Kaiser
Health News (KHN) recently
reported on investigations by the OIG into hospitals allegedly offering
unusually high salaries and other perks to specialists because they attract highly
profitable business.
Wheeling, KHN reported, paid one anesthesiologist $1.2
million per year, which, Rau notes, is higher than the salaries of 90% of the
pain management specialists around the country. Rau went on to describe how
Wheeling also paid one obstetrician-gynecologist $1.3 million per year, and a
cardiothoracic surgeon $770,000 per year along with 12 weeks of vacation time.
In each of those cases, the whistleblower who prompted the qui tam investigation reported
that the specialists’ various departments were frequently in the red, reported KHN.
“The problem, according to the government, is that the
efforts run counter to federal self-referral bans and anti-kickback laws that
are designed to prevent financial considerations from warping physicians’
clinical decisions,” wrote Rau.
Wheeling not only contests the lawsuits brought against it,
but also has filed a countersuit against the whistleblower. KHN said the
hospital claims “its generous salaries were not kickbacks but the only way it
could provide specialized care to local residents who otherwise would have to
travel to other cities for services such as labor and delivery that are best
provided near home.”
“We are confident that, if this case goes to a trial, there will be no evidence of wrongdoing—only proof that Wheeling Hospital offers the Northern Panhandle Community access to superior care, [and] world class physicians and services,” KHN reported Gregg Warren (above), Vice President of Marketing and Public Relations at Wheeling Hospital, saying in a statement. (Photo copyright: LinkedIn.)
OIG’s Fraud and Abuse Laws: A Roadmap for Physicians
The KHN article mentions
five laws the OIG lists on
its website that are particularly important for physicians to be aware of. They
include the:
False Claims Act: states that it’s illegal to file false Medicare or Medicaid claims.
Anti-Kickback Statute: states that paying for referrals is illegal, that physicians can’t provide free or discounted services to uninsured people, and that money and gifts from drug and device makers to physicians are prohibited.
Stark Law(physician self-referral): says that referrals to entities with whom the physician has a familial or financial relationship are off-limits.
Exclusion Statue: describes who cannot participate in federal programs, such as Medicare.
Civil Monetary Penalties Law: authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services, which operates the OIG, to impose penalties in cases of fraud and abuse that involve Medicare or Medicaid.
“Together, these rules are intended to remove financial
incentives that can lead doctors to order up extraneous tests and treatments
that increase costs to Medicare and other insurers and expose patients to
unnecessary risks,” KHN said.
Other Hospitals Under Investigation
Wheeling Hospital is not the only healthcare institution
facing investigation. The Dallas
Morning News (DMN) reported on a case involving Forest
Park Medical Center (FPMC) in Dallas that resulted in the conviction of
seven defendants, including four doctors. Prosecutors outlined the scheme in
court, saying that FPMC illegally paid for surgeries.
“Prosecutors said the surgeons agreed to refer patients to
the Dallas hospital in exchange for money to market their practices,” DMN
reported, adding “Patients were a valuable commodity sold to the highest
bidder, according to the government.”
One of the convicted physicians, Michael Rimlawi, MD,
told DMN, “I’m in disbelief. I thought we had a good system, a fair
system.” His statement may indicate the level to which some healthcare
providers at FPMC did not clearly understand how anti-kickback laws work.
“The verdict in the Forest Park case is a reminder to
healthcare practitioners across the district that patients—not payments—should
guide decisions about how and where doctors administer treatment,” US Attorney Erin Nealy Cox told DMN.
Know What Is and Is Not a Kickback
Both the Wheeling Hospital investigation and the Forest Park
Medical Center case make it clear that kickbacks don’t always look like
kickbacks. Becker’s Hospital Review
published an article titled “Four
Biggest Anti-Kickback Settlements Involving Hospitals in 2018” that details
cases in which hospitals chose to settle.
