Image
  • Home
  • Book Reviews
  • About
    • About Road to Hellth
    • About Dr. Perednia
  • Contact Us
  • Legal
    • Disclosure Policy
    • Privacy Policy
    • Disclaimer
    • Terms of Use
  • Login

Archive for January 2011

Jan
24

Violate A “Guideline”, Go to Jail?

by Dr. Doug Perednia

The digital ink was barely dry on our last post about the sometimes questionable and largely non-evidence-based nature of clinical guidelines, when the Justice Department decided to weigh in on the topic.  As if to underscore Dr. Rich’s assertion that “guidelines are no longer guidelines”, the Federal government has raised the prospect of fining your doctor and/or sending her to prison for the crime of not strictly following guidelines of care.  As reported by MedPage Today:

“Federal prosecutors are looking into physicians’ prescribing practices relating to implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), the Heart Rhythm Society has told its members.

 

In a mailing sent to HRS members, the group said it had been contacted by the Department of Justice to assist in a probe of ICD prescribing.

 

“[HRS] has agreed to assist in an advisory role to lend expertise concerning proper guidelines for clinical decision making,” according to a copy of the notice posted by two members on the Internet.

 

The notice indicated that the society was prohibited from commenting further on its role in the investigation. Justice Department officials could not be reached for comment.

 

It was therefore unclear whether the probe is related directly to a report in the Journal of the American Medical Association earlier this month indicating that ICDs are often prescribed for patients who don’t qualify for the devices under published guidelines…

 

The HRS notice appears to raise the possibility that the Justice Department may be considering prosecution of individual clinicians, in addition to its already disclosed investigation into alleged payola schemes by ICD manufacturers.”

If the Justice Department investigation is, in fact, going to target clinicians based upon their adherence to guidelines, the American healthcare system is headed down a very slippery slope.  Government regulators and prosecutors will, of course, contend that they’re simply looking for “waste, fraud and abuse”, and that looking for non-adherence to guidelines is a reasonable screening tool when looking for criminals.  But let’s not kid around.  Any such policy is going to have a chilling effect on treating patients as individuals rather than statistically average widgets.  You may need a test or procedure as a part of good medical care, but your doctor is going to be too scared to order it if her record of “guideline compliance” is at stake.

Think about it.  For the first time your doctor may have a real choice to make if your medical condition doesn’t happen to fit neatly into some academic cookbook.  Adhere to the guideline and commit malpractice, or violate the guidelines and risk jail time.

Using guidelines in this way is unscientific, unethical and just plain wrong.

Categories : Abuse of Power, Stupid Guideline Tricks, Waste Fraud and Abuse
Jan
23

What’s In a Guideline? Often Just the Opinion of a Dozen Guys.

by Dr. Doug Perednia

Medical guidelines are well on their way to becoming the Law of the Land.  Dr. Rich over at The Covert Rationing Blog featured a recent post that highlighted this point.  When a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that nearly 23% of patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) received them under circumstances that did not match up with the recommended “guidelines” for doing so, this breach of etiquette was characterized as being the moral equivalent of fraud:

CNN put it like this: “Of more than 100,000 people who received ICDs, almost 23% did not need them according to evidence-based guidelines.” As the lead investigator of the JAMA study told CNN, “It’s a lot of people who are getting defibrillators who may not need them.”

As Dr. Rich himself then observed:

“Guidelines are No Longer Guidelines. “Guidelines” implies, literally, a guide, a signpost, a general set of factors that one ought to take into account when making specific decisions regarding specific individual patients. Guidelines are a strong set of recommendations which (all other things being equal) one ought to follow in the majority of cases, and when one chooses not to follow them, one ought to have a good reason for making that choice.

When the use of clinical guidelines is considered in view of this now-quaint notion, one does not expect 100% compliance. After all, patients being patients, they bring to the table lots and lots of special considerations one ought to take into account when deciding how to apply guidelines. Depending on the level of evidence upon which a certain set of guidelines were established, and considering the array of variations on the mean which patients still insist on bringing to a doctor’s notice, the optimal applicability of a given set of guidelines to a given population of patients ought to look something like a bell-shaped-curve. It is not immediately obvious, for instance, that a rate of compliance with a set of guidelines of 77.5% is simply too low. Indeed, a rate of compliance with your typical clinical guidelines well north of that number might imply, when one fully considers the matter, an abrogation of the physician’s duty to make informed clinical decisions based on ALL available evidence, including those introduced by an individual patient’s specific circumstances.

