6 Best Practices for Negotiating Managed Care Contracts for ASC Pain Management

Amy Mowles, president and CEO of Mowles Medical Practice Management in Edgewater, Md., offers the following advice on negotiating reimbursements with commercial payors for pain management for ASCs.

1. Getting started. When you receive the payor’s proposed contract, including the entire proposed fee schedule, be aware that just about everything in there is negotiable.

• You can start by requesting an increase in all fees.
• The vast majority of pain management procedures fall into one to three categories. If the payor is objecting to the entire increase, try to focus on a few specific issues, such as two or three group rates that are significantly low and are your most frequently billed codes.
• Using objective data to back up your points will always give you a stronger case.Data sources may include:
  • Your practice’s accountant or reports you run on average billed procedures and average number of procedures per patient encounter.
  • AMA Annual Socioeconomic Survey
  • MGMA publications
  • Medical Economics Survey
  • Department of Commerce Web site

• Be sure to identify all payor policies that could undermine your practice. Watch for requirements that do not agree with requirements of other payors. Multiple or conflicting rules will wear down your billing staff. A contract is going to create more work if it requires invoices while other contracts do not, or if it reimburses for multiple procedures at 100/50/50 when others reimburse at 100/50/25.

• Consider using a “requesting a standard” addendum for all your contracts. This addendum typically lists the fee schedule, and how multiple procedures, implants and supplies will be paid. Identifying these items in the contract will help you build leverage, create a good political base and record successful agreements.

2. Negotiating grouper payments. Many payors still base ASC reimbursements on the old “grouper” methodology, which Medicare phased out in calendar year 2008.

• Payors that use the old groupers often add a tenth grouper, Group 0, which typically includes minor, office-based procedures such as trigger point injections and non-fluoroscopic guided procedures (nerve blocks) and sometimes even off-list procedures that are not in the payor’s regular list, such as discography. Carefully check rates for this added group because they may include procedures you perform (or plan to) and could be undervalued.
• Add-on codes such as those for each additional level (facets joint injections, transforaminal epidural injections and neurolytics) should all have the same “mapping” — assigning them to the same group — as in other contracts. Otherwise, you will find discrepancies when you perform a cost-to-reimbursement analysis. Moreover, some payments may turn out to be below Medicare rates, which is hardly a good idea.
• Find out the payment methodology for off-list procedures. These are referred to as “no Medicare value” or “non-grouped procedures.” This is vitally important for both the old groupers system as well as the new APCs. The old grouper payment system had a significant number of procedures that were off-list, many of which were typically office-based procedures without fluoroscopy guidance. However, discography (CPT 62290 and 62291), a popular diagnostic pain management procedure, was and still is off-list.
• It is critical to ascertain the payment amount and methodology. You may find that requesting mapping to a specific payment group is better than a percentage of billed charges. Payment arrangements based on a percentage of billed charges typically carries a default amount, called a ceiling, which may not be cost effective.
• Find out how implantable devices are handled. Devices such as spinal cord electrodes and stimulators and drug infusion pumps may be carved out and billed separately, or the price of the implanted device may be added to the group. If devices are carved out, make sure the margin is above the current Medicare rate.
• Placing electrode arrays for a spinal cord stimulator trial (CPT 63650) is a popular procedure and Medicare’s current reimbursement is actually quite good. Remember that Medicare’s payment indicator of H8 means the procedure is not subject to multiple-procedure discounting. Since many pain management physicians place two-electrode arrays, make sure the payor won’t reduce the payment of the second placement, whether or not the device is included in the reimbursement.

3. Dealing with plans using the new APC methodology. Commercial payors are increasingly transitioning from groupers to the new ambulatory payment methodology system developed for Medicare.

• For APCs, ask whether the payor’s mapping is precisely the same as Medicare’s. If it is different, your procedures may turn out to pay less than you expected.
• How are off-list procedures such as discography paid? These should be defined with a default rate at a percentage of billed charges, with or without a ceiling. If there is a ceiling, make certain your fee is high enough for the discount. The other option would be to suggest the payor add these off-list procedures to a particular group.
• Ask about additional carve-outs for drugs, supplies or fluoroscopy you would like to have. It doesn’t hurt to ask how these will be reimbursed rather than if they will be.
• With APCs, it’s better to negotiate the all-inclusive rate or negotiate an amount for the device plus a reasonable handling fee. You do not want to have a contract that forces you to send a paper claim with an invoice.

4. If the payor offers both methodologies. Determine your top 15 most frequently billed codes. You may actually be better off with the calendar year 2007rates and groupers, especially if you have a lot of minor procedures and the default rate for off-list procedures is favorable.

5. Negotiating any kind of contract. Here are some basic tips that will apply to any kind of payment system you negotiate.

• For procedures requiring a costly one-time use device, such as a spinal wand for percutaneous discectomy (62287), which costs about $1,000 per case, ask if its pass-through code (C2614) would be carved out. This is important because the payor may have grouped this with a rate that does not cover the costs of the one-time use device.
• Inquire about the new CPT codes for facet joint injections. Prior to 2010, these injections were billed with two CPT codes, one code for the first level and another for each additional level. But under the new 2010 codes, these injections are billed as three codes: single, second and third, plus each additional injection. If the reimbursement is the same as last year, try to make sure facet injections for the third and additional levels (64492 & 64495) get a higher fee.
• Ask for the payment policies and rates for multiple procedures during the same patient encounter. If you don’t settle this, you could end up with a contract that pays below Medicare rates. You should get 100 percent of the fee schedule for the first procedure and then 50 percent for each additional procedure. You do not want to let it go down to 25 percent for any further additional procedures after the second. Ask if there is a maximum number of procedures allowed per patient encounter. This is not the same as medical necessity precedence.
• Agreeing to an all-inclusive case rate is not a good idea for most pain management procedures, unless the rate is high enough to cover multiple pain procedures involving bilateral and/or additional levels injections. Make sure this does not somehow include the professional component of a fluoroscopy.
• Ask for additional payment for the technical component of the use of the C-arm for fluoroscopy guidance and interpretive reports. The most frequently billed codes as follows:
  • 77002-tc Fluoroscopic guidance for needle placement for spinal injection procedures
  • 77003-tc Fluoroscopic guidance for needle placement for nerve blocks
  • 72275-tc (Epidurogram (with dictation) w/o use 76005)
  • 72285-tc (Radiological interpretation, cervical)
  • 72295-tc (Radiological interpretation, lumbar)

6. Final tips. Remember to read the entire contract and assess all the ways it could impact you now and in the future before you sign.

• If you can’t reach a reasonable agreement, ask yourself: Would losing this contract benefit or hurt my practice? How much of a market presence does this payor have? And do we see a significant amount of this payor’s enrollees?
• It’s essential that the contract is a friendly, mutually beneficial agreement. You have a lot of mutual interests. For example, what benefits the plan’s enrollees benefits your patients. And if the contract is cumbersome for you to administer, it will probably be cumbersome for the payor as well. Remember to work closely with your payor representative. People respond positively to people they know and respect.

Tuberculosis treatment requires medication and monitoring

Tuberculosis (TB) continues to be a problem in the United States, particularly among at-risk populations. The groups at highest risk for TB include people living with someone who has active disease, and those with a lowered immune response, such as HIV patients.

“Every medical center in our region has tuberculosis on its risk assessment list, that is, its list of potential issues to monitor on a continuing basis,” says Stephen Parodi, MD, chief of infectious disease for Kaiser Permanente, Northern California. “We make it a priority to ensure that patients at risk for infection with TB are screened for latent infections.”