These four incidents involved hospitals in Tennessee,
Montana, Pennsylvania, and New York. This demonstrates that kickback schemes
take place nationwide. And they show that violations of the Stark Law, the
False Claims Act, and the Anti-Kickback Statute can happen in numerous ways.
Whether in a clinical laboratory or an enterprisewide health
network, violating laws written to prevent money—rather than appropriate
patient care—from being the primary motivator in hiring decisions, may result
in investigation, charges, fines, and even conviction.
“If we’re going to solve the healthcare pricing problem,
these kinds of practices are going to have to go away,” Vikas Saini, MD, President
of the Lown Institute, a Massachusetts
nonprofit that advocates for affordable care, told KHN.
Though these recent OIG investigations target hospitals,
clinical laboratory leaders know from past experience that they also must be
vigilant and ensure their hiring practices do not run afoul of anti-kickback
legislation.
As PAMA brings estimated Medicare reimbursement cuts of up to 30% over the next three years to a range of typically high-volume tests and diagnostics, medical laboratories that wish to stay competitive must understand the needs of managed care payers and learn how to optimize collections, reduce denials, and communicate value effectively or risk their financial health
Recent years have seen major shifts in consolidation, automation, and efficiency analysis to help streamline both workflows and cashflows. However, the threat from the current and coming cuts to Medicare lab test prices will be particularly acute for smaller independent laboratories and hospital/health system lab outreach programs. These labs will continue to feel added strain due to reduced reimbursement across 25 of the most common tests billed to Medicare.
And, that doesn’t account for subsequent cuts, which are estimated to reach nearly 30% over the next three years.
Cost of Service Disparities/In-Network Status Further Impact Clinical Labs
If the CLFS reductions weren’t enough, labs face another threat—managed care and commercial payers aligning with big national laboratories and narrowing networks in an attempt to lower costs and provide maximum return for both patients and shareholders. For smaller and independent laboratories, this represents a double threat.
In the first situation, larger laboratories can offer services at lower costs due to increased automation, batch processing, and other scale advantages. This means that while the lower CLFS rates will impact the financial integrity of larger labs, the actual margin lost is less than that of smaller laboratories and facilities that face higher costs to perform tests and provide services.
Compounding the situation, commercial and managed care payers searching out the best value for their patients and shareholders tend to narrow their networks by excluding many independent clinical lab companies and hospital lab outreach programs, amplifying this inherent disparity and skewing the advantage away from independent providers yet again.
Higher cost providers without a clear understanding of promoting their value to payers could have trouble obtaining in-network status. Yet, failing to obtain in-network status may reduce overall test quantities, further raise prices, and make smaller labs less competitive with larger national laboratories—a dangerous cycle with today’s competitive laboratory landscape.
Shifting Focus and Optimizing Managed Care Reimbursements
As the financial stability of Medicare reimbursements wanes, it is imperative that laboratories look to new methods to further increase efficiency and stabilize cashflows. Once a smaller portion of laboratory revenue, managed care organizations and commercial payers will be of increased importance as overall reimbursement rates continue to shrink in the face of healthcare reform and value-based care.
Special June 26 Webinar: Improving Managed Care Reimbursement Efficiency
Understanding not just what these payers are attempting to achieve for their organization—but also how they structure requirements and processes to support their goals—is an essential element of succeeding in this previously smaller share of the marketplace.
For those interested in learning more about critical concerns regarding managed care payers in the post-2018 CLFS landscape, Pathology Webinars is hosting a 90-minute webinar on Tuesday, June 26, 2018, at 2:00 PM Eastern.
The webinar will include presentations from two experts on a range of topics including:
Actionable steps to absorb the loss of Medicare revenue due to the impact of the 2018 CLFS reductions;
How managed care payers process network status and payments;
Who in the managed care chain of command should receive your value proposition;
How to better align your value propositions, policies, and workflows with the requirements of managed care and commercial payers; and,
Understanding the roles managed care payers expect clinical laboratories and anatomic pathologists to play in managing and reducing unnecessary testing.