As a matter of fact, the very guidelines regarding ICDs which doctors are now accused of abusing admit that “the ultimate judgment regarding care of a particular patient must be made by the physician and the patient in light of all of the circumstances presented by that patient.”

In this light, a very striking feature of this new report is its baseline assertion that the strict following of guidelines is “evidence-based” practice, while any deviation is “non-evidence-based;” that is, by implication at least, it is good medicine vs. bad medicine. And so, “only” 77.5% of ICD implanters are practicing good medicine, and that is clearly a major concern – one for which urgent solutions should be sought.”

The good Dr. Rich then went on to point out a number of circumstances under which it might be perfectly rational to alter the recommended timing of ICDs implantation, such not wishing to subject a patient who needs a pacemaker anyway to two separate procedures, evidence that suggests a higher-than-expected risk of sudden death, or even simply allowing the patient to receive the device before they lost their insurance.

But while there are any number of “justifiable” reasons to violate clinical guidelines, (just as there are probably lots of “justifiable” reasons that one could come up with for not charging the suggested retail price, failing to read books on the suggested reading list, or even driving 60 in a 55 mph zone), it is at least as interesting that CNN characterized these particular guidelines as being “evidence-based”.  I specifically asked Dr. Rich about whether the ICD guidelines in question were; specifically the recommendations that were violated about the timing of implants.  His reply?  Not really.

“…the only trial designed to test ICD implantation immediately after heart attacks,was the DINAMIT study in 2004. This study enrolled patients who were at particularly high overall cardiovascular risk, both arrhythmically and hemodynamically. It showed no benefit in overall survival with ICDs, even though the rate of sudden death was substantially reduced (patients died of pump failure).  So it was a negative trial, but again, enrolled only a sick subset of post-heart attack patients. Its results are not generalizable.

So what we know is:

-          ICDs improve survival after [heart attacks] or heart failure when the heart’s ejection fraction [a measure of heart function - ed] is < 35%

-          But ICDs have not been tested in these patients right after heart attacks (except for the poorly-designed DINAMIT trial) or right after heart failure diagnosis

-          So the “evidence-base” that says don’t implant in these patients is not positive evidence (we tested it and it doesn’t work), but negative evidence (it hasn’t been tested)

-          Since the risk of sudden death is particularly high in these early patients, it is not unreasonable for doctors to decide to occasionally “violate” this early-implant-prohibition, in the case of individual patients who otherwise are indicated for ICDs and who appear likely to live for a substantial period of time if their sudden deaths can just be prevented.”

Okay, fine.  So these particular “evidence-based” recommendations weren’t really all that evidence-based.  But surely most of them are, right?

Well as it turns out, no.

This inconvenient truth, (well, inconvenient for government bureaucrats and other folks who insist that it’s “my way or the highway” in medicine, anyway), was brought into sharp focus by the results of a recent study and an accompanying editorial published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.  The study by Lee and Vielemeyer looked at the overall basis and quality of the evidence behind 41 guidelines release by the Infectious Diseases Society of America between 1994 and 2010.  Within these guidelines they found and tabulated 4,218 individual recommendations, and specifically classified them as falling into one of three categories:

Level I: Evidence from at least one properly randomized controlled trial;

Level II: Evidence from at least one well-designed clinical trial without randomization, case-controlled analytical studies or dramatic results from uncontrolled experiments; and

Level III: The opinions of “respected experts” or committees.

Their findings?  Only 14% of the recommendations in the guidelines (581 out of 4,218 of them) were based upon properly randomized controlled trials, and an additional 31% were based on pretty good studies.  However over half of them (55%), were based on little more than “expert” opinion.  And how many authors does it take to create the average guideline?  The average number is 13, but it ranges from a low of just 4 to a high of 66.

Holy cow.  So the vast majority of these recommendations are there because a dozen people think that they’re right, but don’t really know for sure?

Nor are these things updated particularly often.  About half of the guidelines had been updated at some point, with an average time between updates of 6.7 years and a range of 1-15 years.  But even when the guidelines were updated it was most often to add more recommendations based upon expert opinions – not to add great new data from well-done clinical trials.

Although this particular study looked just at guidelines in the area of infectious diseases, its results echo those of another recent study that looked at the basis of 7,000 recommendations made by guidelines in cardiology.  Here a median of 11% were based on data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), while 48% on Level III data.

