Experts blame insurance regulators for not ensuring the adequacy of healthcare networks that include hospital-based physicians, such as pathologists and radiologists
According to a recent study, clinical laboratories, anatomic pathologists, radiologists, and anesthesiologists top the list of providers who bill patients for the difference between what they charge for their services and a hospital’s contracted reimbursement rates.
This so-called “balance-billing” not only causes hardship for patients and consumers already shouldering a larger portion of their healthcare costs, but poses a public relations concern for service providers across the US healthcare industry as well.
Following public outcry from patients who received care at
what they believed to be in-network medical facilities, only then to be surprised
by bills from their care providers for the remaining balance not covered by
their insurance, the practice of balance billing has drawn increased scrutiny from
state and federal officials.
Medical Laboratory
Charges Top Reason for Surprise Bills
In their report, NORC notes that of those surveyed, 57% (567 individuals) acknowledged receiving a surprise medical bill they thought would be covered by their health insurance.
When asked about the network status of the doctor who
provided care during the episode related to the surprise bill, 79% responded
that charges were not for doctors being out-of-network for their insurance
plan. Medical laboratory-related charges were near the top of reasons patients
received surprise bills, with 51% of individuals receiving bills related to “a
laboratory test, like a blood test.”
Such surprise medical bills received frequent coverage in
2018. This has led many states to enact or discuss legislation to address the
practice and offer cost protections for patients.
Thus far, however, little change to existing regulations and
contract systems has been enacted to protect patients or help laboratories and
other service providers offer alternative payment solutions for patients.
There also are few requirements for insurance providers to verify
that plans include sufficient numbers of in-network service providers when
offering plans to consumers.
“Many news stories on ‘surprise’ billing blame physicians, because the bill is sent from the doctor’s office or billing company. But the insurance industry is the real culprit, in concert with insurance regulators who have not acted to require network adequacy,” R. Bruce Williams, MD (left), President, College of American Pathologists (CAP), and Geraldine B. McGinty, MD (right), Chair of the American College of Radiology Board of Chancellors, wrote in STAT. (Photos copyrights: College of American Pathologists/Geraldine McGinty.)
States Move to Change
Trends While Patients Continue to Experience Bill Shock
States are beginning to address surprise billing concerns ahead of action by insurance regulators and the federal government. In December, the Arizona Department of Insurance issued a news release outlining the agency’s plan to allow for arbitration questions for surprise out-of-network bills.
And, California effectively banned out-of-network billing from groups within in-network facilities in 2017 with Assembly Bill 72. However, the state only finalized reimbursement rates for service providers and patients affected by surprise bills in January of this year according to Capital Public Radio.
Many of these state-level regulations do not account for the complexity of creating rules based on emergency or non-emergency care or the insurance providers in question. For example, Assembly Bill 72 does not apply to “Medicare, Medi-Cal, out-of-state plans, self-insured employer plans, or other products regulated by federal law,” according to a news release from the California Society of Anesthesiologists.
Finding Fair
Solutions for Both Patients and Care Providers
Speaking with Kaiser Health News about a report of a man in Texas receiving a $109,000 surprise bill related to treatment after a heart attack, Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas said, “This is a nationwide problem, and we need a nationwide solution. We have a system where the patient, the most vulnerable person of all those involved, is caught between the insurer and the healthcare provider … these problems are solvable.”
Modern Healthcarerecently covered how some hospitals are now requiring physicians to go in-network as a provision of their contracts. However, they also note this approach disadvantages physicians and shifts reimbursement negotiation power to insurers. Should hospitals take a similar approach with medical laboratory specialists, it could create similar concerns.
While surprise medical bills create added hardship for
patients and pose reputational and reimbursement concerns for clinical laboratories
and healthcare providers, creating regulations that establish effective
protections while also protecting the financials of service providers continues
to prove difficult.
Speaking with Modern Healthcare, Dan Sacco, Vice President for Strategic Affairs and Payer Relations at Boca Raton Regional Hospital, summarized concerns concisely, saying, “We’re trying to protect [consumers], but we’re also trying to be reasonable business partners as well.”