The first speaker, Frank Dookie, MBA, will provide an inside look at:
How managed care payers function;
Their requirements and workflows; and,
What they look for when considering network status for a laboratory.
Dookie is a laboratory professional who has worked on the payer side for 28 years. He is passionate about the role that diagnostics play or can play in healthcare, and has spent his career working for instrumentation providers, clinical laboratories, the intermediary space between laboratories and managed care companies, and managed care companies.
The second speaker, Michael Snyder, will bring the entire payment process into sharp focus. He will cover:
Optimizing the collection process;
Identifying the purpose of each step, each review, and each team member involved; and,
Critical points laboratories must address to ensure payment.
Snyder is the Senior Vice President of Network Operations for Avalon Healthcare Solutions, LLC, a firm that provides comprehensive benefit management services to the health plan industry and has more than 30 years’ experience in clinical laboratory management.
Frank R. Dookie, MBA (left), Contracting Executive with a major managed care company in Woodbridge, N.J.; and Michael Snyder (right), Senior Vice President with Avalon Healthcare Solutions in Flemington, N.J., will provide critical insights and actionable details for clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology group leaders who want to ensure future revenues.
An Essential Opportunity to Improve Your Reimbursements
This critical webinar offers anatomic pathology groups and medical laboratory managers essential information and actionable next steps to immediately leverage the potential of managed care payers. Additionally, it provides insider insight to laboratories straining to retain financial integrity as reduced reimbursements and increased regulatory burdens strain budgets and cashflows.
To register for the webinar and see further details about discussion topics, use this link (or copy and paste the URL into your browser: https://pathologywebinars.com/current/managed-care-an-insiders-guide-to-improving-your-reimbursement-efficiency-with-strategies-that-work-626/).
As further Medicare payment reductions over the next three years drive reimbursements even lower, understanding how to capture the positive attention of payers—while working within the rules and policies driving their reimbursement decisions—will be an essential element of successful laboratory management and growth. Register now!
To offset the loss of revenue from the price cuts to Medicare Part B clinical laboratory tests, labs will need to aggressively—but wisely—slash costs to balance their budgets
Many experienced industry executives expect this to be the single most financially disruptive event to hit the clinical laboratory profession in more than 20 years. This will not only have a substantial negative financial impact on all labs—large and small—but two sectors of the clinical lab industry are considered to be so financially vulnerable they could cease to exist.
At Greatest Risk of Financial Failure are Community Laboratories
The first sector is comprised of smaller community lab companies that operate in towns and rural areas. These labs are at the greatest risk because they are the primary providers of lab testing services to the nursing homes and skilled nursing facilities in their neighborhoods. And because they have a high proportion of Medicare Part B revenue.
Thus, the expected Medicare price cuts to the high-volume automated lab tests—such as chemistry panels and CBCs (complete blood count) that are the bread-and-butter tests for these labs—will swiftly move them from minimal profit margins to substantial losses. Since these labs have a cost-per-test that is significantly higher than the nation’s largest public lab companies, they will be unable to financially survive the 2018 Medicare fee cuts.
The second sector at risk is comprised of rural hospitals and modest-sized community hospitals. What officials at CMS and their consulting companies overlooked when they created the PAMA (Protecting Access to Medicare Act) private payer market price reporting rule is that these hospitals provide lab testing services to nursing homes and office-based physicians in their service areas.
Because of the low volumes of testing in these hospital labs, they also have a larger average cost-per-test than the big public labs. Thus, the 2018 cuts to Medicare Part B lab test prices will erode or erase any extra margin from this testing that now accrues to these hospitals.
Rural and Small Community Hospitals Rely on Lab Outreach Revenue
The financial disruption these Medicare lab test price cuts will cause to rural and community hospitals is a real thing. These hospitals rely on outreach lab test revenues to subsidize many other clinical services within the hospital. One rural hospital CEO confirmed the importance of lab outreach revenue to her organization. Michelle McEwen, FACHE, CEO of Speare Memorial Hospital in Plymouth, N.H., spoke to The Dark Report in 2012 about the financial disruption that was happening when a major health insurer excluded her hospital’s laboratory from its network.
