Some hospital organizations are pushing back, stating that the new regulations are ‘too rigid’ and interfere with doctors’ treatment of patients
In August, the Biden administration finalized provisions for hospitals to meet specific treatment metrics for all patients with suspected sepsis. Hospitals that fail to meet these requirements risk the potential loss of millions of dollars in Medicare reimbursements annually. This new federal rule did not go over well with some in the hospital industry.
Sepsis kills about 350,000 people every year. One in three people who contract the deadly blood infection in hospitals die, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Thus, the federal government has once again implemented a final rule that requires hospitals, clinical laboratories, and medical providers to take immediate actions to diagnose and treat sepsis patients.
The effort has elicited pushback from several healthcare organizations that say the measure is “too rigid” and “does not allow clinicians flexibility to determine how recommendations should apply to their specific patients,” according to Becker’s Hospital Review.
Perform blood tests within a specific period of time to look for biomarkers in patients that may indicate sepsis, and to
Administer antibiotics within three hours after a possible case is identified.
It also mandates that certain other tests are performed, and intravenous fluids administered, to prevent blood pressure from dipping to dangerously low levels.
“These are core things that everyone should do every time they see a septic patient,” said Steven Simpson, MD, Professor of medicine at the University of Kansas told Fierce Healthcare. Simpson is also the chairman of the Sepsis Alliance, an advocacy group that works to battle sepsis.
Simpson believes there is enough evidence to prove that the SEP-1 guidelines result in improved patient care and outcomes and should be enforced.
“It is quite clear that this works better than what was present before, which was nothing,” he said. “If the current sepsis mortality rate could be cut by even 5%, we could save a lot of lives. Before, even if you were reporting 0% compliance, you didn’t lose your money. Now you actually have to do it,” Simpson noted.
“We are encouraged by the increased attention to sepsis and support CMS’ creation of a sepsis mortality measure that will encourage hospitals to pay more attention to the full breadth of sepsis care,” Chanu Rhee, MD (above), Infectious Disease/Critical Care Physician and Associate Hospital Epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital told Healthcare Finance. The new rule, however, requires doctors and medical laboratories to conduct tests and administer antibiotic treatment sooner than many healthcare providers deem wise. (Photo copyright: Brigham and Women’s Hospital.)
Healthcare Organizations Pushback against Final Rule
“By encouraging the use of broad spectrum antibiotics when more targeted ones will suffice, this measure promotes the overuse of the antibiotics that are our last line of defense against drug-resistant bacteria,” the AHA’s letter states.
In its recent coverage of the healthcare organizations’ pushback to CMS’ final rule, Healthcare Finance News explained, “The SEP-1 measure requires clinicians to provide a bundle of care to all patients with possible sepsis within three hours of recognition. … But the SEP-1 measure doesn’t take into account that many serious conditions present in a similar fashion to sepsis … Pushing clinicians to treat all these patients as if they have sepsis … leads to overuse of broad-spectrum antibiotics, which can be harmful to patients who are not infected, those who are infected with viruses rather than bacteria, and those who could safely be treated with narrower-spectrum antibiotics.”
CMS’ latest rule follows the same evolutionary path as previous federal guidelines. In August 2007, CMS announced that Medicare would no longer pay for additional costs associated with preventable errors, including situations known as Never Events. These are “adverse events that are serious, largely preventable, and of concern to both the public and healthcare providers for the purpose of public accountability,” according to the Leapfrog Group.
In 2014, the CDC suggested that all US hospitals have an antibiotic stewardship program (ASP) to measure and improve how antibiotics are prescribed by clinicians and utilized by patients.
Research Does Not Show Federal Sepsis Programs Work
He points to analysis which showed that though use of broad-spectrum antibiotics increased after the original 2015 SEP-1 regulations were introduced, there has been little change to patient outcomes.
“Unfortunately, we do not have good evidence that implementation of the sepsis policy has led to an improvement in sepsis mortality rates,” Rhee told Fierce Healthcare.