Clinical laboratory leaders will want to pay close attention to a significant development in Maryland. The state’s All-Payer Medicare program—the nation’s only all-payer hospital rate regulation system—is broadening in scope to include outpatient services starting Jan. 1. The expanded program could impact independent medical laboratories, according to the Maryland Hospital Association (MHA), which told Dark Daily that those labs may see hospitals reaching out to them.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the state of Maryland expect to save $1 billion by 2023 in expanding Maryland’s existing All-Payer Model—which focused only on inpatient services since 2014—to also include primary care physicians, skilled nursing facilities, independent clinical laboratories, and more non-hospital settings, according to a CMS statement.
Healthcare Finance notes that it represents “the first time, CMS is holding a state fully at risk for the total cost of care for Medicare beneficiaries.”
Value of Precision Medicine and Coordination of Care to Clinical Labs
“If a patient receives care at a [medical] laboratory outside of a hospital, Maryland hospitals would be looking at ways to coordinate the sharing of that freestanding laboratory information, so that the hospital can coordinate the care of that patient both within and outside the hospital setting,” Erin Cunningham, Communications Manager at MHA, told Dark Daily. Such a coordinating of efforts and sharing of clinical laboratory patient data should help promote precision medicine goals for patients engaged with physicians throughout Maryland’s healthcare networks.
The test of the new program—called the Total Cost of Care (TCOC) Model—also could be an indication that Medicare officials are intent on moving both inpatient and outpatient healthcare providers away from reimbursements based on fees-for-services.
CMS and the state of Maryland said TCOC gives diverse providers incentives to coordinate, center on patients, and save Medicare per capita costs of care each year.
“What they are really doing is tracking how effective we are at managing the quality and the costs of those particular patients that are managed by the physicians and the hospitals together,” Kevin Kelbly, VP and Chief Financial Officer at Carroll Hospital in Westminster, told the Carroll County Times. “They will have set up certain parameters. If we hit those parameters, there could be a shared savings opportunity between the hospitals and the providers,” he added. (Photo copyright: LifeBridge Health.)
The TCOC runs from 2019 through 2023, when it may be extended by officials for an additional five years.
How Does it Work?
The TCOC Model, like the earlier All-Payer Model, will limit Medicare’s costs in Maryland through a per capita, population-based payment, Healthcare Finance explained.
It includes three programs, including the:
Maryland Primary Care Program (MDPCP), designed to incentivize physician practices by giving additional per beneficiary, per month CMS payments, and incentives for physicians to reduce the number of patients hospitalize;
Care Redesign Program (CRP), which is a way for hospitals to make incentive payments to their partners in care. In essence, rewards may be given to providers that work efficiently with the hospital to improve quality of services; and,
Hospital Payment Program, a population-based payment model that reimburses Maryland hospitals annually for hospital services. CMS provides financial incentives to hospitals that succeed in value-based care and reducing unnecessary hospitalizations and readmissions.
CMS and Maryland officials also identified these six high-priority areas for population health improvement:
Substance-use disorder;
Diabetes;
Hypertension;
Obesity;
Smoking; and
Asthma.
“We are going to save about a billion dollars over the next five years, but we are also providing better quality healthcare. So it’s going to affect real people in Maryland, and it helps us keep the whole healthcare system from collapsing, quite frankly,” Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, told the Carroll County Times.
OneCare in Vermont, Different Approach to One Payer
Maryland is not the only state to try an all-payer model. Vermont’s OneCare is a statewide accountable care organization (ACO) model involving the state’s largest payers: Medicare, Medicaid, and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont, Healthcare Dive pointed out. The program aims to increase the number of patients under risk-based contracting and, simultaneously, encourage providers to meet population health goals, a Commonwealth Fund report noted.
Both Maryland’s and Vermont’s efforts indicate that payment plans which include value-based incentives are no longer just theory. In some markets, fees-for-service payment models may be gone for good.
Clinical laboratory leaders may want to touch base with their colleagues in Maryland and Vermont to learn how labs in those states are engaging providers and performing under payment programs that, if successful, could replace existing Medicare payment models in other states.
Studies show medical laboratories may be particularly hit by adjustments to hospital chargemasters as hospitals prepare to comply with Medicare’s New Transparency Rule
Recently, Kaiser Health News (KHN) published a story about a $48,329 bill for allergy testing that cast a spotlight on hospital chargemaster rates just as healthcare providers are preparing to publish their prices online to comply with a new Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rule aimed at increasing pricing transparency in healthcare. The rule goes into effect January 1, 2019.