Speare Memorial is a 25-bed critical access hospital in the central part of the state between the lakes region and the White Mountain National Forest. McEwen was blunt in her assessment of the importance of clinical laboratory outreach revenues to her hospital. “The funds generated by performing these [outreach] lab tests are used to support the cost of providing laboratory services to all patients 24/7, including stat labs for emergency patients and inpatients,” McEwen explained. “These funds also help support other services in the hospital where losses are typically incurred, such as the emergency room and obstetric programs.” (See “Critical Access Hospitals Losing Lab Test Work,” The Dark Report, April 2, 2012.)
All Medical Laboratories Will Suffer Financial Pain from Medicare Price Cuts
But it is not just community lab companies and rural hospitals that are at risk of financial failure as the Medicare Part B cuts are implemented by CMS on Jan. 1, 2018. Any clinical laboratory serving Medicare patients will experience a meaningful drop in revenue. Many larger hospital and health system laboratories are recasting their financial projections for 2018 to identify how big a drop in revenue they will experience and what cost-cutting strategies will be needed to at least break even on their lab outreach business.
This explains why the first big trend of 2018 will be substantial revenue cuts from the Medicare program. It also explains why the second big trend of 2018 will be smart cost-cutting as labs attempt to balance their books and lower spending proportional to the reduced income they project.
Labs Have a Decade of Successful Cost-Cutting, More Cuts are Difficult
Aggressive cost-cutting, however, puts the nation’s medical laboratories at risk for a different reason. For the past decade, most well-run labs have already harvested the low-hanging fruit from obvious sources of cost reduction. They installed latest-generation automation. They re-engineered workflows using the techniques of Lean, Six Sigma, and process improvement.
During these same years, most medical laboratories also reduced technical staff and trimmed management ranks. That has created two new problems:
First, there are not enough managers in many labs to both handle the daily flow of work while also tackling specific projects to cut costs and boost productivity. Basically, these labs are already at their management limit, with no excess capacity for their lab managers to initiate and implement cost-cutting projects.
Second, technical staffs are already working at near peak capacity. Increased use of automation at these labs has reduced lab costs because labs were able to do the same volume of testing with fewer staff. However, the reduced staffs that oversee the lab automation are now working at their own peak capacity. Not only are they highly stressed from the daily routine, they also do not have spare time to devote to new projects designed to further cut costs.
Each Year Will Bring Additional Cuts to Medicare Part B Lab Prices
This is why all clinical laboratories in the United States will find it difficult to deal with the Medicare Part lab test fee cuts that will total $400 million during 2018. And what must be remembered is that, in 2019 and beyond, CMS officials will use the PAMA private payer market price reporting rule to make additional fee cuts. Over 10 years, CMS expects these cuts will reduce spending by $5.4 billion from the current spending level.
Taken collectively, all these factors indicate that many medical laboratories in the United States will not survive these Medicare fee cuts. The basic economics of operating a clinical laboratory say that less volume equals a higher average cost per test and higher volume equals a lower average cost per test.
Medical Labs with Highest Costs Most at Risk of Failure from Price Cuts
What this means in the marketplace is that labs with the highest average cost per test make the least profit margin on a fee-for-service payment. The opposite is true for labs with the lowest average cost per test. They will make a greater profit margin on that same fee-for-service payment.
Carry this fundamental economic principle of medical laboratory operations forward as Medicare Part B lab test fee cuts happen in 2018. Labs with the highest average cost per test will be first to go from a modest profit or break-even to a loss. As noted earlier, the clinical lab sectors that have the highest average cost per test are smaller community labs, along with rural and community hospitals. That is why they will be first to go out of business—whether by sale, bankruptcy, or by simply closing their doors.