The region includes 20 medical centers serving 3.1 million members. Dr. Parodi says the plan encourages screening for those who have been incarcerated or have a history of IV drug use and has educated primary care physicians and pediatricians to screen for TB.

“We saw a significant surge in TB cases when the HIV epidemic first hit; since then we’ve seen a leveling off,” he says. “In terms of epidemiology, it’s interesting to note that many cases we’re now seeing are in foreign-born individuals. We live in a global world, and we need to be aware that constant vigilance and aggressive, early recognition of latent and active disease will prevent further spread.”

Most people infected with tuberculosis don’t have any symptoms. When a patient is positive for latent TB, the clinician looks at the risk factors and determines (based on criteria from the Centers for Disease Control) whether the person is a candidate for preventive medicine.

“Preventive medicine is a lot easier than treating the active form of the disease,” Dr. Parodi says. “With latent disease we can treat with one drug, as opposed to active disease, where we typically have to use a minimum of four drugs initially.”

Patients who develop active TB experience symptoms such as weight loss, fever, night sweats, cough, chest pain and bloody sputum.

“Until susceptibility results are available, empiric initial treatment for active TB should include four drugs: isoniazid, rifampin, pyrazinamide and ethambutol,” says Mark Abramowicz, MD, editor-in-chief of The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics, a non-profit newsletter that critically appraises drugs. “When susceptibility to isoniazid, rifampin and pyrazinamide has been documented, ethambutol can be omitted.”

DIRECT PATIENT OBSERVATION NEEDED

One of the greatest problems in TB treatment today is the emergence of drug-resistant strains of the bacteria.

“Poor adherence to TB therapy is the most common cause of treatment failure, and can lead to drug resistance,” says Dr. Abramowicz. “Medical Letter consultants recommend that most patients, including those with disease due to drug-susceptible strains, take drugs for active TB under direct observation.”

At Kaiser, patients with active TB are monitored closely, typically with a monthly office visit. Kaiser physicians sign the orders for directly observed therapy, which is provided by the county public health department.

“We provide medications, lab testing to monitor potential side effects, symptom assessments, and imaging, x-rays or CT scans as needed,” Dr. Parodi says. “Protocols differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction in terms of exactly who gets directly observed therapy, but in our experience, most counties are aggressive. If there is an identified case of active, potentially contagious TB, that person is receiving directly observed therapy.”

Extensively drug-resistant TB is a form of the disease caused by strains that are resistant to all the most effective anti-TB drugs. The World Health Organization reports that 41 countries have cases of extensively drug-resistant TB, including the United States.

“Confirmed multidrug-resistant tuberculosis and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis should be treated with directly observed therapy in collaboration with a clinician familiar with management of these conditions,” says Dr. Abramowicz. “Regimens for these conditions must include at least four drugs to which the organism is susceptible; the duration of therapy usually should be 18 to 24 months.”

In recent years, researchers have made considerable progress toward developing new medications that could treat tuberculosis more effectively. Eleven new medications from seven different drug classes are currently in clinical trials for tuberculosis.

“The medications that are farthest along are antibiotics called fluoroquinolones, which have the potential to shorten the duration of therapy,” says Eric Nuermberger, MD, associate professor of medicine and international health at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, who is on the faculty of Hopkins’ Center for Tuberculosis Research. “Current medications require six to nine months; we hope fluoroquinolones will reduce that to four months. Four phase II studies of fluoroquinolones are currently underway, and we should have an answer in about two years.”

Fluoroquinolone drugs are already on the market in the United States for acute conditions such as community-acquired respiratory tract infections and urinary tract infections.

Of the medications that are being developed solely for tuberculosis, the one that’s furthest along is TMC207, developed by Tibotec.

According to a recent study in The New England Journal of Medicine, when researchers added TMC207 to a standard regimen for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, a significantly higher proportion of patients had negative sputum cultures at two months.

Elaine Zablocki has been reporting on healthcare for more than 20 years. She is based in Oregon.

This article is based on information supplied by The Medical Letter (www.medicalletter.org), a non-profit organization that publishes newsletters offering critical appraisals of new drugs and comparative reviews of older drugs. The Medical Letter is independent of the pharmaceutical industry and supported entirely by subscription sales. Institutional site license inquiries can be sent to info@medicalletter.org [info@medicalletter.org]

Mortality, costs higher for women with cardiovascular disease

HEART DISEASE SHOULD top the list of women’s health concerns. Women disproportionately fear dying from breast cancer compared to heart disease, dutifully scheduling annual mammography, oblivious to their cardiovascular risks. There is little demand by women and the medical community for an urgent agenda or a “march for the cure” for heart disease in women.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the single most common cause of death in women and men. Despite widespread assumptions to the contrary, women have accounted for more than one-half of the almost 1 million deaths due to heart disease and stroke in the United States annually since 1984. Women, compared to men, especially those under the age of 50 years, experience higher rates of recurrent myocardial infarction, heart failure and mortality after a first myocardial infarction, and are more likely to be misdiagnosed or diagnosed late in the course of their illness.

Annual hospitalizations and mortality for heart failure and total CVD expenditures are greater for women than men. While mortality from cardiovascular diseases has significantly declined over the past three decades, women have not experienced the same reductions in death and disability as have men. This significant gender-related mortality gap persists due to a combination of low awareness, misconceptions by physicians and women, gender-based physiologic differences, and disparities in care.

While these data might initially appear discouraging, improving these measures represents a significant opportunity to improve women’s CVD outcomes as well reduce overall healthcare expenditures by providing optimal screening and preventive services, appropriate and accurate diagnostic tests and timely cardiac care.

LESS THERAPY FOR WOMEN

The underlying causes for these disparities are multifactorial and the solutions complex. Gender-based disparities in preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic interventions are present on multiple levels. Women receive fewer cardiac diagnostic evaluations and less intensive therapy, from preventive interventions, to revascularization procedures to aspirin prescriptions. Even after a diagnosis of heart disease, gender-based differences in provision of care are present.

Women hospitalized with myocardial infarction are more likely than men to be managed by generalists, rather than referred for cardiology consultation, and are less likely to be transferred from community hospitals to centers for advanced care—practices associated with poorer short-term outcomes.

Additionally, societal and individual misconceptions about cardiovascular risk and what a heart patient “looks like,” along with inadequate gender-specific research data on cardiovascular disease and risk factors, contribute to lower awareness and poorer outcomes. While women’s symptoms can sometimes be challenging to address, both women and their physicians can be too quick to attribute potential manifestations of cardiac disease to menopause or aging. It is important to counteract the widely held belief that women do not develop heart disease except at advanced ages by raising physicians’ “index of suspicion” for cardiovascular disease in women.

There is also a growing body of literature documenting important biologic gender differences in CVD that may impact clinical care delivery. There are obvious differences due to the effects of gonadal hormones. However, differences in symptoms, accuracy of diagnostic tests, response to therapy, prevalence and relative risk of cardiovascular risk factors, as well as social and behavioral issues have all been identified. It is not always apparent whether or not these differences warrant a variation in established practice.

Many early cardiovascular clinical trials routinely exclude women or make no effort to enroll women in sufficient numbers to draw gender-based conclusions. With few exceptions, women currently make up only 20% to 30% of participants in cardiovascular clinical trials. Even when women are included as research subjects, it is often difficult to determine their outcomes from published reports. Only a quarter of recent cardiovascular trial results published in major U.S. internal medicine and cardiology journals reported gender-specific outcomes.

The lack of relevant research in women has resulted in a substantial and persistent gender-based knowledge gap about everything from the symptoms of heart attack in women, to the risks and benefits of commonly used cardiovascular diagnostic tests and therapies. Better evidence from properly designed research studies can better serve women with CVD.