Rhee believes that the latest regulations are a step in the right direction, but that more needs to be done for sepsis care. “Retiring past measures and refining future ones will help stimulate new innovations in diagnosis and treatment and ultimately improve outcomes for the many patients affected by sepsis,” he told Healthcare Finance.
Sepsis is very difficult to diagnose quickly and accurately. Delaying treatment could result in serious consequences. But clinical laboratory blood tests for blood infections can take up to three days to produce a result. During that time, a patient could be receiving the wrong antibiotic for the infection, which could lead to worse problems.
The new federal regulation is designed to ensure that patients receive the best care possible when dealing with sepsis and to lower mortality rates in those patients. It remains to be seen if it will have the desired effect.
Meanwhile, some insurance payers are dropping coverage for certain medical treatments they consider “unnecessary,” leaving hospitals and their medical laboratories to wonder if they will be reimbursed for the tests they perform
Hospital-based medical laboratories and anatomic pathologists are well aware that the emergency department (ED) in their hospital is their single largest customer and that reporting test results within required turn-around times (TATs) is a non-stop battle. Thus, it will not be a surprise to learn that EDs provide nearly half of all hospital-related medical care in the US. That’s what a study by the University of Maryland School of Medicine (UMSOM) reports.
The UMSOM researchers claim their study, which was published in the International Journal for Health Services (IJHS), is the first ever to quantify the contribution EDs make to US healthcare. According to an UMSOM news release, they determined that 47.7% of all hospital-associated medical care between 1996 and 2010 was delivered by EDs.
Results Show EDs Critical to Healthcare Delivery
This a remarkable revelation. “I was stunned by the results,” David Marcozzi, MD, Associate Professor and Assistant Chief Medical Officer for Acute Care, UMSOM Department of Emergency Medicine, told Becker’s Hospital Review. Marcozzi led the study, which involved researchers from Thomas Jefferson University and other academic institutions.
“This research underscores the fact that emergency departments are critical to our nation’s healthcare delivery system,” he continued. “Patients seek care in emergency departments for many reasons. The data might suggest that emergency care provides the type of care that individuals actually want or need.”
As Becker’s Hospital Review explained, there were about 130-million visits to hospital EDs as compared to 101-million outpatient visits, and 39-million inpatient visits during 2010, the most recent year analyzed by UMSOM.
Quantifying the EDs Contribution to Healthcare
The researchers studied the role EDs play in caring for Americans, as compared to hospital outpatient and inpatient sectors. They were motivated, in part, by the apparent extra attention healthcare decision-makers pay to inpatient services and costs. As an emergency medicine and population health specialist, Marcozzi (who also works in the UM Medical Center Emergency Department) challenged that focal point.
In the first study to quantify the contribution of emergency department care to overall US healthcare, researchers at the University of Maryland School of Medicine (UMSOM) have found that nearly half of all US hospital-associated medical care is delivered by emergency departments. In this video, David Marcozzi, MD, MHS-CL, FACEP, talks about why this is happening and what the ramifications are for healthcare delivery in the US. Click on image above to view video. (Video and caption copyright: University of Maryland School of Medicine.)
The researchers cited National Center for Health Statistics data suggesting just 12% of ED encounters led to hospitalizations. This seems to counter claims of up to 50% of all healthcare being delivered in EDs. However, the researchers note that EDs also serve the uninsured and poor, many of whom are not admitted to the hospital.
“Traditional approaches to assessing the health of populations focus on the use of primary care and the delivery of care through patient-centered [medical] homes, managed care resources, and accountable care organizations. The use of EDs has not been given much consideration in these models,” the authors wrote in their paper.
ED Visits Jump Nearly 44% over 14 Years
Researchers analyzed ED patient, outpatient, and inpatient data from these sources:
National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey
National Hospital Discharge Survey
Electronic data files (sources of patient demographics and medical information) from commercial organizations, state data systems, hospitals, and hospital associations
They discovered that 3.5-billion healthcare encounters occurred over the 14-year period studied (1996 to 2010), representing a 43.7% increase in ED visits during that time.