Of course, there are many things that ought to be done in medicine that will never be the subject of randomized clinical trials.  Sometimes the common sense “expertise” really is enough to do the trick. For example, if an expert opinion recommends that patients with contagious diseases be isolated from other patients, it’s pretty unlikely that there will ever be a double-blind, randomized controlled trial done to dispute it.  But the editorial cited previously showed, using shaky clinical guidelines as a means of forcing doctors to behave in certain ways has backfired before:

“For example, a quality-of-care [pay-for-performance – ed.] rule based on observational data that patients with community-acquired pneumonia receive antimicrobials within 4 hours of presentation was based on a recommendation in 2003 guidelines. One study showed that implementation of this rule resulted in an approximately 20% increase in the misdiagnosis of pneumonia and greater unnecessary exposure to antimicrobials with no decrease in mortality.”

So what’s the take-home lesson then?  What are we supposed to think about all of this as patients, taxpayers, parents and children?

The most important message is that we ought to be extremely skeptical of anything or anyone who offers to evaluate the performance of any clinician based upon his or her overall level of adherence to any clinical guideline.  There are simply too many variables involved, none of which can be adequately gauged by any type of summary reporting.  Moreover, it invokes a level of confidence in the “correctness” of guidelines that is simply not justified by scientific and medical reality.  In fact, strict adherence to standardized guidelines ought to raise a red flag.

Consider this: any guideline is a numbers game.  Because they cannot take into account the peculiarities of every particular patient, at least some of the recommendations any clinical guideline will be inappropriate for some non-zero (and perhaps very substantial) percentage of cases.  If a clinician fails to deviate from a given guideline in some percentage of cases, it means that he’s almost certainly applying “cookbook medicine” rather than critical thinking.  Cookbook medicine is just as bad as it sounds.  It’s the application of the same recipe regardless of the clinical ingredients one is given.  Imagine having someone insist that you use a recipe for bread pudding when the ingredients you’re given consist of bread, garlic and butter.  You can follow the pudding instructions all you want, but you won’t end up with the desired result.

The uncomfortable fact is that anyone who treats every patient exactly the same way every time is almost certainly treating some of those patients inappropriately.  Some might even say it’s committing medical malpractice.

And it’s certainly not “quality” medicine.

The second message really is a corollary of the first.  It should be illegal (and it is, at the very least, unethical), to reward or punish a clinician based upon his or her overall level of adherence to any clinical guideline.  To do so is a misuse, and indeed an abuse, of the tool.

And there is one final lesson.  All of those politicians, reporters and regulators who bandy about the term “evidence-based guidelines”, almost certainly have no idea how much verifiable “evidence” those guidelines actually contain.

Categories : Uncategorized
Jan
14

Starving the System – Medicare’s “Emergency” Pay Cut

by Dr. Doug Perednia

In our last post, we described the saga of a single new Medicare regulation that will add billions of dollars to the nation’s real (as compared to nominal) healthcare bill, deny timely, needed medical care to millions of Americans, disrupt clinical laboratories and medical practices and yet adds absolutely nothing of value to the healthcare system.  This new initiative as just one of thousands of externally-imposed obstacles that are collectively killing the efficiency, vitality and viability of America’s healthcare system.  A busy primary care doctor can now expect to waste an entire 40 hour workweek per year doing nothing but signing his/her name on laboratory requisition forms

You may have wondered who will pay for this federally mandated increase in clinic overhead.  Here’s a hint: not Medicare.

This revelation comes to us via an “emergency update” to Medicare’s provider fee schedule for 2011.  The update was published in the waning hours of 2010, when many people were on holiday and the thoughts of the nation were evenly divided between how to set up that new video console and what sort of appetizers to serve on New Year’s Eve.  The essence of the update is that Medicare (and therefore all other public and private insurance programs that base their own payments on Medicare reimbursement), is perfectly happy to allow rising overhead expenses gradually drive healthcare providers out of business.  Under this new scheme, doctors and other healthcare providers will see an average 7.9% reduction in their real (again, as opposed to nominal) Medicare-based income for 2011.

But simply give you the bottom line does not do justice to the more disturbing nature of the governing policies involved.  The way in which these cuts have come about is fundamentally dishonest, and ultimately destructive to clinicians and the patients who depend upon them.  Let’s take a closer look.

As we’ve discussed previously, for many years the Federal government has directly or indirectly fixed the prices of most goods and services produced by the healthcare industry.  This is especially true as it applies to the payments received by physicians and other healthcare providers.  And as we’ve described here, this is largely done by using the completely artificial and byzantine Resource-Based Relative Value System (RBRVS) that was invented by academicians at Harvard University.  RBRVS has been the law of the land for computing Medicare payments for about twenty years now.