An important example is the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI)-funded multi-center Women’s Ischemic Syndrome Evaluation (WISE) study of approximately 900 women who underwent coronary angiography for chest pain symptoms and a multitude of other investigations designed to better characterize ischemic heart disease in women. We have already learned a great deal from numerous WISE publications that have underscored the value of gender-specific research and fundamentally changed the understanding of chest pain, CVD risk factors, vascular function, hormone interactions and atherosclerosis in women.

Cardiovascular clinical trial design must include women in adequate numbers to provide gender-specific data, and that data must be analyzed and reported by gender.

Systemic contributions to differences in cardiovascular care for women also include physician practice and referral patterns. In the United States, many women receive all or most of their medical care from specialists in obstetrics and gynecology during their reproductive years and continue those relationships well past menopause, or until a significant non-gynecologic illness occurs. Traditionally, there has been a greater focus on reproductive and breast health than on other health risks, and less awareness and self efficacy among these specialists about early cardiovascular risk identification and treatment.

RISK FACTORS ON THE RISE

The rise in risk factor prevalence in younger women, especially smoking, obesity and diabetes, has led to a growing number of individuals at high risk who do not look like typical heart patients. Reducing women’s future burden of CVD will depend heavily on improved preventive measures which currently fall short of recommendations. Simply taking what has been proven effective, and widely and appropriately applying it to women, can markedly improve care and outcomes.

Critical to this effort is continued education about women’s cardiovascular risks, symptoms and the use of appropriate diagnostic tests and therapies.

The most recent guideline, published in 2007 by the American Heart Assn. and endorsed by multiple professional and patient organizations, has simplified the risk assessment and decision-making process for easier implementation in daily practice.

The guidelines encourage clinicians and patients to focus on reducing long-term, rather than 10-year CVD risk. With few exceptions, those therapies that have been shown efficacious in men also prevent CVD in women and should be recommended to women at risk.

Sharonne Hayes, MD, FACC, is the director of the Mayo Clinic Women’s Heart Clinic and associate professor of medicine for the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine.

Paying now and chasing later the worst way to counteract fraud

AS SHOWN BY several significant industry studies, fraud and abuse take an enormous bite out of national healthcare. According to a Thomson Reuters’ October 2009 report, fraud costs $125 billion to $175 billion a year, accounting for nearly one-fifth of all healthcare dollars wasted—about 7% of healthcare spending overall. Other experts put the figure as high as 10%.

Preventing funds from leaving the organization, rather than retroactively prosecuting those who took it, is critical, according to James Quiggle, director of communications for the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud, based in Washington, D.C.

“Once the money is out the door, it’s very difficult to recover,” he says. “And while an insurer is chasing money that’s already gone, new schemes spring up to take more. Health fraud is easy to get into and highly lucrative. An illiterate immigrant with minimal education could latch onto an organized gang’s scheme and be a multimillionaire a year later.”

On the bright side, efforts to prevent fraud and abuse typically provide an excellent return on investment. For every dollar a payer invests, there usually is a return of six or seven dollars, according to Louis Saccoccio, executive director of the National Health Care Anti-Fraud Assn. (NHCAA).

“Most importantly, all of the healthcare stakeholders need to share information about their fraud investigations,” he says. “Without the relevant information, technology can only do so much.”

Although everyone agrees the problem is rampant, the industry’s outlook on fraud frequently is different from that of the general public. While many in the general population focus on punishing the perpetrators, most health plans simply want to keep from paying out more money than they need to.

“The word ‘fraud’ generates a lot of excitement, because it’s easy to understand and generates a lot of interest from a public relations standpoint,” says Dean Farley, vice president with Eden Prairie, Minn.-based Ingenix Consulting.

In his role, Farley oversees the company’s prospective payment and payment accuracy consulting services. He says in many cases, the intent behind the transaction is difficult to determine, and ultimately irrelevant. From a payer’s perspective, the focus is on any type of incorrect payment or overpayment.

“The goal is to identify all types of overpayment and stop them before money leaves the organization,” he says. “And they’re less concerned with putting the bad guys in jail than they are ensuring that the bad guys don’t get the money in the first place.”

One of the greatest challenges payers have when battling fraud involves provider relations. The more aggressive a plan is when investigating suspicious claims, the more payments will be delayed.

Additionally, there are legal issues regarding prompt payment, at the state level and under ERISA. Many of the laws have exceptions for claims that a payer decides to investigate as potentially fraudulent. Still, unless the evidence is overwhelming, plans usually opt to simply pay it rather than risk worsening provider relations or legal issues.

PAYERS GIVE CHASE

Unfortunately, Quiggle says, paying now and chasing it later isn’t a very effective strategy.

“Once the money leaves the plan, it’s often gone for good,” he says. “These organized gangs are very smart in terms of covering their tracks, and steal with production-line precision and volume. They can steal tens of millions of dollars in a very short time and move much of the money overseas, making it virtually impossible to find. Even the money that stays here in the United States might have already been converted into a Ferrari or a villa by the time a health plan tracks it down.”

Anti-fraud technologies such as predictive analysis seek to identify potentially fraudulent behavior and can do it in near real-time, Quiggle says. Complex schemes that used to take investigators weeks or months of sifting through manila folders to discover, can be uncovered with predictive analysis overnight.

Because not every plan has the resources to invest in prevention, NHCAA has developed a fraud database, available to member companies and all government agencies.

“If someone is defrauding one payer, they’re almost certainly defrauding others, and government agencies as well,” Saccoccio says.

If Payer A (or a government agency) opened an investigation into potential fraud by a certain provider in a certain geographic area, they load the information into the system. Later, if Payer B has suspicions about that provider, they could see that Payer A already opened an investigation.

“The two could then compare notes and get a much better picture of what’s going on,” he says. “Much of the data we need to fight fraud already exists; we just need to share it and use it better.”

Quiggle says without collaboration, every insurance company is like the blind man touching an elephant: He can only get his arms around a small part of the problem and will never see the whole picture.

Overpayments that result from simple misunderstandings, however, might not be fraudulent, even though they cost billions of dollars each year. Part of the problem is the distance and time lapsed between the delivery of the service and the reimbursement for the service. The bill is the only real medium between the two, and payers have little insight into how providers create them.

“The bill is supposed to be a reflection of the medical record, but payers don’t have access to those unless they specifically ask for them,” Farley says. “If payers had more insight into what services are actually being delivered and the clinical condition of the patients when those services were delivered, overpayment would be a much smaller problem.”

And while health plans can’t communicate individually with every one of the thousands of providers in their network, they most certainly can communicate with them en masse. Transparency should be the first goal, Farley says.

“Health plans can use their Web portals to spell out, very clearly, exactly what their expectations are in terms of bill preparation,” Farley says. “They also need to make sure that their claims adjudication systems enforce those payment rules exactly as they are spelled out.”

Another step insurers can take is to design their processes to be similar to those of other health plans—or even the government. There’s a lot of talk about administrative simplification, but there isn’t much of it happening, Farley says.

“There’s no reason that a plan couldn’t align its methodologies with those of other payers, and there’s no reason they couldn’t use Medicare principles and Medicare billing requirements to drive their contracting,” he says. “Most providers are already familiar with those and it would help them understand what a payer’s requirements and expectations are.”

Farley also recommends that plans get serious about audits.

“You can’t check every claim, but you can convey to your network that you’re serious about identifying overpayments,” he says. “That delivers a message to the network, and prevention of overpayment is the number one goal.”

Michael T. McCue is a Virginia-based freelance writer.

