Dec 13, 2017 | Coding, Billing, and Collections, Instruments & Equipment, Laboratory Instruments & Laboratory Equipment, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Sales and Marketing, Laboratory Testing
Recognizing the need to serve patients with high-deductible health plans, hospital systems are opening healthcare centers in outpatient settings where patients can receive care and undergo procedures—including clinical laboratory tests—more conveniently and for less cost
Health systems are putting medical imaging services, such as MRIs, in strip malls and shopping centers as a way to make it easier for patients. Such locations can also offer lower-cost procedures because of lower overhead compared to imaging centers located in hospitals. This trend to offer patients more convenient service at a lower cost is something that clinical laboratory managers and pathologists should watch and understand.
One driver behind this trend is the growing number of Americans enrolled in High Deductible Health Plans (HDHPs), where deductibles can exceed $6,000 for individuals and $12,000 for families. With such high deductibles, patients are now keenly focused on the cost of their healthcare. Medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups have been impacted by this trend, as more patients shell out cash to pay for walk-in procedures and providers must collect full payments for services rendered.
Hospitals and health systems recognize the increased demand for outpatient, lower-priced medical services, along with price transparency. Patients with HDHPs are one reason why hospital bad debt is growing.
Healthcare Shopping Drives Lower Costs and Convenience
Price shopping on the Internet for medical services also is becoming more popular due to the availability of online doctor and facility ratings and easily-accessible price comparisons.
There are more than 7,000 stand-alone imaging centers in the US that operate independently of hospitals. About 70% of diagnostic imaging services occur in hospital settings with the other 30% performed in outpatient facilities.
According to Amino, a healthcare transparency company based in San Francisco, the cost for an MRI can vary significantly depending on where a patient lives and what type of facility is utilized for the test. Their research found that the cost of a limb MRI can range from hundreds of dollars at a freestanding facility to as much as $4,000 at a hospital. In some states, the price difference between getting an MRI at a hospital versus a stand-alone facility was almost $2,000. The average cost of having an MRI performed in a hospital setting is $2600.
Based on data from Amino, the graphic above illustrates the wide range of prices for MRIs throughout the country, and the cost disparity between hospital and free-standing medical imaging centers. In the future, pathologists and clinical laboratory managers can expect to see the publication of similar graphs that show the variation in the cost of clinical laboratory tests and anatomic pathology procedures, not just by state, but by individual laboratories. (Graphic copyright: MBO.)
Smart Choice MRI, based in Mequon, Wis., charges a maximum price of $600 for an MRI. The company now has 17 locations in Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, but plans to have 90 facilities within the next three years.
“The rise of high deductible health plans has fueled consumers who understand their options and demand a higher level of service from their providers,” Rick Anderson, Chief Executive Officer of Smart Choice MRI told the StarTribune. “Quality, service-focused care at a fair, transparent price has never been more important.”
Anderson added that his company can handle 94% of MRI procedures in their convenient, freestanding imaging facilities.
“I think the quality is very good, but we’ve combined the cost and quality, and most importantly the convenience of being in the neighborhood where people are shopping,” Anderson said. “If you look at our Richfield (Minnesota) location, we’re literally next to SuperTarget, Caribou Coffee, Noodles and Company, and Qdoba.”
Public and Private Health Insurers Shift Payments to Free-standing Facilities
Anthem recently announced they will no longer pay for outpatient MRIs and CT scans performed at hospitals in almost all of the states where the health insurer does business. They are requiring patients to have the tests performed in free-standing imaging facilities in an effort to cut costs and lower premiums. This change could affect 4.5 million people in 13 of the 14 states Anthem serves, with New Hampshire being the exception.
Diagnostic imaging is not the only medical service transitioning to outpatient facilities.
In July, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that it is considering payment approval for total hip and knee replacements performed in outpatient settings. This change could go into effect as early as next year.
According to Steve Miller, Chief Operating Officer at Ambulatory Surgery Center Association, an estimated 25-50% of joint replacements could be performed on an outpatient basis.
“There’s more and more comfort among surgeons who are coming out of residencies where they trained to do surgeries on an outpatient basis,” Miller told Modern Healthcare. “The volumes are doubling year over year.”
