Clinical laboratories that service both settings could be impacted as new CMS proposed rule attempts to align Medicare’s payment policies for outpatient and in-patient settings
Hospital outpatient revenue is catching up to inpatient
revenue, according to data released from the American
Hospital Association (AHA). This increase is part of a growing trend to
reduce healthcare costs by treating patients outside of hospital settings. It’s
a trend that is supported by the White House and Medicare and continues to
impact clinical
laboratories, which serve both hospital inpatient and outpatient customers.
The AHA published this study data in its annual Hospital Statistics, 2019Edition. The data comes from a 2017 survey of 5,262
US hospitals. The report includes data about utilization, revenue, expenses,
and other indicators for 2017, as well as historical data.
The AHA statistics on outpatient revenue suggest providers
nationwide are working to keep people out of more expensive hospital settings. Hospitals,
like medical
laboratories, appear to be succeeding at developing outpatient and outreach
services that generate needed operating revenue.
This aligns with Medicare’s push to make healthcare more accessible through outpatient settings, such as urgent care clinics and physician’s offices. A growing trend Dark Daily has covered extensively.
Outpatient Revenue
Climbs
In its coverage of
the AHA’s study, Modern Healthcare reported that 2017
hospital net inpatient revenue was $498 billion and net outpatient revenue was
$472 billion.
The Becker’s Hospital CFO Report notes that
gross inpatient revenue in 2017 was $92.7 billion higher than gross outpatient
revenue. But in 2016, gross inpatient revenue was much further ahead—$129.5
billion more than gross outpatient revenue. The “divide” between inpatient and
outpatient revenue is narrowing, Becker’s reports.
The graphic above illustrates the shrinking gap between hospital inpatient and outpatient revenues. “Outpatient revenue will ultimately eclipse inpatient revenue,” Chuck Alsdurf, Director of Healthcare Finance Policy and Operational Initiatives at the Healthcare Financial Management Association (HFMA), told Modern Healthcare. (Graphic copyright: Modern Healthcare/AHA.)
The Becker’s
report also stated:
Admissions increased by less than 1% to 34.3
million in 2017, up from 34 million in 2016;
Inpatient days were flat at 186.2 million;
Outpatient visits rose by 1.2% to 766 million in
2017; and,
Outpatient revenue increased 5.7% between 2016
and 2017.
Similar Study Offers Additional
Insight into 2018 Outpatient Revenue
A benchmarking report by Crowe,
a public accounting, consulting, and technology firm, which analyzed data from
622 hospitals for the period January through September of 2017 and 2018, showed
the following, as reported by RevCycleIntelligence:
Inpatient volume was up 0.6% in 2018 and gross
revenue per case grew by 5.3%;
Outpatient services rose 2.4% in 2018 and gross
revenue per case was up 7.1%.
Physicians’ Offices
Have Lower Prices for Some Hospital Outpatient Services
Everything, however, is relative. When certain healthcare
services traditionally rendered in physician’s offices are rendered, instead,
in hospital outpatient settings, the numbers tell a different story.
In fact, according to the Health
Care Cost Institute (HCCI), the price for services was “always higher” when
performed in an outpatient setting, as compared to doctor’s offices.
HCCI analyzed services at outpatient facilities as well as
those appropriate to freestanding physician offices. They found the following
differences in 2017 prices:
Diagnostic and screening ultrasound: $241 in
physician’s office—$650 in hospital outpatient setting;
Level 5 drug administration: $254 in office—$664
in hospital outpatient setting;
Upper airway endoscopy: $527 in office—$2,679 in
hospital outpatient setting.
One example where hospital outpatient settings provide similar services at increased costs is in drug administration, as the graphic above illustrates. “The difference was higher than I expected. With some services, the price is two or three times higher when rendered in the outpatient setting,” Julie Reiff, HCCI researcher and report author, told Fierce Healthcare. (Graphic copyright: HCCI.)
Medicare Proposed
Rule Would Change How Hospital Outpatient Clinics Get Paid
Meanwhile, the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has released its final rule (CMS-1695-FC),
which make changes to Medicare’s hospital outpatient prospective payment and
ambulatory surgical center payment systems and quality reporting programs.
In a news
release, CMS stated that it “is moving toward site neutral payments for
clinic visits (which are essentially check-ups with a clinician). Clinic visits
are the most common service billed under the OPPS [Medicare’s Hospital
Outpatient Prospective Payment System). Currently, CMS often pays more for
the same type of clinic visit in the hospital outpatient setting than in the
physician office setting.”
“CMS is also proposing to close a potential loophole through
which providers are billing patients more for visits in hospital outpatient
departments when they create new service lines,” the news release states.
Hospitals are fighting the policy change through a lawsuit, Fierce Healthcare reported.
In summary, clinical laboratories based in hospitals and
health systems are in the outpatient as well as inpatient business. Medical laboratory
tests contribute to growth in outpatient revenue, and physician offices compete
with clinical laboratories for some outpatient tests and procedures. Thus, a new
site-neutral CMS payment policy could affect the payments hospitals receive for
clinic visits by Medicare patients.
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 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?
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.)
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.
Pathologists will be interested to learn that this latest version of the acoustic tweezer device requires about five hours to identify the CTCs in a sample of blood
Medical laboratory leaders and pathologists are well aware that circulating tumor cells (CTCs) released by primary tumors into the bloodstream are fragile and easily damaged. Many studies have sought to find ways to separate CTCs from surrounding cells. Such a process could then be used as an early-detection biomarker to detect cancer from a sample of blood.
One team of researchers believe it has a way to accomplish this. These researchers are using sound waves to gently detect and isolate CTCs in blood samples. In turn, this could make it possible to diagnose cancer using “liquid biopsies” as opposed to invasive conventional biopsies.
Venture capitalists are betting $100 million that an entrepreneur can develop an inexpensive and portable imaging device that can be used by office-based physicians
There’s a serious effort, funded by venture capitalists, to create a compact medical imaging device with the capabilities to disrupt the existing radiology profession. Developers intend to create a more accurate imaging technology that also costs much less than the expensive imaging systems in common use today.
Biomedical entrepreneur Jonathan Rothberg aims to create a new hand-held medical imaging device that can make MRI and ultrasounds significantly cheaper and more efficient, reported Wired magazine. Rothberg is founder of the Butterfly Network, Inc.
Rothberg’s goal is to make it possible for office-based physicians to use a point-of-care imaging tool that costs just a couple hundred dollars. It might also help patients in poor regions of the world gain access to imaging tests and better healthcare. (more…)
A growing number of media stories claim medical lab companies that develop genetic screening assays oversell the accuracy of such tests and fail to educate parents and doctors about the risks of false positives and false negatives
In response to growing concerns by consumers about the accuracy of some proprietary genetic screening assays, several media outlets have begun reporting on this sector of the clinical laboratory industry.
What gives these news stories emotional punch is the fact that patients use these proprietary medical laboratory tests to make decisions that can be life-changing. In its story about these tests, the Boston Sunday Globe used the headline “Oversold prenatal tests spur some to choose abortions.” (more…)