Cost spiral slows, stays on upward path

Squeezed by the recession, U.S. health spending growth slowed from 6% in 2007 to 4.4% in 2008, the smallest increase in nearly half a century, according to a new federal report. Still, health costs hit $2.3 trillion, rising from 15.9% of Gross Domestic Product to 16.2% as economic output sagged.

Experts say the slowdown in total spending doesn’t necessarily signal any long-term flattening of the cost curve.

“History would say it’s not sustainable,” says Bob Campbell, the state government leader for Deloitte LLP. “As the economy turns, so do healthcare costs.”

PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SPENDING

Federal healthcare spending grew much faster than private or local government spending. Costs for various federal programs soared 10.4% in 2008, with Medicare increasing 8.6% compared with 7.1% the year before. Healthcare consumed 36% of federal revenue, compared with 28% in 2007.

In contrast, spending by private businesses grew only 1.2% in 2008, while state and local government spending grew 3.4%, compared with 6.6% the year before. Health Affairs, which published the report last month, said business costs for healthcare declined as private plan enrollment dropped by 1 million people—at least partly due to lost jobs.

State Medicaid spending growth declined, according to authors, partly because cash-strapped states cut payments to hospitals and other providers.

The report, compiled by researchers at the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) attributed the overall health cost slowdown to the economic recession. But the jump in federal spending was due to faster Medicare spending growth on hospitals, physicians, Part D drug benefits, and private Medicare Advantage plans, as well as a temporary new infusion of federal funds into state Medicaid programs.

Costs for Medicare Advantage plans soared 21.3% in 2008—to $108.2 billion—similar to the 22.1% growth in 2007. That was due to 13.6% enrollment growth in private Medicare plans, and to a 22.9% increase in Part D drug spending within those plans.

“The slowdown is good news but likely reflects the recession and to some extent anticipation by providers of the threat of controls from healthcare reform,” said Marilyn Moon, a health economist at the American Institutes for Research in Washington, D.C. “When people are feeling more secure, I expect we’ll see it go up again.”

By sector, U.S. spending on hospitals totaled $718.4 billion in 2008, with cost growth dropping to 4.5% from 5.9% the year before—the slowest rate of increase since 1998. Expenditures for physician and outpatient clinical services reached $496.2 billion, representing 5% growth, down from 5.8% and the slowest growth rate since 1996. But outpatient clinical costs rose faster than physician spending—6.6% versus 4.7%.

SLOW GROWTH ON DRUG SPENDING

Prescription drug prices grew 2.5% in 2008 compared with 1.4% the year before; that was still below the average annual growth of 4.1% from 1997 to 2007. Home health spending reached $64.7 billion in 2008, with growth declining to 9% from 11.8%.

Private health insurance premiums and benefits in 2008 grew 3.1% and 3.9%, respectively, the slowest rate since 1967. That was due to declines in enrollment and smaller spending growth for physician and outpatient services and prescription drugs, journal authors said. Consumer out-of-pocket spending growth slowed to 2.8%, from 6%, as people may have forgone medical care due to the poor economy and unemployment.

Moon says the new report shows that congressional health reformers are targeting the right areas for cost control—Medicare spending on hospitals and Medicare Advantage plans, which are among the fastest growing sectors.

Health Affairs authors cautioned that despite the overall spending slowdown, monitoring the drivers of cost growth will remain critical since the proportion of personal income and government revenue devoted to healthcare continues to rise and the nation faces an uncertain economic future.

Campbell warns that health reform could drive up costs as uninsured Americans obtain coverage and seek care. But Moon says reform will have highly uneven effects, with the drive toward ever-increasing prices possibly moderating when there are more paying patients.

“Those things are very hard to predict until it’s all out there in full bloom,” she says.

Medical homes in practice

Healthcare is notorious for trying out solutions that seem to work in theory, only to watch them collapse in practice. Like throwing spaghetti at the wall, players from all segments have experimented, looking for new ideas that might stick.

The most recent concept that is showing real sticking power is the patient-centered medical home.

Since 2006, more than 30 states have initiated projects to apply the medical-home concept to Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Programs. Reduced costs, better support for chronic care and improved population health are the impetus behind the local efforts, which comprehensively hold the potential to effect system change, piece by piece.

Although no two projects are identical, all reflect core principles of aligning reimbursement, supporting primary-care practices, measuring results and scaling the model beyond an initial pilot phase. Early results have shown promise, which is inspiring more payers and providers to adopt the model.

The general arrangement of a team of clinicians providing a home base of individualized, coordinated care and prevention emerged through the American Academy of Pediatrics in the 1960s for specific pediatric populations. It wasn’t until recent years—as the industry began to focus more on healthcare value—that the medical-home idea was identified as a potential formula for improvement of service delivery within broader primary care practice.

In 2007, four major physician groups defined a set of joint principles to describe a patient-centered medical home, which was soon followed by the creation of the Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative (PCPCC), which represents employers, plans, providers and other organizations that endorse the principles. The National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) is currently in the process of updating standards for its medical-home recognition program, which were initially released in January 2008.

Policymakers and the healthcare industry continue to assess the local projects, anxious to determine their financial worth and their promise for large-scale implementation.

MANAGED HEALTHCARE EXECUTIVE recently brought together a roundtable of executive thought leaders to discuss the issues related to patient-centered medical homes. The panel includes:

• Paul Grundy, MD, chairman of the Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative and director of healthcare technology and strategic initiatives at IBM;
• Lori Heim, MD, president, American Academy of Family Physicians;
• Len Nichols, economist, New America Foundation;
• Jerry Salkowe, MD, vice president of clinical quality improvement, MVP Healthcare; and
• C. Edwin Webb, PharmD, associate executive director, American College of Clinical Pharmacy

MHE: What do you see as the long term potential of applying the medical-home model in the next five to 10 years?

Grundy: The early pilots’ results are—well, first of all, they’re early—but I think they’re quite impressive. The PCPCC presented data from 10 of those pilots to the White House a few months ago, and what we’re seeing is better integrated, coordinated care.

When you have comprehensive, accountable, accessible, integrated, coordinated care, that results in lower downstream costs. We’re seeing hospitalizations dropping by 20%. We’re seeing hospitalization readmissions dropping by 40%. We’re seeing emergency room utilization dropping by 12% when patients have access to more robust, integrated primary care—which is better upstream care. That bodes well for the future, in which we really need to look at value creation.

Salkowe: The enthusiasm is growing by leaps and bounds outside of the pilots, so physicians who have been either ignoring or sitting back and watching what the earlier doctors did aren’t sitting back and watching anymore. They’re getting very engaged and very interested in pursuing [NCQA recognition] and many of the features in medical homes now, even if they’re not an active part of an organized pilot.

Heim: I see the medical home being integral when you look forward to whether or not it’s an ACO [accountable care organization] or just more generally talking about value-based design. As hospitals and big health organizations begin to look at this, how they integrate with the small practice is going to be one of the biggest challenges.

If you look at the North Carolina Community Care project, that was community based. It showed incredible cost savings and increases in quality, but that was another way to virtually link a bunch of community based practices, which is going to be one of the models we’ll have to accept because large health organizations are not going to be in all communities. But yet, the hospitals and the communities are still going to have to figure out a way to control the costs. And the other critical component then is getting the IT linked up.

MHE: Some say medical homes will not solve the problem of fragmented care. Primary care will continued to be siloed apart from subspecialists. Do you foresee that?

Heim: If people are saying that medical homes will further fragment care, I don’t think they understand the model because it’s the opposite that’s true. The basic tenet of the medical home is the personal physician is the coordinator of the care, and there’s integration of the patient’s needs, not only when they walk into the office, but by taking advantage of knowing your population and doing population management, using IT and tools and a team approach to coordinate that care.