Surgeons Approve of Free-standing Surgery Centers
There are currently more than 5,500 ambulatory surgery centers in the country and upwards of 200 of those facilities are performing outpatient joint replacement procedures. Three years ago, there were only around 25 facilities providing these services.
In 2015, there were more than 658,000 total hip and knee replacements performed on Medicare beneficiaries, according to CMS data. In 2014, the government paid more than $7 billion for the hospitalization costs of these two procedures. The CMS estimates that the cost for uncomplicated knee replacement surgeries in 2018 will be $12,381 for an inpatient procedure and $9,913 for the outpatient rate.
Physicians feel that performing joint replacements in outpatient facilities could reduce costs by up to 50%.
“I could do maybe 20% of my Medicare patients on an outpatient basis, as long as they have the support and structure at home to help them recover,” said Matthew Weresh, MD, a physician at Des Moines Orthopedic Surgeons (DMOS) in the Modern Healthcare article. “It’s a great move by Medicare.” DMOS plans to begin performing joint replacements at an ambulatory surgery center later this year.
Pathologists would be wise to monitor this trend and anticipate how anatomic pathology services might shift towards lower-cost settings. For clinical laboratories, this trend further illustrates the need to prepare for more consumers paying cash for their medical services and seeking cost-effective, high-quality options.
—JP Schlingman
Related Information:
Coming Soon to a Strip Mall Near You: An MRI Provider
MRI Competition Heats up in Twin Cities
Anthem’s New Outpatient Imaging Policy Likely to Hit Hospitals’ Bottom Line
Free Standing Imaging Center and Hospitals
Need an MRI? It Pays to Shop Around. Big Time.
Hospitals Leery of CMS Proposal to Pay for Joint Replacements in ASCs
Oct 20, 2017 | Digital Pathology, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Managed Care Contracts & Payer Reimbursement
New study analyzes the dramatic decline in the utilization of imaging diagnostics between 2008 and 2014 and suggests that reductions in imaging use could be the result of changes in federal policy, increased deductibles, and cost-cutting focuses
Anatomic pathologists have experienced sustained cuts to reimbursements for both technical component and professional component services during the past eight to 10 years. But what has not happened to pathology is a 33% decline in the volume of biopsies referred to diagnosis. Yet that is what some studies say has happened to imaging reimbursement since 2006.
Using Medicare data for Part B imaging procedures covering the years 2001 to 2014, researchers at a major university identified that, beginning in 2006, the total reimbursement for imaging procedures declined at a steady rate throughout the following eight years covered by the study. It is unclear what implications the finding of this study of imaging utilization might predict for the utilization of advance anatomic pathology services.
Routine Use of Imaging in Diagnostics is Slowing Down
The research into imaging utilization was conducted at Thomas Jefferson University and published in the journal Health Affairs. Led by David C. Levin, MD, Emeritus Professor and former Chair of the Department of Radiology at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, the researchers examined imaging data from Medicare Part B (2001-2014) to determine the reason and rate of “slowdown” in routine use of imaging in diagnostics.
The researchers calculated utilization rates for “advanced” imaging modalities and component relative value unit (RVU) rates for all imaging modalities. They determined that trends in imaging rates and RVU rates rose between 2000 and 2008, but then sharply declined from 2008 to 2014. The researchers theorized that the reduction might have been due to changes in federal policy, increasing deductibles, and focus on cost-cutting by hospitals and healthcare providers.
Levin, along with Thomas Jefferson University associates Vijay M. Rao, MD, FACR, current Chair of Radiology, and Laurence Parker, PhD, Associate Professor of Radiology; and University of Wisconsin-Madison statistics Professor Charles D. Palit, PhD, argue that the decrease in imaging orders might reduce diagnostic costs, but also could negatively impact surgical pathologists, radiologists, medical researchers, and patients themselves.
In a Modern Healthcare article, Levin states that the reduction in utilization of imaging and radiology could be a slippery slope leading to decreased access to life-saving diagnostic tools that could leave patients “not getting the scans they probably need.”
What’s Fueling the Multi-Year Decline in Utilization of Imaging and Radiology?