As you can see from the table below, the RBRVS uses four different elements to calculate the price that will be paid to any particular provider for any given service.  These include a “work” component, an “overhead” component, and a “professional liability insurance” (PLI) component.  These components are adjusted for location according to geographic price cost indices (GPCI) and then added together to come up with a total “relative value unit” (RVU) for each service that a clinician might provide.  Finally, the total RVU is multiplied by a “conversion factor” to come up with the dollar amount that Medicare will pay for that service.

RBRVS Example

(Click on image to enlarge)

A great deal of the RBRVS strategy is based upon the quaint-but-impractical theoretical notion that one can directly and quantitatively compare the “work” that goes into thousands of completely different complex tasks.  However at least two parts of the formula are based upon an objective and quantifiable reality: the compensation components for practice overhead and practice liability insurance. The purpose of separating out these two factors should be readily apparent to anyone who has ever run a business.  Since healthcare providers are forbidden from setting their own prices and must instead accept whatever Medicare’s formula doles out, the overhead and PLI components are meant to protect doctors from being forced out of business by rising costs over which they have no control.  When the cost of doing business rises, the formula is meant to allow their Medicare payments to rise accordingly.

Every year Medicare adjusts its Medicare Economic Index to adjust for increases in overhead and PLI.  However these updates typically lag the actual cost increases by five years.  For 2011, the data used to adjust for these expenses came from 2006.  In other words, healthcare providers are already absorbing four years of practice cost increases before Medicare bothers to adjust for an increase that occurred five years ago.  For 2011, Medicare came out with its new calculations for overhead and PLI inflation in July of 2010.  Under the RBRVS system, this “rebasing” should have resulted in a 7.9% increase in clinician compensation.  But it didn’t happen.  Why?   Because Congress has also decreed that any increases in Medicare payments be budget-neutral.  In order to accomplish this, Medicare reduced that conversion factor to reduce the net increase in compensation to zero.

As a result, your friendly local doctor is now bearing all of the cumulative increases in his/her overhead expenses that have occurred over the past five years.  And unlike the widely publicized rollback of the 25% Medicare cut due to the SGR, this reduction occurred with no fanfare or publicity.  (For an explanation of the SGR and its impact on your doctor, see here.)  It wasn’t included in the Medicare Final Payment Rule that was published on November 29th, 2010, even though Medicare knew all about it months earlier.  Instead, CMS (see Note 1) waited until the inter-holiday week to issue an “emergency one-time notification”.  From Medicare’s perspective this had two beneficial effects.  First, doctors who might have dropped Medicare in 2011 if they had known about the pay cut were locked into another year of participation.  Second, the cuts went almost completely unnoticed by anyone, so hardly anyone objected.  Heck, many physicians still do not know that they’ve occurred.

So what’s the take-home  lesson in all of this?  There are at least two.

The first is that, whatever the credibility CMS and our elected officials might have had with respect to their ability to manage the healthcare sector of the economy in a fair and economically sustainable fashion, it’s now dead and can safely be buried.  If our political and regulatory leaders are going to exercise soviet-style control healthcare prices, they have an obligation to ensure that those prices are rational, cover the costs involved and are sustainable over time.  As the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility.  This applies to producers of healthcare services just as surely as it applies to other regulated utilities such as power companies and soon-to-be-public-utility health insurers.  To the extent CMS and Congress do not allow providers to keep up with inflation, they are surely and deliberately reducing the long-term supply of clinicians in the U.S.  And they are doing so at a time when the Accountable Care Act and the aging of the baby boom generation is going to place an enormous burden on those who remain.

The second lesson is that the long-term interests of patients and providers in America are being subtly undermined in ways that most of them do not yet fully appreciate.  Who will pay for government-mandated increases in medical practice overhead?  You will: either through reduced access to timely and appropriate healthcare, or by paying ever-higher premiums for private insurance.

Let’s not kid ourselves.  The healthcare machine is slowly but surely grinding to a halt.  The Accountable Care Act (i.e., the “ObamaCare” healthcare reform law) is not going to do anything to reverse that process.  It’s time to overhaul this entire system.