Without something like the ACOs and aligning incentives, we have a mismatch in terms of how much the subspecialists and the other members of the team are brought into integrating that care. I definitely would say it’s not going to go in the opposite direction.

Webb: I’m not sure we could fragment healthcare any worse than it is right now, particularly across professions and disciplines. One of the things that is exciting to the pharmacist community is the potential for the medical home model to integrate across professional care concerns—again, assuming that we can find mechanisms to realign payment incentives, also understanding it’s obviously not possible to have a pharmacist in every three- or four-person medical practice in the United States.

Community Care in North Carolina has done an excellent job of integrating pharmacists’ services as part of the team in a virtual environment across several small- and medium-size practices. The only way we can integrate health professionals into a team is with the medical home because the current payment methodology and our cottage-based industry of silos just isn’t doing the job anymore.

Grundy: From the standpoint of the patient, the patient wants to see the specialist or the person who focuses on a certain part of the body as part of their medical home team. When they need a hip replaced, they have more than a hip. They have a whole bunch of other parts that somehow interconnect, and there has to be medication management adjudication, for example. There have to be linkages and integration, and that’s not happening now at all.

There are places in the United States where it will cost $177,000 for the last six months of life and other places where it costs $17,000. When you look at the places where it costs us seven times as much, what you’ll find is seven specialists doing seven different things—none of it linked, none of it coordinated, none of it integrated, and some of it, by the way, toxic to what the other providers are doing.

I just happened to be in New Mexico at Presbyterian Hospital recently and in Dallas and Tulsa where they’re doing a fantastic job of actually integrating the specialists into the medical home, where everybody’s practicing at the top of their license. In Tulsa, the primary care docs will email the specialists and integrate and pay for an email consult, which the specialists love, and the primary care docs love, but most importantly, the patients love it because it keeps them from wasting half a day [at a medical appointment] when the primary care doc’s doing a good job.

I would agree that whoever asks that question doesn’t understand the model.

Salkowe: There is one aspect of this we need to be conscious of. There are individuals who have one major chronic illness, and 90% of their care is being provided by a specialist: a gastroenterologist, rheumatologists or an oncologist, for example. And health plans are expected to and allow such a specialist to function as a PCP, even though we know that the focus of that care is on specialty needs, and there may be gaps in preventive health needs or other unrelated health conditions. That’s an important reality.

Now, I think we all agree that in a well managed medical home, care that specialist is providing is enhanced because of the improved communication coordination with other physicians that invariably are involved, whether it’s preventive services or hypertension or something else. There is a bit of hesitancy on the part of some of the specialists because of the scenario and uncertainty of whether a PCP should be treating everything. What happens when I have a patient where I really need to be out in front in terms of making decisions?

Heim: There are certainly many patients that I have had over the years, when the oncologist is functioning as the patient-centered medical home. I have no problem with that. From the standpoint of being recognized as a patient-centered medical home, that’s different than a subspecialist who then begins to assume the majority of the care and becomes the director. The problem is that oftentimes they’re handling maybe 70% of what’s currently going on in that patient’s life. However much of the other stuff gets either ignored or sidelined.

So if a rheumatologist becomes the patient-centered medical home, then in order to make sure that they are truly functioning in the whole aspect of managing that patient, they need to fulfill some sort of recognition program. In order for this model to work, you have to realign the payment. That would not be a major barrier if the payment were going to switch from the patient’s PCP to a subspecialist as the designated patient-centered medical home and have the payment model then switch over to that of a patient-centered medical home. That’s not a problem so long as they are then willing to take on the requirement to manage or coordinate the entire care of the patient.

MHE: What is the best strategy for reimbursement in medical home models?

Salkowe: The model that most programs seem to circle around is one that preserves perhaps 60% of the compensation as traditional fee-for-service reimbursement with the other 40% divided between process measures, care management activities and outcomes. The numbers that I’m generally seeing are 30% for the care management piece and 10% for the outcomes piece, although from the early projects where the outcomes just haven’t been measured yet, it may focus solely on care management.

That seems to get us to the dollars that are needed for support, the additional resources the practices need, whether it’s trained staff or new systems, and also to include the extra remuneration that’s needed to really engage the primary care physicians and the work around this new model.

Nichols: I like the structure that Jerry just described, and it makes a whole lot of sense, especially in transition, which is what we’re going to be in probably for three to 10 years—with a fee-for-service base but with a lot of incentives packed around care management and outcomes. Those proportions may very well change over time and may be different in different parts of the country.

The most creative thing we can do in the pilots that we hope come out of healthcare reform is to work out different kinds of shared-savings models. What’s an average cost for a diabetic? You think about the number of diabetics and different comorbidities and you can work out an expected expenditure over the year, including, in my view, expected hospitalizations and utilizations of specialists.

Then instead of holding a primary care team or even a formal medical home at risk, you could have them share in the savings that they might achieve if they hit the targets to achieve savings. Then you really do align incentives. A 2.0 model might include some incentives back to the patient so they too can see a real monetary gain in participating, because after all, health is a participation sport. You want the patients very much engaged. It’s unambiguously true we have to find a way to leverage our rather short supply of primary care professionals, in particular as we think about expanding coverage and access to care in the next five years.

Heim: One of the concerns that I’ve had with shared savings is it being time-limited. If you look at the efficiencies you will gain over time, eventually those efficiencies are going to diminish. Have you thought about making sure that the shared savings don’t become the major component of the blended payment model?

For example, I was in the Air Force for 25 years and after I had a stable population and managed them, I had already found disease and managed it and achieved significant cost savings and decreasing utilization. But then we reached a steady state, relatively. Were you saying, Len, that would be something on top of a designated funding stream for the blended payments?

Nichols: Well, Lori, remember I used the word ‘transition,’ and you are talking about a steady state and a longrun. I would agree that the ideal would be we will get to a place where all patients, especially those with chronic illnesses, are managed optimally and there are no savings to be reached out of the system. I think we all know we are a very long way from there.

What I’m talking about is a mechanism that can enable us to turbo-charge the transition. Ultimately I think you’re right. You would want to go to a more blended payment at the end, but I don’t see how you get from here to there fast without a shared savings component.

It enables you to reach beyond the primary care team to enable the hospital and the specialist and the pharmacist and everybody else to participate. That has a greater potential for aligning interests quicker in a way that is much more likely to be transformative. And yes, once we’ve reached the level of efficiency you reached with your patients in the Air Force, it’ll be a different world. But we’re a long way from there.

Webb: The blended payment model approach that PCPCC has recommended has one other interprofessional political advantage, and that is it defuses some of the potential battles at the feeding trough of fee-for-service. If all members of the team are participating in a blended payment approach, that brings revenue into the medical home based on those performance parameters, then the physician-directed leadership of the practice can then pick and choose among the various members of the team who are needed to be involved in the care of a particular patient at a particular time. There’s not that kind of competition for the fee-for-service dollars among the providers blended into a payment model that rewards team performance rather than individual fee-for-service performance.

As a profession that’s been fighting for years and years to have its non-dispensing services recognized under Medicare Part B—pharmacists have been fighting that battle for 10 or 15 years—this may be a very good thing in terms of an approach that blends all of the qualities that have been mentioned already because that really is what will generate patient-centric care among all the team members.

Grundy: I think there’s another constituency that we need to include in the considerations around shared savings. There’s also the reality that our employers are not competitive in a world market, and in many ways that’s because of healthcare costs. We have large numbers of individuals who can’t afford insurance so some of the savings really needs to come back to those who are actually paying for the healthcare…which will allow them to be more competitive with other parts of the world where healthcare may be more heavily subsidized by the government.