In the Journal of American College Radiology, Levin, Rao, and Parker, attempt to “assess the recent trends in Medicare reimbursements to radiologists, cardiologists, and other physicians for non-invasive diagnostic imaging (NDI).”
Using data acquired from Medicare part B databases, the authors reported that total reimbursements for NDI peaked at $11.9 billion in 2006, but saw a steep decline of 33% to just over $8 billion in 2015. They attribute some of this decline as a result of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which went into effect in 2007, as well as other cuts to NDI reimbursement funding. Reimbursement to radiologists, according to Levin et al, dropped by more than 19.5%, and reimbursement to cardiologists dropped nearly 45% between 2006 and 2015.
Surgical pathologists may see parallels in the total reimbursement for imaging during the years 2002-2015 compared to pathology technical component and professional component reimbursement during those same years. Taken from the Thomas Jefferson University study, the graphic above shows “total Part B payments for non-invasive diagnostic imaging to all physicians under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, 2002 to 2015. Vertical axis shows billions of dollars. The abrupt decline in 2007 was due to the Deficit Reduction Act. The declines in 2009, 2010, and 2011 were due largely to code bundling in, respectively, transthoracic echocardiography, radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging, and CT of the abdomen and pelvis.” (Caption and image copyright: Thomas Jefferson University.)
In different Journal of American College Radiology article, Levin and Rao outline their concerns over another suspected cause for the decline in imaging utilization—the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation (ABIMF) Choosing Wisely initiative.
According to Levin and Rao, the Choosing Wisely initiative was intended “to reduce the use of tests and treatments that were felt to be overused or often unnecessary.” Imaging examinations were included in the list of tests that were deemed to be “of limited value” in many situations. Levin and Rao suggested that there might have been a need to curtail testing pushed by payers, policymakers, and physicians at the time, but that the Choosing Wisely initiative could have added to a decline in imaging testing spurred on by the confusion physicians felt when attempting to access unclear scenarios and recommendations for the 124 imaging tests listed.
Imaging Decline Could Have Unintended Consequences for Providers and Patients
In a Radiology Business article, Levin outlined some of the unintended consequences facing healthcare due to the reduction in imaging utilization. He states that “private imaging facilities are starting to close down” and “MRI and other advanced imaging exams are beginning to shift into hospital outpatient facilities.” He predicts that the shift from private facilities to hospital facilities could cause imaging costs to increase for customers and healthcare providers.
Levin suggests that Medicare could “raise the fees a little and make the private offices a little more viable.” The profit margins, Levin argues, “are so low right now that you basically can’t run a business.” Medicare as a program might be seeing huge savings, Levin notes in several articles, but physicians, laboratories, and patients are feeling the pinch as a result.
In an interview with Physicians Practice, Rao echoed Levin’s concerns. “Policy makers lack understanding of the value of imaging and spectrum of the services provided by radiologists,” he declared. “On an institutional level, under the new payment models, radiology is transitioning to a cost center and radiologists often don’t have a seat at the table.”
Rao points out that this devaluing of radiologists’ work affects not only healthcare facilities, but patients themselves. Radiologists provide “major contributions to patient care by making accurate diagnoses, and doing minimally invasive treatments given many technological advances leading to appropriate management and improved outcomes,” he argues. How long before Pathology follows a similar track?
Balancing Cost and Quality in Testing Without Sacrificing Patient Needs
The fear seems to be that the push to lower costs by eliminating unnecessary imaging is inhibiting radiologists and diagnosticians from providing necessary imaging for patients. And that delaying diagnoses affects the ability of healthcare providers to provide adequate and timely patient care. Rao suggests, however, that physicians’ use of medical imaging could simply be evolving.
“There were other factors that also helped limit the rapid growth, such as greater attention by physicians to practice guidelines, concerns about radiation exposure to patients, and the Great Recession of 2007 to 2009,” Rao noted in a Thomas Jefferson University news release. “However, we expect that additional changes, such as the advent of lung cancer and other screening programs, and the use of computerized clinical decision support, will continue to promote and support appropriate use of imaging technology.”
