Jan 22, 2018 | Laboratory Hiring & Human Resources, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
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.
A Dark Daily e-briefing recently covered one such “solution” involving letters sent to Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) of Georgia members informing them that ED services deemed “unnecessary” by BCBS would no longer be paid. (See Dark Daily, “Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia Drops Coverage for Non-Emergency ER Visits; Medical Laboratories Could See Drop in ER Clinical Lab Test Orders,” July 14, 2017.)
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’
In apparent response to this trend, a study published in the International Journal for Quality in Health Care, found that just 3.3% of ED visits are actually “avoidable.”
“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.
—Donna Marie Pocius
Related Information:
Trends in the Contribution of Emergency Departments to the Provision of Hospital-Associated Health Care in the USA
University of Maryland School of Medicine Study Finds That Nearly Half of U.S. Hospital-Associated Medical Care Comes from Emergency Rooms
Nearly 50% of US Medical Care Occurs in EDs
ERs Provide Nearly Half Medical Care in U.S., Study Finds
Avoid Emergency Department Visits: A Starting Point
Only 3.3% of ER Visits Are Avoidable
Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia Drops Coverage for Non-Emergency ER Visits; Medical Laboratories Could See Drop in ER Clinical Lab Test Orders
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