Nichols: That’s right and trust me, they can get their share of the same things, too. I definitely would concur in the short run, the best thing we could do is incentivize clinicians to work together across the traditional silos. Then I’m pretty sure the employers and plans will figure out how to get their piece of that.

MHE: Are behavioral health professionals increasingly being included as part of the medical home?

Grundy: I was in Albuquerque at Presbyterian, and they had a very integrated behavioral health model and a very integrated pharmacy model. The combination was really magic. We were seeing medication-management education and behavior-management education that was enhancing care and amplifying and cadencing the message that the primary care provider was delivering—on ’steroids.’ I mean, it was really impressive.

I was in Dubuque, Iowa, with a primary care provider who was seeing an 84-year-old nun. The issue with her was medication management and care coordination. Once the relationship part of it was established with the primary care provider, it migrated over to a nurse care coordinator working with the pharmacist who was working with a behavioralist with a team approach to care for the next year. I saw that mapped out for the nun, and it had gone over well enough to the point that she really began to understand it and give feedback.

MHE: With all these easily accessible services, what about the potential for increased utilization?

Webb: Particularly with regard to the use of medications, the some of the evidence from the model in North Carolina does indicate that in some cases, the medication-use costs go up. But with a concomitant reduction in consumption of some of the other more expensive services, particularly emergency department business and things like that, the increased utilization of some things may well be a very good thing and what the patient may benefit from most. You have to look at utilization across the entire spectrum of service consumption rather than just in the silos.

Grundy: From the perspective of the buyer of care, we really do want to see increased utilization of appropriate medication, and we want our patients to be healthy and productive. For us, the cost of the care is just the tip of the iceberg. We also have the whole issue of productivity. So it’s really a matter of appropriate utilization addressing both under- and overutilization of services. It’s a win-win for the pharmaceutical companies because increased utilization means they sell more medication, also a win for us because we want our folks healthy and productive. The best way to do that is for them to take their medication and comply with wellness instructions and other things.

Heim: Look at some of the data that came out of the Kaiser Foundation surveying patients. Twelve percent of the patients said the doctor had to redo a test or procedure because they didn’t have the earlier test results. So those are the low hanging fruit. We can decrease unnecessary procedures just from that standpoint alone.

MHE: How do we measure the success of medical homes? How can we quantify whether they’re doing any good?

Grundy: The state of Vermont’s early studies indicate a 7% reduction in overall costs. That’s a real bending of the curve. That’s data, right? We’re seeing improved outcomes in terms of indicators of compliance with diabetic management and asthma management. I was just at a physician’s practice in Florida where he used to have on average of one patient a month hospitalized for asthma. In the past 19 months, he’s only had one asthma hospitalization, and that’s data, right? We’re beginning to see pretty robust data and would love comments from other folks on that.

Nichols: I think another aspect of measuring success has to do with the experience of care both from the patient and the physician perspective. For this to be sustainable, patients need to recognize that this is something different, and it’s something different that they really like. It may not be an easy sell for some patients who’ve just been accustomed to picking a specialist out of the yellow pages or calling a friend to see who to go to next.

From the provider’s side, there are two big issues around the experience. There’s a lot of work up front [in creating a medical-home model] so it’s important that physicians see this as being something very positive, something that they advocate to their colleagues. But perhaps even more importantly is one of the underlying driving factors, which is the critical state of primary care in this country and the need to convince more and more of the upcoming graduates from medical school to pursue primary care as a field. The more convincing stories there are about the positive experience that these models are bringing to practice, the more likely we’ll succeed from that perspective.

MHE: What cautions do you have for the industry regarding medical homes?

Heim: Coming from the TransforMED demonstration project that AAFP did, we learned you have to provide enough resources to pull this off. It has to be adequately financed, and the transformation process can be stressful. So provide strong leadership to enable that to occur. The other problem that we’ve seen is that many of the projects have too short a timeline. They’re looking for a quick return on investment in less than two years, and two years is probably the bare minimum.

Nichols: Payers have to have a realistic timeline, and I do think five years is a much better frame. It’s easy for a think-tank guy to say, but I just think that’s the reality. The clinicians will tell you the same thing because of the up-front investment.

I would also hasten to emphasize my favorite phrase from Ronald Reagan: ‘Trust but verify.’ The people who claim that these models don’t work are stuck in defending the status quo, fee-for-service, unaccountable model. They’re just afraid of change, that’s part of it, but they don’t want to move to a world in which they’re going to be held accountable and things are going to be measured.

Not every patient is going to go to some quantitative provider comparison on a Web site, but enough will as we evolve as a society. Look at the number of people using smart phones. And now we’re going to move to a world in which if you can’t show that your treatment modalities and your health plan are achieving outcomes as good as [top-rated] systems and medical homes and health plans, you’re going to be at a competitive disadvantage.

Just look at the companies that…are in many ways poised for the new world because they’ve invested in information systems and information management, and selected forward-thinking and better organized providers. The other plans are really going to have to step up and participate in that ‘trust but verify’ competition or risk very serious competitive problems.

Grundy: That is not an easy transition for the providers to make. We learned in working with MVP Healthcare and others that we need to help pay for the process of this transformation. We’re dealing with oftentimes small groups of providers that are trying to survive on either a -1% margin or a 1% margin. We need to instill a bit of hope in them. If we’re reaping the benefit of that, we as the buyers have to begin to pay for the process of this transformation.

Heim: What we hear most from people who are practicing in a patient-centered medical home is that they feel like they’re back to practicing medicine the way they were trained to. They’re back to taking care of their friends, their patients and their communities, and that is incredibly rewarding for them.

Salkowe: I think just one area that we need to be careful with is the enthusiasm around this topic and the eagerness to move forward.

There’s been a tendency to slip outside of the structured pilots and just throw money at the medical home by financially recognizing providers solely based on recognition rather than how well they’re coordinating and managing the care of their patients.

The practice transformation that’s required goes well beyond whatever any individual recognition can possibly measure. In the pilots, for the most part, there’s been a structure that’s enabled practices to learn from each other and to share and develop communitywide resources. It’s going to take some time for resources to be well enough established in a community that all physicians in the community might be able to readily become a part of this.

We just need to be careful that we don’t get ahead of that infrastructure development and make sure we’ve figured out how to do this right before it becomes a standard for everybody.

Heim: Jerry, are you talking about concern whether or not the NCQA recognition program now truly recognizes those things that are of value?

Salkowe: No. I think it does recognize those things that are of value. It’s necessary, but I don’t think it’s sufficient. Over time we’ll come up with additional measures that will help, but testing itself never really tells the whole story, particularly in something like this, which isn’t just about what an individual practice does. It’s really about what’s happening in a community and how that practice interfaces with the community. Unless you have the right infrastructure in place, a practice might pass the test and really still not be able to deliver on the promise.

Webb: One of the challenges that we face is being flexible enough to recognize that how you construct these teams virtually in small communities and small practices is going to take a lot more creativity. It’s a lot more difficult to do than in those settings where you have large physician groups or managed care organizations or hospital-based teams where that functionality has been existent for a long time.

Particularly from the pharmacy side, we’re looking to create models that integrate pharmacists into the team in a very creative and constructive way. For the small medical practices, the best way to do that remains to be defined… With IT and with virtual framework, it’s entirely possible to do this even if we can’t all be physically present in this mythical place called the medical home.

Squeeze out waste

Understandably, the painstaking scrutiny of healthcare costs has reached a fever pitch. While administration is a relatively small percentage of the overall costs in the system, the pressure is on payers to trim as much waste from their operations as possible.