Note 1: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is the US federal agency which administers Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Provides information for healthcare professional, regional governments, and consumers.  Website:   https://www.cms.gov (Note 1 Return to Post)

Categories : Death By A Thousand Cuts, Political Hellth
Jan
4

Death By a Thousand Cuts – Clinical Lab Requisitions

by Dr. Doug Perednia

Death by a thousand cutsIt’s 2011, and America’s healthcare system is dying a death by a thousand cuts.  Each cut consists of a new rule or regulation or tweak of the payment system that adds to the physical and financial burden of taking care of sick people.  No cut in and of itself is fatal, but they are building up so quickly and so pervasively that the system itself is dying.  Each new nick reduces clinical productivity and reduces our ability to care for the ill in a financially sustainable way

One goal we have this year is to document and publicize as many of these small, but ultimately fatal blows to the system.  We’ll start with a brand new Medicare rule that may seem oh-so-minor, but will generate millions of hours of misery, expense and unproductive effort for clinicians nationwide each.  Your doctor will almost certainly be one of them.

This rule, which went into effect on January 1st, 2011, says that each physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner or other healthcare provider must personally sign each and every lab requisition that they wish to send to a clinical laboratory for processing.  This overturns a ten-year precedent set in 2000, when Medicare declared (and then repeatedly re-affirmed) that no such signature was required.  Furthermore, Medicare will require that each signature be an original – no rubber stamps or letter head or computerized signatures are allowed on these forms.  The requirement applies only to lab requisitions that are submitted on paper.  Requisitions submitted electronically using lab software or that are called in by the office don’t have to be signed.

Just what’s all of this about and why is it so important?

Clinical lab tests are probably the most commonly performed medical procedures on the planet.  Literally billions of them are ordered each year in the U.S. alone, and they include almost every sort of diagnostic and monitoring function that you can imagine.  Tests to count the number and type of cells in your blood.  Cultures to grow out disease-causing bacteria and viruses.  Chemistry tests to measure things like sugar, waste products, toxins, salts and acidity in bodily fluids.  Tests to look for crystals in joint fluid, cells in spinal fluid, and tuberculosis in sputum.  Doctors order lab tests for preventative medicine purposes to look for high cholesterol, diabetes and signs of cancer.  They are used to monitor the progress of treatment, whether the drugs you’re taking have reached a therapeutic or toxic level, and even if you’re taking your medicines at all.  In short, there is no aspect of modern medicine that does not rely on laboratory tests to one degree or another.  Ordering and interpreting these tests is a major part of what doctors do every day.  It’s critical to appreciate all of this because when you mess with labs, you mess with virtually the entire healthcare system.

(For the purposes of this post we’ll just look at ordering lab tests in the outpatient setting.  This is where Medicare’s new rule will have the most impact.)

How are labs ordered by doctors?  For as long as anyone can remember, the process has been the same:

  1. A doctor decides that a lab test is needed.  He or she notes this in the medical record under the Assessment and Plan.  For this vast majority of medical practices, this constitutes an order to obtain the test.  If the doctor uses an electronic medical record (EMR), the EMR may print out a paper lab requisition slip that details the patient’s information and he lab tests requested.  Your doctor then immediately moves on to see his or her next patient.

  2. Your doctor’s office staff then takes a look at the chart and fills out all of the paperwork needed to get you the necessary tests.  This typically involves filling out a detailed laboratory requisition of the type shown below.  As you can see, there is a lot of busywork involved with completing these forms, which is why the doctor generally doesn’t do it personally.  He simply doesn’t have the time.  Once the lab requisition is filled out, the office staff then either hands the requisition to you (the patient) to take to the lab, or obtains the samples of blood, urine or whatever to be tested and packages them up with the requisition.  The samples and requisitions are then sent to the lab for processing.

A Typical Lab Test Requisition Form

The process might seem pretty simple and old-fashioned because it is.  It’s the rare office indeed that has time to muck about with extra steps and bells and whistles when ordering labs.  There are simply too many of them, and there are too many other more important things to do for patient care.  Which gives rise to some questions about why the process isn’t even more streamlined than it is:

Q:  Why isn’t all of this done electronically?

A:  There are a couple of reasons.  First, most physicians still find that electronic medical records are expensive and inefficient to use, so they use paper-based notes and records because it’s much quicker and less expensive.  But even if you have an EMR that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s able to create a lab requisition and send it electronically to the specific lab a patient needs.  That requires still more cost and trouble to create and implement an electronic interface between the two.  Nothing is as cheap or easy as it seems.

Q:  Can’t the lab just give you a computer that medical clinics can use to directly enter the lab request information?

A:  Well yes they can, but it’s important to understand that different patients may have to use completely different laboratories to run their tests because their health insurers insist on using one lab or another.  This means that you might be stuck installing three or four different computer ordering systems in your office, and use a different one for each patient, or even for different tests run on the same patient.  Even using a web interface is not necessarily an improvement since you still have to fill out all of the paperwork and then print out a physical requisition to accompany the lab specimen.