The drive to reduce healthcare expenditures should not be dismissed. We may soon see parallels in the rise and fall of imaging utilization for genetic testing, surgical pathology, and other new and expensive clinical laboratory technologies as policymakers attempt to balance increased spending against the clinical value of these diagnostic tools.
— Amanda Warren
Related Information:
The Overuse of Imaging Procedures on the Decline Since 2008
After Nearly a Decade of Rapid Growth, Use and Complexity of Imaging Declined, 2008–2014
Reducing Inappropriate Use of Diagnostic Imaging Through the Choosing Wisely Initiative
The Recent Losses in Medicare Imaging Revenues Experienced by Radiologists, Cardiologists, and Other Physicians
Five Minutes with David C. Levin, MD: Outpatient Imaging Cuts and Unintended Consequences
Ten Questions with Vijay M. Rao, MD, FACR
Diagnostic Imaging Transitions from Volume to Value
Imaging Use Plunges as Coding, Reimbursement Tightens Up
Has the Time Come for Integration of Radiology and Pathology?
Reference Pricing and Price Shopping Hold Potential Peril for Both Clinical Laboratories and Consumers
Sep 13, 2017 | Coding, Billing, and Collections, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing
While multiple studies show reference pricing is an effective approach to reduce the cost of testing and procedures, medical laboratories and consumers alike must continue to focus on quality to ensure positive outcomes
The Dark Report in its September 2016 issue highlighted how reference pricing is positioned to become one of the biggest contributors to price erosion medical laboratories and pathology groups have faced in more than a decade. The issue featured details of a 2016 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine outlining how Safeway’s use of reference pricing for clinical laboratory tests decreased laboratory spending for itself and employees by 32% between 2011 and 2013—a total savings of more than $2.5-million.
That issue of The Dark Report also highlights a similar use of reference pricing by CalPERS (California Public Retirement System) that involved hip and knee replacement surgeries. CalPERS saw a 30% reduction in the cost of these surgeries after 12 months.
These highly publicized efforts have fueled interest in how reference pricing might work for other businesses, insurers, and the US government. The 2014 Protecting Access to Medicare Act (PAMA) is already collecting private payer rates paid to laboratories for tests. This data will then be used to create new rate-based fee schedules in 2018.
Speaking with Joseph Burns, Managing Editor of The Dark Report, about the outcome and potential rise of reference pricing, study author James C. Robinson, PhD, of University of California Berkeley noted that, “Any discussion about how to contain inappropriate healthcare utilization is challenging. By contrast, significant price variation is the low-hanging fruit. Employers would much rather save money by having patients travel to cheaper clinical labs than get into some esoteric discussion about whether a clinical procedure is appropriate or not.”
Quality is Key to Both Avoiding Price Erosion and Improving Patient Outcomes
There’s no question that reference pricing has forever changed the landscape of clinical laboratory pricing. Paired with increased pricing transparency and easier access to pricing information through platforms such as Castlight Health, Healthcare Blue Book, and Change Healthcare Corporation, consumers and businesses can quickly compare prices across a range of service providers.
However, in April, Leah Binder, President and CEO of The Leapfrog Group, published an article in Forbes that highlights the potential downsides to price shopping for laboratory testing and medical care.
“Differences among providers in quality can eliminate any cost advantages,” stated Binder in the Forbes article. “Some purchasers assume they can get around this problem by targeting reference pricing only for procedures that don’t vary in quality. When quality is all the same, decisions can pivot on price alone. Unfortunately, no such procedures exist. Extreme variation is the hallmark of our healthcare system.”
As reference pricing continues to force more consumers to shoulder a portion of medical laboratory testing costs, prices for more expensive laboratories are likely to continue eroding unless they can convince consumers that their services are higher quality or produce better results. (Graphic copyright: California Public Retirement System.)
Binder cites a study in Spine Journal’s April 2017 issue regarding diagnostic error rates for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The study involved a 63-year-old woman seeking relief from low back pain. Over a three-week span, she received 10 different scans. These scans resulted in 49 different findings. Of these findings, none were repeated across all 10 scan reports provided to her physician.
“As a result,” the study’s authors concluded, “where a patient obtains his or her MRI examination, and which radiologist interprets the examination, may have a direct impact on radiological diagnosis, subsequent choice of treatment, and clinical outcome.”