Administrative costs—or any outlays that are not specifically tied to medical care—are a political hot button. Insurers defend what they spend on tasks such as case management and disease management as well as investments in technology as necessary spending that results in net savings and improved health. Some critics of the insurance industry characterize administrative costs as nothing more than profits and executive compensation and seek legislation to control how premium dollars are spent.

In fact, 15 states have implemented laws dictating minimum medical loss ratios (MLRs), ranging from 50% to 80%. In 2008, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have forced insurers to maintain an MLR of 85%.

According to America’s Health Insurance Plans, in a 2008 study conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), 87 cents of every premium dollar goes to healthcare and medical services, and just 3 cents goes toward profits.

PASSING THE BLAME

Governments are taking some steps that could eventually result in lower healthcare costs, such as smoking bans in public places and removing soda and sugary snacks from school vending machines. On Jan. 1, 2010, California became the first state to ban the use of trans fats in restaurants and bakeries. New York City adopted a similar ban several years ago.

Nonetheless, it was inevitable that scrutiny would intensify on payers and their efforts to reduce costs and minimize wasted resources in the system, and now that it has, they’re possibly receiving more blame than is fair.

“When people look at waste in claims processing, for example, they assume [all of the money is being wasted] by insurers, when a lot of it is wasted by providers,” says Mark Merlis, a health policy consultant who has written several papers on the topic of healthcare waste. “But in fairness to providers, they have to comply with many different insurers’ administrative processes, so we should be doing as much as we can to promote uniform transactions.”

Merlis says the more uniformity that can be achieved among payers, the more money the system overall is going to save. Market complexity makes it difficult to identify who is “committing” the waste. Furthermore, cutting waste from one area might simply shift costs to another. For example, in an attempt to fight losses from fraud, payers could investigate more claims in detail, but that will delay payments to providers, damaging relations and potentially resulting in legal action under prompt payment laws.

TECHNOLOGY TO THE RESCUE

The siloed yet sprawling nature of the U.S. healthcare system—payers, physicians, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, government agencies and consumers—means that waste elimination isn’t as easy as making an individual organization operate more efficiently.

Some Americans, including some physicians, believe a shift to a single payer system would simplify healthcare administration, but the large majority is firmly opposed to such a change. As Merlis points out in his paper, “Simplifying Administration of Health Insurance” (January 2009), complexity is not just a byproduct of the insurance system—it is what insurers are selling.

“The value-added of the managed care industry consists of the very features that make insurance complicated: different coverage rules and formularies, authorization requirements and careful scrutiny of claims, and so on,” he writes. “The variations are what differentiate one plan from another, and competition and uniformity may be conflicting goals.”

Still, that doesn’t mean plans can’t improve their internal operations and their relationships with other healthcare stakeholders. There are also high hopes that technology can eliminate some waste in the system, and at least one project is proving that to be true.

In 2008, Blue Shield of California (BSC) created its Partnership in Operational Excellence and Transparency (POET) transactions-tracking tool to improve payment accuracy and dispute resolution, speed claims turnaround, and increase operational transparency. The program is available online for 90 of the hospitals Blue Shield of California contracts with across the state.

“POET has been enhancing our working relationships with network hospitals by providing opportunities for data-driven discussions that directly improve operational efficiencies,” says Juan Davila, the plan’s senior vice president for network management. “Using key claims performance indicators and transparent claims data, we work jointly with our facilities to target and prioritize impactful process improvements.”

Davila says the claims-processing related improvements have been impressive, and the benefits of improved relations with network providers are even more so.

“We wanted to show that we were really trying to get at the root of the problem,” he says. “We paid for the system up-front, and we were increasing our transparency to them, as opposed to trying to cover up our errors. We genuinely wanted to develop a more collaborative relationship with our network hospitals, and that’s changed the way we think of each other in a very positive way.”

The hospital association of Southern California recently approached BSC to help the association with another large-scale project.

“I have been in this business for 20 years and have never gotten a phone call like that before,” Davila says.

Within administrative functions, such as those BSC is addressing, it’s hard to know exactly what is waste. A 2008 study by PwC’s Health Research Institute, “The Price of Excess: Identifying Waste in Healthcare Spending,” points out that “inefficiency” and “waste” are not interchangeable terms; the former is merely one component of the latter.

Authors define waste as costs that could have been avoided without a negative impact on quality, which is similar to the definition used by the Institute of Medicine and the authors of another watershed study conducted by Thomson Reuters in October 2009: expenses that don’t add value.

WHERE TO FIND WASTE

The PwC research estimates that slightly more than half of all healthcare spending ($1.2 trillion of the annual $2.2 trillion spent) is wasteful and breaks it into three categories:

• Behavioral waste, which accounts for $303 billion to $493 billion each year;
• Clinical waste, accounting for $312 billion annually; and
• Operational waste, which consumes $126 billion to $315 billion.

The study further breaks the operational waste segment down into four subsets:

• Claims processing, which accounts for $21 billion to $210 billion in waste;
• Inefficient use of technology ($81 billion to $88 billion);
• Staff turnover ($21 billion); and
• Paper prescriptions ($4 billion).

The research by New York-based Thomson Reuters Healthcare Analytics (October 2009) is slightly less pessimistic, estimating that each year, between $600 billion and $850 billion of healthcare spending is wasted.

The study, “Where Can $700 Billion in Waste Be Cut Annually from the U.S. Healthcare System?” identifies six primary culprits:

• Unnecessary care (40% of waste), accounting for $250 billion to $325 billion;
• Fraud (19%), $125 billion to $175 billion;
• Administrative inefficiency (17%), $100 billion to $150 billion;
• Healthcare provider errors (12%), $75 billion to $100 billion;
• Preventable conditions (6%), $25 billion to $50 billion; and
• Lack of care coordination (6%), $25 billion to $50 billion.

Those figures are so staggering that the system can’t expect to “cut” its way out of them, according to Bob Kelley, Thomson Reuters’ vice president of healthcare analytics and author of the report.

“Simple external controls on cost and utilization will not work, and any effort to control costs by eliminating waste must be careful to consider possible unintended impact on access to appropriate and necessary care,” he says. “We should expect that any change to the system of care that improves its performance will require a realignment of the types and levels of professional and facility resources and the relationships among these resources.”

The best solutions will effect positive changes and recognize that the healthcare market dynamic is much different from other product or service markets. Most consumers believe that their access to all potentially useful services is a right.

“We need to shift the public’s perception and expectation [of quality] away from ‘more services is better’ to ‘the care that will most likely result in the outcomes that are best for me,’” he says. “Simultaneously, we must begin to reward physicians for providing this type of care, and recognize and pay for the required time and effort.”

CONSUMER BAD HABITS

Shifting public perception is critical, because for many Americans, “waste in healthcare” brings to mind images of bloated, lethargic mega-plans with outdated technologies and overpaid, fat-cat executives. Although the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that fully half of the nation’s deaths each year are the result of bad and avoidable habits, most Americans, rather than look in the mirror, latch onto headlines about excessive health plan profits and executive bonuses.

When consumers learned that former UnitedHealth Group CEO William McGuire received more than $124 million in total compensation in 2005, it’s understandable that many of them reacted with indignation. While the public’s sensitivity to what they perceive as excessive income is at an all-time high, salaries and bonuses paid to health plan executives are a very small number in a very large sum, according to Dan Munro, principal with The DMM Group.

“If you added up all of the executive bonuses and salaries for the entire healthcare industry, it would just be a drop in the bucket compared to the other costs,” he says. “Healthcare is nothing at all like Wall Street, where firms are racing to pay back their Troubled Asset Relief Program funds because they want to go back to handing out those huge bonuses again.”