Q:  If Medicare wants the doctor to sign each and every lab requisition, what’s the big deal?

A:  Well it’s not such a big deal for any given requisition form.  But in aggregate it’s a huge deal because there are so many.  Once completed, each requisition will have to wait for the doctor to finish seeing their current patient.  A staff member will then need to nab him to sign the form so that the sample can be sent.  Waiting until the end of the day would make it impossible to pick up and process the specimens in a timely manner.  (Imagine if the post office had to wait until 5PM each day to pick up and start processing the mail!  It would be the same way for picking up and processing the lab specimens.)

How big a deal is it?   Let’s say that it takes an average of just thirty seconds for the doctor to interrupt what he’s doing, grab each form, sign it, and hand it back to their office staff.  And let ‘s assume that a typical provider has just 20 of these to process each day.  (This is a conservative estimate for virtually any primary care doctor.)  That’s an extra ten minutes per day, 3.33 hours per month, or 39.96 hours per year.  An entire work week for each doctor to do nothing but sign lab requisition forms! The average doctor could have seen an additional 125-175 patients during that time.  Or to put it another way, that’s about 150 patient per year who simply won’t be seen and cared for because all of those requisitions need to be signed.  There are about 880,000 clinically active physicians in the U.S., and over a million “providers” if you include physician assistants and nurse practitioners.  If just one-third (say 350,000 of them) are affected by this new rule, it amounts to 14,000,000 lost working hours and nearly 53 million patient visits that won’t be taking place.   Valuing this lost provider time at $100 per hour would raise the administrative cost of healthcare in the United States by $1.4 billion per year.

This dear reader, is not just a road, but a freeway to Hellth.

So what the heck is going on?  Why has Medicare suddenly decided to do this?  According to the CMS’ “negotiated rulemaking committee’s” entry into the Federal Register, previous Medicare rulings had specified that requisitions did not ever need to be signed as long as an order for the test was documented in the clinician’s own medical record.

“To resolve any existing confusion surrounding the implementation of the policy in 2001 and subsequent transmittals, we restated and solicited public comments on our policy in the CY 2010 PFS proposed rule (74 FR 33641). Our current policy is that a physician’s signature is not required on a requisition for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests paid on the basis of the CLFS. However, it must be evident, in accordance with our regulations at § 410.32(d)(2) and (3), that the physician ordered the services.”

CMS has been stating and re-stating this exact same thing for many years and at every opportunity.  So many times, in fact, and so adamantly that they claim that it confused people.

“During the proposed and final rulemaking process for CY 2010, we received numerous comments on these issues, including, among others: Expressions of continued confusion over the difference between an ‘‘order’’ and a ‘‘requisition’’; requests that we develop a single policy for all outpatient laboratory services, without the distinction for those paid under the CLFS or the PFS; and concerns about reference laboratory technicians who believed compelled to perform a test in order to protect the viability of the specimen although they did not have the proper documentation.”

That is to say, Medicare own policies and repeated admonitions about “having everything documented or it’s fraud” had gotten clinical laboratories so paranoid that they felt compelled to seek reassurance at every opportunity.  Medicare took this paranoia as a sign that still more paperwork must be required in order to make everyone feel better.  “Besides,” they reasoned, “it was only asking for one more little signature.”

“Therefore, in the CY 2011 PFS proposed rule (75 FR 40162), we proposed to require a physician’s or NPP’s signature on requisitions for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests paid on the basis of the CLFS. We stated that we believe that this policy would result in a less confusing process because a physician’s signature would then be required for all requisitions and orders, eliminating uncertainty over whether the documentation is a requisition or an order, whether the type of test being ordered requires a signature, or which payment system does or does not require a physician or NPP signature. We also stated that we believe that it would not increase the burden on physicians because it is our understanding that, in most instances, physicians are annotating the patient’s medical record with either a signature or an initial (the ‘‘order’’), as well as providing a signature on the paperwork that is provided to the clinical diagnostic laboratory that identifies the test or tests to be performed for a patient (the ‘‘requisition’’) as a matter of course.” [emphasis added – Ed.]