The patient—a Eureka, Calif., resident with a persistent rash—had received an invoice for more than $3000 from her in-network provider.
Though this type of allergy skin-patch testing is usually performed in an outpatient setting by a trained professional, such as an allergist or dermatologist, the patient elected to have the testing performed at Stanford Health Care (Stanford), a respected academic medical system with multiple hospitals, outpatient services, and physician practices.
The patient’s insurance plan, Anthem Blue Cross (Anthem), paid $11,376 of the $48,329 amount billed by Stanford Health Care, which was the rate negotiated between the insurer and Stanford, Becker’s Healthcare reported. The patient ultimately paid $1,561 out-of-pocket.
So, where did that $48,329 in total charges come from? Experts pointed to the provider’s chargemaster. A chargemaster (AKA, charge description master or CDM) lists a hospital’s prices for services, suppliers and procedures, and is used by providers to create a patient’s bill, according to California’s Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD).
Chargemasters note high prices beyond hospitals’ costs and may be considered jumping off points for hospitals to use in invoicing payers and patients, RevCycleIntelligence explained.
Hospital representatives will negotiate with insurance companies, asking them to pay a discounted rate off the chargemaster list. A patient with health insurance accesses care at that negotiated rate and perhaps has responsibility for a share of that amount as well.
However, an out-of-network patient, uninsured person, or cash customer who receives care will likely be billed the full chargemaster rate.
In a statement to KHN, Stanford explained that the California woman’s care was customized and, therefore, costly: “We conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the patient and her environmental exposures and meticulously selected appropriate allergens, which required obtaining and preparing putative allergens on an individual basis.”
Johns Hopkins researchers Ge Bai, PhD, CPA (left), and Gerard Anderson, PhD (right), authored a study published in Health Affairs that shows “Hospitals on average charged more than 20 times their own costs in 2013 in their CT scan and anesthesiology departments.” Hospitals with clinical laboratory outreach programs will want to consider how their patients may respond as new federal price transparency requirements make it easier for patients to see medical laboratory test prices in advance of service. (Photo copyright: Johns Hopkins University.)
Now is a Good Time for Clinical Laboratories to Make Chargemaster Changes
Some organizations, such as the Healthcare Financial Management Association (HFMA), are calling for chargemaster adjustments as part of a comprehensive plan to improve transparency and lower healthcare costs. This falls in line with the new CMS rule requiring hospitals to post prices online starting Jan.1, 2019.
In fact, hospital medical laboratories, which cannot distinguish their services from competitors, may be impacted by the new CMS rule perhaps more than other services, the HFMA analysis warned.
“The initial impact for healthcare organizations, if they have not already experienced it, will be on commoditized services such as [clinical] lab and imaging. Consumers do not differentiate between high and low quality on a commoditized service the same way a physician might, which means cost plays a larger role in consumers’ decision making.” That’s according to Nicholas Malenka, Senior Consultant, GE Healthcare Partners, and author of the HFMA report. He advises providers to do chargemaster adjustments that relate charges to costs of services, competitors’ charges, and national data.
Are Chargemaster Charges Truly Excessive? Johns Hopkins Researchers Say ‘Yes!’
Most hospitals with 50 beds or more have a charge-to-cost ratio of 4.32. In other words, $432 is charged when the actual cost of a service is $100, according a study conducted by Johns Hopkins University and published in Health Affairs.
The researchers also noted in a news release about their findings titled, “Hospitals Charge More than 20 Times Cost on Some Procedures to Maximize Revenue,” that:
Charge-to-cost ratios range from 1.8 for routine inpatient care to 28.5 for a CT scan; and,
Hospitals with $100 in CT costs may charge an uninsured patient or out-of-network patient $2,850 for the service.
“Hospitals apparently markup higher in the departments with more complex services because it is more difficult for patients to compare prices in these departments,” lead author Ge Bai, PhD, CPA, Associate Professor at Johns Hopkins Carey Business School, noted in the news release.
“(The bills for high charges) affect uninsured and out-of-network patients, auto insurers, and casualty and workers’ compensation insurers. The high charges have led to personal bankruptcy, avoidance of needed medical services, and much higher insurance premiums,” co-author Gerard Anderson, PhD, Professor of Health Policy and Management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, stated in the news release.