Learning How to Cut Lab Costs While Protecting Quality
Every pathologist and lab administrator seeking the right strategies to further cut costs in their lab, while protecting quality and enhancing patient services, will want to consider sending a team from their laboratory to the 11th Annual Lab Quality Confab that takes place in New Orleans on October 24-25, 2018.
Anticipating the greater need for shrewd cost-cutting that also protects the quality of the lab’s testing services, this year’s Lab Quality Confab has lined up more than 51 speakers and 39 sessions. Of particular interest are these extended workshops that come with certifications:
Lab Quality Confab is recognized for its use of lab case studies—taught by the nation’s early adopter lab organizations. Certification classes are available to gain proficiency in the use of Lean methods and Six Sigma tools, such as:
Developing single-piece and small batch workflow to cut TAT and lift productivity.
Given the strong interest in smart ways to cut costs, boost productivity, and balance revenue-versus-cost, registrations for this year’s Lab Quality Confab is running at a record pace. The full agenda can be viewed at this link (or copy this URL and paste into your browser: http://www.labqualityconfab.com/agenda).
Of special interest to lab leaders preparing to stay ahead of the financial impact of the Medicare Part B fee cuts, Lab Quality Confab offers deep discounts for four or more attendees from the same lab organization. This allows your lab’s most effective cost-cutters to see, hear, and learn together, so that when they return they can get a flying start helping you align your lab’s costs to the expected declines in revenue that will happen on Jan. 1, 2018.
Another big question is whether the lobbying of medical laboratory and pathology societies can educate and convince members of Congress to delay and reform the PAMA Final Rule that uses the market price study of what private payers pay for lab tests
The bad news doesn’t stop there. Lab industry observers say that significant numbers of hospital laboratories and independent lab companies are unprepared for the drop in revenue they will experience once the Medicare price cuts take effect. And, with only 157 days remaining before Jan. 1, 2018, medical laboratory executives and pathologists have precious little time to prepare their labs to operate on significantly less Medicare revenue.
PAMA Market Study of What Private Payers Pay for Clinical Laboratory Tests
Blame it on the Protecting Access to Medicare Act (PAMA) of 2014! PAMA directed CMS to conduct a market study of the lab test prices paid by private health insurers, and then use this data to set the prices of the CLFS. As many lab professionals know, CMS spent the last 24 months publishing a final price reporting rule that defined which medical laboratories must report the prices they are paid by private payers, and then collecting that data.
The data reporting period ended on May 31. In coming months, CMS will publish the new CLFS test prices and allow time for public comment.
First Opportunity to See What Private Payers Pay for Medical Laboratory Tests
The first expert to speak is Lâle White, Executive Chairman and CEO of XIFIN, Inc., a health information technology (HIT) company headquartered in San Diego. Annually, White and her colleagues handle as many as 300 million lab test claims for hundreds of their clinical laboratory clients. Also, XIFIN is electronically interfaced with every health insurance plan in the US. These two facts mean that White has essentially the same data their lab clients reported to CMS.
During her presentation, White will show you how her company analyzed the real information from hundreds of millions of medical lab test claims that were reimbursed by thousands of private payers. You are in for a big surprise!
Learn Why Medicare Lab Test Fee Cuts Will Be Deep and Painful
XIFIN’s conclusions are based on real-world data. They demonstrate how the CMS final rule was written to direct the way federal officials calculate and set the 2018 Part B clinical laboratory test prices, and reveal why the fee cuts will be deep and painful for the lab industry’s highest-volume tests. You’ll hear facts about XIFIN’s analysis and learn to use that knowledge to model and predict precisely how deep Medicare’s revenue cuts to your lab will be when the new price schedule becomes effective on Jan. 1.