So CMS reasons that this new requirement will be no trouble at all because most doctors are already signing the requisition forms to be sent to the labs.  Really? How the heck could they understand that?  Did they actually talk to any real, actual practicing physicians before reaching this “understanding”?  Take another look at the typical requisition form that we saw earlier.  You’ll notice that there’s not even a place on the form for the physician to sign it!  Why?  Because for the past five decades, Medicare has specifically never asked or required that it be signed.  Why on Earth would physicians already be signing these stupid things “in most instances” if it’s never, ever been required previously?  CMS then went on to argue:

“Further, we stated that this policy would make it easier for the reference laboratory technicians to know whether a test is appropriately requested, and potential compliance problems would be minimized for laboratories during the course of a subsequent Medicare audit because a signature would be consistently required.”

That’s odd, because it’s not what the clinical laboratory members of the American Clinical Laboratory Association seem to think.  It’s on record as vigorously opposing the need for physician signatures on lab requisitions.  As is says on their website:

“Requiring a physician signature will be a significant change in procedure for laboratories, physicians and patients.

 

Currently, physicians are not required to sign requisitions for laboratory services. That rule was adopted in 2000, as part of a Congressionally-mandated negotiated rulemaking at which CMS and 18 organizations representing laboratories participated. All participants, including CMS, unanimously agreed that signatures should not be required and were simply one way of documenting a request for laboratory services. That rule has continued in place, without question or confusion, for over ten years. As a result, physicians simply do not sign requisitions today; rather, the requisition is handed off to nonphysician staff, who are expected to fill out the requisition pursuant to the physician’s direction. If the physician has to sign the requisition, it will add a new, and unnecessary, step to the patient encounter, disrupt the work and paper flow in the physician’s office, and could cause the patient to wait before being able to leave. Although physicians sign or initial medical records today, they may do so after the patient has left the office, often at the end of the day.

 

Similarly, laboratories currently do not have systems in place to ensure that the requisition is signed when a patient comes into the laboratory’s service center to have his or her blood drawn. Further, laboratories do not have any process to deal with the unsigned requisitions that arrive at the laboratory from the doctor’s office, along with the tens of thousands of other test requests that come in each day. Indeed, many requisitions used by laboratories today do not even have a space for the physician to sign or instructions that the physician do so. Even if CMS decides to keep the current policy in place, which we believe would be unfortunate for all the reasons set out below, there simply is no way for laboratories and physicians to comply before January 1, 2012.

 

The one person certain to be adversely affected is the Medicare beneficiary.

 

Although laboratories will not usually refuse to do testing when they receive a specimen at the laboratory, the situation is different where a patient shows up at a laboratory service center to have blood drawn. In this case, if the patient presents with an unsigned requisition, laboratories will have no choice but to request that the patient return to the physician to obtain a signed requisition (or wait while the physician’s office is contacted). This may be especially problematic for an elderly Medicare patient for whom travel is difficult, or if the patient has had to fast for some period, as is required for some testing.”

So if doctors don’t want this, and labs don’t want this, and patients aren’t asking for it, what possible justification and rationale could CMS have for implementing this policy?  Medicare’s Federal Register entry makes one lame attempt to claim that it might have something to do with “fraud and abuse”:

“Comment: The commenters [sic] suggested that a pre-printed physician signature or letterhead showing the physician’s name should serve in the place of a ‘signature.’

 

Response: A pre-printed signature or letterhead cannot be construed as a document, the contents of which a physician or NPP has affirmed. In order to discourage fraud and abuse, and to affirm that a medical service was ordered by a medical practitioner who currently works in the practice, a signature is required.”

This is nothing more than a fig leaf.  If people really wanted to defraud Medicare by ordering lots of lab tests, there are many of alternative ways to do so.  Anyone can forge a signature.  Or phone in a lab – in which case no signature is required.  And what is the evidence that substantial numbers of fraudulent lab tests are being ordered now in the absence of physician signatures?  Does CMS really think that clinic staff are ordering lots of extra tests on Medicare patients just to see what the results are?  Mightn’t doctors notice all of those unexpected lab results coming back?  Of course they would.

No.  If you think about it, the only reasonable explanation for this new requirement (aside from bureaucratic stupidity) is that it’s yet another means of covertly rationing healthcare services to the Medicare population.  The numbers speak for themselves.  Every busy, lab-requiring physician will have one full week less per year to practice medicine and therefore incur costs.  Fifty-three million potential Medicare visits will never take place.  None of those visits will generate physician fees, medical tests or prescriptions that Medicare will need to pay for.  If we assume that each of these visits might have generated an average of $200 in additional costs to Medicare, the hidden savings to CMS would total some $10.6 billion each year.  Furthermore, if labs go ahead and process lab specimens (because, after all, the patients do actually need them) but without physician signatures, Medicare won’t have to pay for the tests.  Or if it does, it can then accuse the laboratories of “fraud” for not having all of those signatures on file, and levy billions of dollars in financial penalties.   Doctors and laboratories may pay a high price for this little rule, but all of these quite tangible savings cost Medicare nothing other than a bit of ink in the Federal Register.  And American healthcare will be that much closer to dying the death of a thousand cuts.