Legal Issues Possible for Hospitals, Medical Laboratories, Other Providers
Still another study published in the American Journal of Managed Care (AJMC) explored the legality of “surprising” uninsured and out-of-network patients with bills at the chargemaster rates. It found that contract law supports market-negotiated rates—not chargemaster rates that do not reflect actual costs or the market.
“Patients and payers should know that they are under no obligation to pay surprise bills containing chargemaster rates, and state attorneys generally can use the law to prevent providers from pursing chargemaster-related collection efforts against patients,” the researchers wrote.
Labs Need to Get Involved
Clinical laboratory leaders in hospitals and health systems are advised to reach out to hospital chargemaster coordinators to ensure the chargemaster, as it relates to the lab, is inclusive, accurate, and in sync with competitive market data. Independent medical laboratories may want to similarly check their chargemasters to see how their lab test prices compare to the prices charged by other labs serving the same community.
Despite the widespread adoption of electronic health record (EHR) systems and billions in government incentives, lack of interoperability still blocks potential benefits of digital health records, causing frustration among physicians, medical labs, and patients
Clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups understand the complexity of today’s electronic health record (EHR) systems. The ability to easily and securely transmit pathology test results and other diagnostic information among multiple providers was the entire point of shifting the nation’s healthcare industry from paper-based to digital health records. However, despite recent advances, true interoperability between disparate health networks remains elusive.
One major reason for the current situation is that multi-hospital health systems and health networks still use EHR systems from different vendors. This fact is well-known to the nation’s medical laboratories because they must spend money and resources to maintain electronic lab test ordering and resulting interfaces with all of these different EHRs.
Healthcare IT News highlighted the scale of this problem in recent coverage. Citing data from the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Logic database, they note that—when taking into account affiliated providers—the typical health network engages with as many as 18 different electronic medical record (EMR) vendors. Similarly, hospitals may be engaging with as many as 16 different EMR vendors.
The graphics above illustrates why interoperability is the most important hurdle facing healthcare today. Although the shift to digital is well underway, medical laboratories, physicians, and patients still struggle to communicate data between providers and access it in a universal or centralized manner. (Images copyright: Healthcare IT News.)
The lack of interoperability forces healthcare and diagnostics facilities to develop workarounds for locating, transmitting, receiving, and analyzing data. This simply compounds the problem.
Pressure from Technology Giants Fuels Push for Interoperability
According to HITECH Answers, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has paid out more than $38-billion in EHR Incentive Program payments since April 2018.
Experts, however, point out that government incentives are only one part of the pressure vendors are seeing to improve interoperability.
“There needs to be a regulatory push here to play referee and determine what standards will be necessary,” Blain Newton, Executive Vice President, HIMSS Analytics, told Healthcare IT News. “But the [EHR] vendors are going to have to do it because of consumer demand, as things like Apple Health Records gain traction.”
Another solution, according to TechTarget, involves developing application programming interfaces (APIs) that allow tech companies and EHR vendors to achieve better interoperability by linking information in a structured manner, facilitating secure data transmission, and powering the next generation of apps that will bring interoperability ever closer to a reality.
TechTarget reported on how University of Utah Hospital’s five hospital/12 community clinic health network, and Intermountain Healthcare, also in Utah, successfully used APIs to develop customized interfaces and apps to improve accessibility and interoperability with their Epic and Cerner EHR systems.
Diagnostic Opportunities for Clinical Laboratories
As consumers gain increased access to their data and healthcare providers harness the current generation of third-party tools to streamline EHR use, vendors will continue to feel pressure to make interoperability a native feature of their EHR systems and reduce the need to rely on HIT teams for customization.
For pathology groups, medical laboratories, and other diagnosticians who interact with EHR systems daily, the impact of interoperability is clear. With the help of tech companies, and a shift in focus from government incentives programs, improved interoperability might soon offer innovative new uses for PHI in diagnosing and treating disease, while further improving the efficiency of clinical laboratories that face tightening budgets, reduced reimbursements, and greater competition.
New bioinformatic tool finds gut microbiota may be ‘potential reservoir of bloodstream pathogens’ suggesting patients’ own bodies can be source of infections
Clinical laboratories in hospitals and health networks throughout the nation are collaborating in the priority effort to reduce deaths from sepsis and related blood infections. Now comes news that researchers at Stanford have identified an unexpected source of bloodstream infections. This finding may help medical laboratories contribute to faster and more accurate diagnoses of blood infections, particularly for hospital inpatients.
