is the director of the Mayo Clinic Women’s Heart Clinic and associate professor of medicine for the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine.

Mortality, costs higher for women with cardiovascular disease

Related posts

• Anthem Blue Cross of California Raises Individual Premiums by 30-39% (0)
• Battleground New Jersey: Is an “Anti-ASC Pandemic” Possible? (0)
• More Charges, Indictments in 154 Million, Largest-Ever Insurance Fraud Scheme Involving ASC (0)
• Best Practices for Physician-Hospital Partnerships: Getting to Win-Win (0)
• Study: Colonoscopy More Effective in Detecting Left-Sided Colorectal Neoplasms (0)

Physicians can charge for consultations with patients in some cases, even in they occur over the phone, if the conversations are necessary to manage and coordinate patient care, according to the report.

Many insurers in the state cover these fees, and any additional costs not covered by the insurer will be passed on to the patient. However, if an insurer does not cover these costs, the cost cannot be charged to the patient. Massachusetts prohibits such “balance billing” of uncovered services, according to the report. Medicare, for example, will not pay for such charges, meaning costs for the calls cannot be passed on to Medicare patients unless the patient has previously agreed to the charges, according to the report.

Read the Patriot Ledger’s report on billing for phone calls.

Massachusetts Physicians Now Billing for Time Spent on the Phone With Patients

Related posts

• 14 Illinois Radiology Centers Settle MRI Kickback Case for $1.2M (0)
• Compliance Guidelines Related to Selling Units in an ASC to Physician Investors (0)
• MCOs see value in personalized medicine (0)
• ERCI Releases New Surgical Fire Prevention Recommendations (0)
• 10 Critical Policies and Procedures for ASC Risk Management (0)