During that period, ED utilization resulted in:
1.6-billion ED visits or 47.7%
1.3-billion outpatient visits or 37.6%
5.2-million hospital admissions or 14.8%
The UMSOM study also found EDs were increasingly being used by African Americans in the south and west and by Medicaid beneficiaries, Fierce Healthcare reported.
“When considering the isolated ED case mix, Medicaid as a course of payment showed a major increase in its contribution, shifting from 19.4% to 27.5% of all emergency care,” the researchers noted.
What’s needed, according to the study authors, are solutions to address non-urgent conditions often seen in EDs. However, they acknowledge, that the topic has drawn controversy.
Insurers Respond to Trend by Dropping Coverage of ‘Unnecessary’ ED Treatments
Some insurance companies on the hook for increasing ED costs have devised a novel approach to the increased cost—stop paying for it.
These new guidelines, which created quite a stir in Georgia before they went into effect July 1, 2017, are mirrored at BCBS affiliates in New York, Missouri, and Kentucky, noted sources in the Dark Daily report.
Non-avoidable Healthcare Events and ‘Connecting the Care’
“Despite a relentless campaign by the insurance industry to mislead policymakers and the public into believing that many ER visits are avoidable, the facts say otherwise,” stated Becky Parker, MD, President of the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), in a news release.
UMSOM’s Marcozzi says the aim should be to “connect the care” delivered in EDs with other care offered by the healthcare system.
“Restricting EDs to patients classified as having critical illness does not seem a feasible or humanitarian option, as many individuals would not be able to find care elsewhere. In addition, many people do not have the knowledge to determine which symptoms indicate an emergency,” the researchers note.
Clinical Laboratories Can Download the UMSOM Full Study for Future Reference
At this point, it’s not clear how increasing ED costs and decreasing insurance payments will impact medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups. Nevertheless, the UMSOM study is a good resource. ED volume and test orders will likely increase as more people go to EDs for treatment.
As a special to Dark Daily readers, Sage Publications is granting full access to UMSOM’s study through March 31, 2018. After that date, only the abstract will be available to non-IJHS subscribers. Click here to reach the full study article or place this URL into your browser: http://journals.sagepub.com/stoken/default+domain/JG8RNXfhAf7fuhFRIUIV/full.
Experts concerned people will be unable to judge a true emergency from a minor health concern; patients could be left with a big ER bill if they are wrong
Here’s a groundbreaking way payers are keeping healthcare costs down: Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) of Georgia sent letters to its members in May informing them that they will no longer be reimbursed by the insurer for “non-emergency” related services obtained in emergency rooms (ERs).
Pathology groups and medical laboratory leaders, will want to monitor and potentially respond to this important emergency coverage development. Hospital-based medical laboratories receive high volumes of test orders from the ER. Any decline in ER visits from a payer policy like this will have staffing and budget implications for hospital labs.
Medical Groups Warn of Dire Consequences
The new policy garnered national media coverage in addition to local exposure in Georgia, where it went into effect on July 1. BCBS affiliates in New York, Missouri, and Kentucky are considering similar policies as well, noted an article in The Fiscal Times.
“Anthem believes that primary care doctors are in the best position to have a comprehensive view of their patient’s health status and should be the first medical professionals patients see with any non-emergency medical concerns,” Anthem stated in the Fiscal Times article.
In its letter, BCBS of Georgia defines an emergency as a “medical or behavioral health condition of recent onset” that a “prudent layperson” deems health-threatening. However, many symptoms, such as chest pain, can lead to sudden death. How is the average person to know if what they are experiencing will turn out to be angina, a painful but often non-fatal condition, and not a life-threatening embolism?
“Anyone who seeks emergency care suffering from symptoms that appear to be an emergency, such as chest pain, should not be denied coverage if the final diagnosis does not turn out to be an emergency,” the ACEP concluded.
Are Patients Able to Judge Where They Should Go?
Some experts warn that many people might be unable to judge the true nature of their conditions when under stress.