Hmmm.  If you’re a Medicare beneficiary who happened to need one of those canceled visits, you might even have an opportunity to die along with it.

Categories : Abuse of Power, Bureaucracy Run Amok, Death By A Thousand Cuts, Waste Fraud and Abuse
Jan
1

A New Year, A New Improved Website

by Webmaster

Last year has been an adventure.  With the turn of the new year Road To Hellth celebrates its first anniversary online.

We have had a tremendous growth in the readership and followers of the Road To Hellth website and we are gratified by the response and feedback that we have received. In an effort to improve our delivery of content and enhance the reader’s experience here we have redesigned our website.  The new Road To Hellth is less cluttered and better organized to make it easier read and navigate.  Shortly we expect to implement smart phone formatting which will make it easier to reach on a larger number of platforms.

We would like to bring your attention to the “Post Index” tab in the top menu bar.  This page will give you a complete list of all posts which can be sorted using the Options button to give you a listing of the posts by author, alphabetically by post title or by date of post.  To find posts by category you can refer to the “Post Categories” listing which gives a listing of categories and the number of posts in each category.  If you know the month of the post you may be able to find it quickly in the “RTH Archives” listed on each page.  There is also a global “Search RCH” function in the right hand column of each page if you wish to search the site on specific words, terms or phrases.

All posts and comments have been moved from the old site.  We have gone to great lengths  to check and re-check links, images and references but knowing that nothing is foolproof there may be some things we missed.  Please let us know if you encounter any problems or issues with access to our site and while you are at it let us know how you like the new look and feel.

We hope you enjoy the new site thank you for your continued readership and support.

Happy New Year!

Categories : Site News

RTH Post Categories

RTH Archives

  • February 2013 (1)
  • November 2012 (1)
  • October 2012 (1)
  • August 2012 (2)
  • July 2012 (2)
  • June 2012 (2)
  • May 2012 (4)
  • April 2012 (2)
  • March 2012 (5)
  • February 2012 (3)
  • January 2012 (4)
  • December 2011 (3)
  • November 2011 (3)
  • October 2011 (3)
  • September 2011 (4)
  • August 2011 (5)
  • July 2011 (3)
  • June 2011 (5)
  • May 2011 (4)
  • April 2011 (7)
  • March 2011 (4)
  • February 2011 (5)
  • January 2011 (5)
  • December 2010 (3)
  • November 2010 (3)
  • October 2010 (4)
  • September 2010 (4)
  • August 2010 (1)
  • July 2010 (3)
  • June 2010 (5)
  • May 2010 (6)
  • April 2010 (7)
  • March 2010 (8)
  • February 2010 (10)
  • January 2010 (6)
  • December 2009 (2)

Search RTH

RTH Recommends

  • Dalai's PACS Blog
  • DB's Medical Rants
  • Dr. Wes
  • Health Care Renewal
  • Musings of a Dinosaur
  • Retired Doc's Thoughts
  • Shrink Rap
  • The Covert Rationing Blog
  • The Happy Hospitalist
  • The Jobbing Doctor
  • The M.D.O.D. Blog
  • WSJ Health Blog

Send To My Kindle

your kindle user name:
(you@kindle.com, without @kindle.com)
Approved E-mail:
(Approved E-mail that kindle will accept)
Kindle base email kindle.com | free.kindle.com
(Use kindle.com to download on wispernet or wifi, use free.kindle.com for wifi only.)
using kindle.com may incur charges)

Recent Comments

  • Dr. Doug Perednia on Oregon’s Magical Thinking Meets CCO Reality
  • Andrew_M_Garland on Oregon’s Magical Thinking Meets CCO Reality
  • Andrew_M_Garland on Medical Specialty Certification Exams: The Real Scandal
  • Andrew_M_Garland on Emergency Medicine Goes Down the Rabbit Hole in the Evergreen State
  • Porty11 on Emergency Medicine Goes Down the Rabbit Hole in the Evergreen State
Road To Hellth
Copyright © 2013 All Rights Reserved
iThemes Builder by iThemes
Powered by WordPress