Lax infection-control practices often are blamed for hospital-acquired infections (HAIs). And HAIs certainly have been responsible for many tragic avoidable deaths. However, new research from Stanford University School of Medicine shows that hospital staff, other patients, or unclean instruments may not be solely responsible for all infections that present during hospital stays. According to Stanford researchers, a patient’s own digestive tract can be the surprising culprit for many bloodstream infections. This finding confirms a common belief that the patient’s microbiome probably is involved in many blood infections.
The researchers published their findings in Nature Medicine.
Bacteria Causing Blood Infections Found in Patients’ Stool Samples After Bone Marrow Transplants
Using a new bioinformatic computational tool called StrainSifter, the Stanford University team rapidly and accurately identified a surprising infection source in a group of hospitalized patients—microbes already living in the patients’ large intestines—a Stanford University news release explained.
The researchers analyzed blood and stool samples from 30 patients who developed bloodstream infections after receiving bone marrow transplants between October 2015 and June 2017 at Stanford Hospital. The researchers sought to determine whether the bacteria isolated from the patients’ blood also was found in stool specimens that had been collected prior to the transplants. The process required sequencing not only the patients’ DNA, but also analyzing the genomes of all the individual microbial strains resident in each patient’s stool.
“Just finding E. coli in a patient’s blood and again in the patient’s stool doesn’t mean they’re the same strain,” Ami Bhatt, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor of Hematology and Genetics at Stanford, explained in the news release. Bhatt served as senior author of the study. (Photo copyright: Stanford University.)
Analysis found that more than one-third of the patients’ stool samples (11) contained detectable levels of the same bacterial strain that had caused those patients’ bloodstream infections.
“Because the gut normally harbors more than 1,000 different bacterial strains, it’s looked upon as a likely culprit of bloodstream infections, especially when the identified pathogen is one known to thrive inside the gut,” Ami Bhatt, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor of Hematology and Genetics at Stanford, said in the news release. “But while this culpability has been assumed—and it’s an entirely reasonable assumption—it’s never been proven. Our study demonstrates that it’s true.”
Clinical and DNA data confirmed the gastrointestinal presence of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumonia, common causes of pneumonia, urinary tract infections, and other potentially serious conditions. In addition, they found other disease-causing pathogens in the gut that they would not have expected to be there.
“We also find cases where typically nonenteric [outside the intestine] pathogens, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus epidermidis, are found in the gut microbiota, thereby challenging the existing informal dogma of these infections originating from environmental or skin sources,” Fiona Tamburini, a senior graduate student, and postdoctoral scholar Tessa Andermann, MD, MPH, Infectious Disease Medical Fellow, wrote in Nature Medicine.
New Tool for Precision Medicine
Bhatt believes being able to trace the source of bloodstream infections will help doctors provide more targeted treatments for HAIs and potentially lead to effective prevention methods. This will create a new opportunity for microbiology laboratories to provide the necessary diagnostic tests designed to guide therapeutic choices of attending physicians.
“Until now, we couldn’t pinpoint those sources with high confidence,” Bhatt said in the news release. “That’s a problem because when a patient has a bloodstream infection, it’s not enough simply to administer broad-spectrum antibiotics. You need to treat the source, or the infection will come back.”
Bhatt says the computational tool has the potential to allow medical practitioners to quickly identify whether a pathogen responsible for a patient’s bloodstream infection came from a break in the skin, leaked through the intestinal wall into the blood, or was passed on through an inserted catheter or other object.
Bhatt’s team focused on the intestines for their study because it’s the home of 1,000 to 2,000 different germs. Dark Daily has reported often on developments involving human gut bacteria (AKA, microbiome) in e-briefings going back to 2013. While these gut bacteria do not typically cause problems, Bhatt said, “It’s only when they show up in the wrong place—due, for example, to leaking through a disrupted intestinal barrier into the bloodstream—that they cause trouble.”
Because nearly 40% of immunocompromised patients who spend up to six weeks in a hospital develop bloodstream infections, the Stanford findings could signal a major breakthrough in preventing HAIs. However, larger studies are needed to validate the researchers’ contention that the gut is a “potential reservoir of bloodstreams pathogens.”
If true, microbiologists and clinical pathologists may in the future have a new method for helping hospitals identify, track, and treat blood-born infections as well as and preventing HAIs.