The ACEP and its Missouri Chapter said in a statement that Anthem BCBS lists almost 2,000 diagnoses it considers to be “non-urgent” and not covered in the ER. The professional organization contends, however, that some of the diagnoses on the insurer’s list have the propensity to be medical emergency symptoms as well.
Influenza, which thousands of people die from each year.
However, cold symptoms, sore throat, physical exams, and minor injuries are among the complaints best addressed by walk-in clinics or urgent care centers, BCBS explained in a blog article.
Nevertheless, Debbie Diamond, Public Relations Director for BCBS of Georgia, told The Fiscal Times that a person who mistakes indigestion for chest pain is likely to be covered for ER care (in keeping with prudent layperson guidance).
Distinguishing Between Necessary and Unnecessary ER Visits
It’s not always simple to recognize an emergency from a non-emergency. Even emergency medicine professionals often have difficulty doing so.
Renee Hsia, MD (above), is Professor and Director of Health Policy Studies, Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of California School of Medicine, San Francisco (UCSF). She told the Los Angeles Times that the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia emergency coverage policy is a “well-intentioned policy with dangerous consequences.” (Photo copyright: Angie’s List/Adm Golub.)
“Our findings indicate that either patients or healthcare professionals do entertain a degree of uncertainty that requires further evaluation before diagnosis,” the authors wrote in JAMA.
Where Next? Who’s Next?
Despite the discord over the reduction in non-emergency coverage, more BCBS affiliates may soon adopt the same policy. And what of other large insurers? Might they be watching and considering whether to alter their emergency coverage, as well, to save money?
Thus, clinical laboratories in Georgia hospitals will want to closely monitor their institution’s ER test volume. It could take a while for Blue Cross patients in Georgia to realize that some ER visits (and the clinical laboratory tests associated with them) might not be covered by their insurance. This will happen in instances where their insurer denies claims for services that, in Anthem’s opinion, were better suited for primary care doctors and urgent care centers rather than ERs.
Use of telemedicine services in radiology and pharmacy may hold down labor costs and expand services for patients, but expanded use of telemedicine could also disrupt other local medical subspecialty providers, including pathologists
Over the past 15 years, pathologists have watched how radiology has been disrupted by the “nighthawk” model of remote teleradiology services. Now, the nighthawk approach to telepharmacy could disrupt pharmacy as well. As this happens, pathologists may be wondering when their medical specialty will see its first “nighthawk pathology” disruptors.
Remote Pharmacists Improve Hospital Drug Delivery
One company bringing the nighthawk model to hospital pharmacy services is PipelineRx of San Francisco, California. Its executives believe that they can make the drug delivery system in hospitals more efficient by filling labor shortages with remote pharmacists, according to a MedCity News article.
PipelineRx CEO Brian Roberts acknowledges that his company is taking a page from the teleradiology playbook. “We figured we could do the same with pharmacies because of the technology and create an environment and monitor prescriptions in the hospital and allocate it to home pharmacists,” Roberts told MedCity News, adding that it can both trim costs while ensuring adequate monitoring for patient safety. (more…)
Scribe-assisted physicians say their productivity is back to normal after plummeting with connection to an EHR and have time to spare
One unintended consequence of the federal program to encourage hospitals and physicians to adopt and use electronic health record (EHRS) systems is the creation of a new category of healthcare worker. Today, a growing number of hospitals and medical groups are hiring medical scribes.
Medical scribes are trained individuals who document physician-patient encounters in real-time while a physician is examining the patient. Dark Daily was one of the first to call attention to this new healthcare profession. Medical scribes got their start several years ago working in emergency rooms (ER) to help increase ER physician productivity [See Dark Daily: Adoption of EMRs Creates Demand for New Healthcare Job of ‘Scribes’].
Now, thanks in part to $15.5 billion in federal funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, medical scribes are assisting physicians outside the ER. They can be found with doctors making hospital rounds and in medical practices, entering patient medical data into EHRs while physicians are examining or interacting with patients, noted a report published in Modern Healthcare. (more…)