Binder reinforced this, stating, “Purchasers should still pursue reference pricing and try to incorporate considerations of utilization and quality to the extent they have the data. Never assume any procedure is like a commodity—largely the same quality everywhere.”
High-Cost Medical Laboratories Likely to Face a Decision Between Volume or Price Erosion
A 2016 study by Health Care Cost Institute found the average pricing of 240 common medical services varied by as much as 200% between states. Within states, prices fluctuated as much as 300%.
Thus, for pathology groups and medical laboratories in the upper percentiles for their region, referencing pricing is likely to impact volume. Even if adoption of reference pricing by payers or self-insured business groups remains stable, price cuts due to PAMA loom on the horizon. As reported by Dark Daily in December 2016, price cuts to the Part B clinical laboratory fee schedule could add up to $400 million in reduced Medicare payments in 2018 alone.
This is particularly troublesome for hospital laboratory outreach programs, where Medicare patients commonly represent 40% to 70% of outreach lab volumes. The combination of reduced volume and reduced Medicare pricing could have dire financial consequences.
It will remain essential for medical laboratories to differentiate their services from those of lower-cost competitors to avoid volume and price erosion. Continuing to optimize test utilization, improving laboratory efficiency, and emphasizing the value of services rendered will help to further strengthen lab positions and reduce the impact of coming change.
—Jon Stone
Related Information:
Price Shopping Could Cut Employer Health Costs by 20%, but There’s a Catch
Variability in Diagnostic Error Rates of 10 MRI Centers Performing Lumbar Spine MRI Examinations on the Same Patient Within a 3-week Period
The Striking Variation of Commercial Healthcare Prices
Some States Pay Twice the Price for Health Care, Finds New Report
Association of Reference Pricing for Diagnostic Laboratory Testing with Changes in Patient Choices, Prices, and Total Spending for Diagnostic Tests
Coming PAMA Price Cuts to Medicare Clinical Lab Fees Expected to Be Heavy Financial Blow to Hospital Laboratory Outreach Programs
Volume XXIII No. 12 – September 6, 2016
Consumers Now Use Medical Cost Websites to Price Shop for Clinical Pathology Laboratory Tests and Other Medical Procedures
Jan 22, 2016 | Coding, Billing, and Collections, Compliance, Legal, and Malpractice, Instruments & Equipment, Laboratory Instruments & Laboratory Equipment, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology
OPKO Health’s 4Kscore test predicts the rate of high-risk prostate cancer and may become a useful business case study for other labs developing proprietary diagnostic tests
Clinical laboratories and biotech companies with new medical laboratory tests are struggling to win coverage by Medicare and private payers. How big is this problem? There are currently tens of thousands of molecular diagnostic assays and genetic tests offered for clinical use.
Any lab company seeking to obtain an appropriate Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code, favorable coverage guidelines, and adequate reimbursement from health insurers for its new lab test faces three big challenges, and they are related. First, payers are simply overwhelmed with requests to review new genetic tests. The flood of new test submissions exceeds the capability of payers to respond.
Most Payers May Not Have Right Scientific Expertise to Evaluate Genetic Tests
Second, most health insurance plans lack physicians and medical professionals who have the necessary experience in laboratory medicine, molecular diagnostics, and genetic medicine to evaluate these lab test submissions in a knowledgeable way. (more…)
Sep 16, 2015 | Coding, Billing, and Collections, Digital Pathology, Laboratory Instruments & Laboratory Equipment, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Pathology
Experts believe compressive sensing could find wide application in medical laboratory and pathology testing, particularly where large amounts of data are generated
Pathologists and medical laboratory managers may soon be working with a new tool in their labs. It is called “Compressive Sensing” (CS) and it is an innovative mathematical approach that quickly and efficiently gets an answer by sampling large volumes of a data.
Currently compressive sensing is used in medical imaging technology. CS reduces radiation and speeds up imaging diagnostics. Some experts familiar with this technology believe that it can be used in those clinical laboratories that are working with new diagnostic technologies that generate large volumes of data. CS could dramatically reduce times to analyze results and lower the cost of expensive tests like whole-genome sequencing. (more…)