Lâle White (above left), CEO of XIFIN, Inc., spoke at the Executive War College on Laboratory and Pathology Management last May, where she shared insights about the coming price cuts to the Medicare Part B Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS). Julie Scott Allen (above right) is Senior Vice President of the District Policy Group, Drinker Biddle, and represents the National Independent Laboratory Association (NILA) in Washington, DC. White and Allen will be speaking at a special Dark Daily webinar later this week on the current status of the Medicare fee cuts and how lab executives should respond to protect the financial integrity of their labs. (White photo copyright: The Dark Report. White photo by Linda Reineke. Allen photo copyright: Drinker Biddle.)
Because it is generally agreed that CMS officials will target the top 20 lab tests by volume for the deepest price cuts, the actual revenue drop will depend on your mix of tests and the volume of Medicare patients associated with each test. CMS says it will use the weighted median of the private payer lab test price data to determine its new Part B fees.
However, that is a flawed approach and the source of much criticism.
White will show why the weighted median generates a lower price than the use of a weighted average calculation. You’ll see the direct impact that CMS’ use of the weighted median will have on your lab’s Medicare revenue, beginning on Jan. 1.
Understanding Current Developments at CMS and Within Congress
Julie Scott Allen will be the second speaker on the July 20 webinar. She is Senior Vice President, District Policy Group, Drinker Biddle, and represents the National Independent Laboratory Association (NILA) in Washington, DC. In this role, Allen works with officials at CMS, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and with members of Congress on issues relevant to the clinical laboratory members of NILA. She regularly participates as part of the Clinical Laboratory Coalition on these matters.
Allen will give you an up-to-the minute perspective on efforts by the clinical laboratory industry to educate officials within Congress, HHS, and CMS about the consequences of allowing the PAMA final rule price cuts to become effective on January 1, 2018. This is important information you can use to craft strategies to protect your lab’s financial stability. You’ll also recognize opportunities to contact your elected officials in Congress at the time when your input can make an important difference.
The message of many in the Clinical Laboratory Coalition to members of Congress is that, if the PAMA Medicare fee cuts happen as planned, many hospital lab outreach programs and community lab companies in the states and districts of the various Senators and Representatives will probably end up going out of business, filing bankruptcy, or selling to a national lab company.
Behind the Scenes on PAMA Fee Cuts, ACA Repeal-and-Replace
Allen will take you behind the scenes of the inside-the-beltway developments that relate to the coming Medicare Part B clinical laboratory fee cuts. Different players from the clinical laboratory community are in discussions with CMS officials about the need to delay and reform the implementation of these price cuts.
Meanwhile, there are several developments unfolding within Congress that affect clinical laboratories. Yes, one of them is the PAMA final rule on lab price cuts. However, congressional efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are creating opportunities for different medical specialties—including the profession of laboratory medicine—to advocate for needed reforms in their areas of clinical services.
When clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology leaders are informed, they are more effective in two roles:
Protecting the clinical excellence and financial sustainability of their respective laboratories;
Advocating with government officials and lawmakers on the issues that are important to keeping the nation’s laboratories financially viable and key contributors to improving the quality of patient care.
OIG suggests better use of analytics by CMS could prevent gaming of the system by providers; clinical laboratories can help through test utilization management technology
In 2015, CMS implemented the Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The HACRP program incentivizes hospitals to lower their HAI rates by adjusting reimbursements according to the inpatient quality reporting (hospital IQR) data provided by the healthcare providers. Hospital IQR data is the basis on which CMS validates a hospital’s HAI rate (among other things CMS is tracking) to determine the hospital’s reimbursement rate for that year.
CMS, in 2016, met its regulatory requirement to validate inpatient quality reporting data;
It reviewed data of 400 randomly selected hospitals as well as 49 hospitals targeted for failing to report half their HAIs, or for low scores in the prior year’s validation process;
However, OIG also reported that CMS did not include hospitals that displayed abnormal data patterns in its targeted sample. Targeting those hospitals, according to the OIG, could identify inaccurate reporting.
CMS staff had identified 96 hospitals with aberrant data patterns, but did not target them for validation—even though the agency can select up to 200 targeted hospitals for review, Becker’s Hospital Review pointed out.
Dollars More Important than Deaths
According to the OIG report, Medicare excluded in its investigation dozens of hospitals with suspected HAI reporting. This is odd since the CMS and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) apparently are aware that some healthcare providers have manipulated data to improve their quality measure scores and thus increase their reimbursement rates.
“Collecting and analyzing quality data is increasingly central to Medicare programs that link payments to quality and value. Therefore, it is important for CMS to ensure that hospitals are not gaming [manipulating data to improve scores] their reporting of quality data,” the OIG report noted.
“There are greater requirements for what a company says about a washing machine’s performance than there is for a hospital on quality of care. And this needs to change,” stated Peter Pronovost, MD, PhD, in the Kaiser Health News article. “We require auditing of financial data, but we don’t require auditing of healthcare quality data, and that implies that dollars are more important than deaths.” Pronovost is Senior Vice President for Patient Safety and Quality at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
Peter Pronovost, MD, PhD (above) testifying on preventable deaths before the Senate Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging in 2014. He is Senior Vice President for Patient Safety and Quality at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. Pronovost told Kaiser Health News that there are no uniform standards for reviewing data that hospitals report to Medicare. (Photo copyright: US Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.)
Medicare Missed Hospitals with Suspected HAI Data
CMS should have done an in-depth review of many hospitals that submitted “aberrant data patterns” in 2013 and 2014, the OIG stated in its report. According to a Kaiser HealthNews article, such patterns could include:
A rapid change in results;
Improbably low infection rates; and
Assertions that infections nearly always struck before patients arrived at the hospital.
“There’s a certain amount of blind faith that hospitals are going to tell the truth. It’s a bit much to expect that if they had a bad record they are going to fess up to it,” noted Lisa McGiffert, Director of the Safe Patient Project at Consumers Union, in the Kaiser Health News article.
CMS Needs Better Data Analytics
So, what does the OIG advise CMS to do? The agency called for “better use of analytics to ensure the integrity of hospital-reported quality data.” Specifically, OIG suggested CMS:
Identify hospitals with abnormal percentages of patients who had infections on admission;
Apply risk scores to identify hospitals with high propensity to manipulate reporting;
Use experiences to create and improve models that identify hospitals most likely to game their reporting.
CMS’ Administrator Seema Verma reportedly responded, “We will continue to evaluate the use of better analytics as feasible, based on Medicare’s operational capabilities.”
Medical Laboratory Diagnostic Testing Part of Gaming the System
A 2015 CMS/CDC joint statement noted “three ways that hospitals may be deviating from CDC’s definitions for reportable HAIs,” and two involve diagnostic test ordering. According to the OIG report, they include:
Overculturing: Diagnostic tests may be overutilized by providers in absence of clinical symptoms. Hospitals may use positive results to game their data by claiming infections that appeared days later were present on admission and thus not reportable.
Underculturing: Hospitals underculture when they do not order diagnostic tests in the presence of clinical symptoms. By not ordering the test, the hospital does not learn whether the patient truly has an infection and, therefore, the hospital does not have to report it.
Adjudication: Hospital administrative staff may inappropriately overrule those who report infections. HAIs are, therefore, not shared.
Clinical Laboratories Can Help
One in 25 people each day receives an HAI, CDC estimates. The OIG findings should be a reminder to medical laboratories and pathology groups that quality measures and patient outcomes are often transparent to media, patients, and the public.
One way medical laboratories in hospitals and health systems can help is by investing in utilization management technology and protocols that ensure appropriate lab test utilization. Informing doctors on the availability of appropriate diagnostic tests based on patients’ existing conditions, unique physiologies, or medical histories, could help prevent hospitals from inadvertently or deliberately game the system.
Clearly, transparency in healthcare is increasing. That means there will be more news stories revealing federal agencies’ failures to respond to healthcare data in ways that could have protected patients and the public. Clinical laboratories don’t want to be included in negative reporting.