Merlis agrees, saying executive compensation “might look ugly when you see how much money certain people are being paid, but it’s really not a driver of healthcare expenses.”

It’s clear that politicians are doing what they can to foster greater use of technology in healthcare, particularly with federal funding included in the stimulus package to spur greater adoption of electronic medical records, which are not yet widely adopted.

“The government is trying to encourage the meaningful use of electronic health records,” Munro says. “For the first time, the government is mandating that EHR applications engage the consumer. If you tell most EHR vendors that you’re going to develop a patient-focused system, they’ll laugh at you. They have always been provider-focused, because that’s where the money is.”

An EHR system can cost millions of dollars, so small providers are less likely to adopt them simply because of the cost. The government has realized that use of health IT won’t progress if it doesn’t engage the consumer, Munro says.

THE OPPORTUNITIES ARE REAL

To further explore IT’s opportunities to improve healthcare, Kelley and Thomson Reuters are working on a follow-up whitepaper highlighting specific initiatives that have been successful in eliminating waste, or that show the potential to do so.

“There are certainly high expectations for the contributions of IT to both improved quality and reduced waste,” he says. “Many of these initiatives are either directly related to new or enhanced IT applications or require IT system support to enable new relationships between providers, or between providers and patients.”

Examples of the first type include electronic medical records, health information exchanges, and clinical registries. Examples of the second type include patient-centered medical homes and bundled or episode-based payment systems.

“I think that these opportunities are real, but changes in the systems of care and the relationships among providers and patients will be required if the great potential for these solutions is to be ultimately realized,” he says.

According to Davila, BSC’s POET program is improving efficiencies at the larger system level.

“Historically, when we would show up to renegotiate a contract, the hospital representative would say, ‘My people are telling me that you don’t pay your claims right, you don’t handle appeals well, and you owe us X million dollars. Before we recontract, I need you to fix that.’ The result, inevitably, was a lot of negative energy.”

To solve the problem, BSC worked with a third-party vendor to develop a system that enables participating hospitals to review 24 months of processed claims information and performance metrics on the POET Hospital Dashboard, an online performance analytics portal specifically designed for those hospitals.

Those facilities routinely receive quarterly claim summary reports that provide information on key indicators such as cycle time; submission type; denial volume and reasons for denial; appeal volume, outcomes, and reasons; and claim volume for patients with Bluecard, a national program that allows any Blue member to receive care from another Blue company when traveling or living outside of their usual service area.

“It’s all right there in black and white for everyone to see,” Davila says. “One national hospital system was upset because they thought we weren’t paying as quickly as we should, until POET revealed the problem: We were paying the claim in 12 days, but it was taking them 25 days to get the claim to us. The system showed them exactly where the process was broken so they could fix it.”

PHYSICIANS’ WEIGH THEIR COSTS

The need for such transparency is significant, according to research from the American Medical Assn. Its second annual National Insurer Report Card study attempts to diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of the claims processing systems used by eight of the nation’s largest health insurers. Five of the eight plans showed improvements in the median amount of time necessary to respond to providers’ claims, but the report estimates that providers still divert as much as 14% of their revenue to ensure they are receiving accurate payments.

Physicians reported spending three hours weekly interacting with plans in 2006, according to a Web Exclusive produced by Health Affairs in May 2009. When time is converted to dollars, the cost to practices is estimated at $23 billion to $31 billion annually, or 6.9% of all U.S. expenditures for physician and clinical services. Further, 45.9% of physicians surveyed for the report said the cost of dealing with health plans had “increased a lot.”

The report goes on to note that administrative cost cannot be reduced to zero dollars and that interactions that cost money also can produce benefit, such as prior authorization, which can reduce inappropriate use.

5 Steps to Creating a Balanced Pain Management Surgery Center

Pain management can be a profitable addition to a surgery center. However, due to the nature of the specialty, balance is essential to the success of pain management.

Mike Heifferon, Ph.D, MBA, chief operating officer, and Marie Masztak, RN, BEd, vice president of nursing, of Deca Health, a management, billing and development company specializing in interventional pain management services, provide the following five steps to creating a balanced pain management practice in your ASC.

What is a balanced pain management practice?
Mr. Heifferon says that a balanced practice is based upon four different relevant benchmarking standards — financial, patient, provider and staff perspectives. According to Mr. Heiffron, a high performing pain management practice will be in the 90th percentile on each of these areas in benchmarking surveys.

Each area measures different competencies of the practice. “The financial perspective comes from the point of view of collections and net income,” Mr. Heiffron says. “The patient perspective looks at patient satisfaction and outcomes. The provider perspective looks at the provider satisfaction and productivity. The staff perspective looks at the staff satisfaction and productivity.”

In order to keep track of how your pain management practice is performing, Mr. Heifferon suggests using metrics to measure areas like satisfaction and productivity at least monthly, if not daily or weekly. “The more frequently you measure the results, the more frequently you will be able to take action and improve performance,” he says.

Step one: Recruit good physicians
Dedicated, talented physicians are essential to any successful service line in an ASC. Because of increased scrutiny over procedure overuse and abuse, surgery centers need to ensure that their interventional pain physicians are qualified and dedicated to proper patient care. According to Mr. Heifferon, the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care requires that all physicians performing pain management at an ASC should be certified.

Mr. Heifferon and Ms. Masztak agree that pain management physicians should be board certified and/or fellowship trained. Other areas to consider are the physician’s experience with the procedures he or she will be performing and the percent of the physician’s new patients who will receive procedures according to evidence-based medicine.

Mr. Heifferon recommends bringing in physicians who want to be partners in the center or who are existing partners that aren’t making maximum use of the center. “Both parties have the same risk [in this scenario.] When the physician is not partnered with the center, they look at things, such as cost effectiveness, time off, etc., differently,” he says.

Another issue to keep in mind when bringing pain management physicians on board is the importance of separation of office practices from that of the ASC. According to Ms. Masztak, the Medicare (CMS) Guidelines require separation of the surgery center from the office in order for the surgery center to be accredited. Therefore, the physician can see patients in the office at designated times prior to or after the completion of procedures.

Step two: Meet with and educate referring physicians
Marketing is an essential tool to a surgery center’s success, and when it comes to interventional pain management, education is an essential part of marketing. Mr. Heifferon and Ms. Masztak suggest that ASCs should devote one full-time equivalent position (ideally, two part-time staffers) to marketing efforts.

Meeting with referring physicians is an important part of this step, according to Mr. Heifferon and Ms. Masztak. Representatives from the ASC should provide physicians with information regarding customer and physician satisfaction at the center as well as educational material on pain management and how it can enhance their patient’s care.

“It is important to demonstrate to new physicians that performing pain management procedures in the ASC allows them to collect a facility fee while providing high quality and safe services to their pain patients,” Mr. Heifferon says.

Ms. Masztak says, “One aspect of care that can enhance access for patients into pain management is by promoting a good working relationship between the physicians of the ASC and the neurologists/orthopedists to gain same day access by following preset guidelines for intervention — what we call Fast Track MD.  Another would be when patients have experienced a pain management intervention previously, they are able to fast track their own care by following set guidelines for expedited care — what we call Fast Track Patient.”

Another important step, according to Ms. Masztak, is to educate the community on pain management and chronic pain treatment. “You want to create awareness and to educate physicians (and community) on what the surgery center does and show that it is about helping, rather than ’stealing,’ patients,” she says.

Step three: Consider the patient’s experience
As pain management is a high-volume specialty, addressing the patient’s experience is essential to the service line’s success. “We set a patient satisfaction goal of 98 percent at our centers,” Mr. Heifferon says. “When centers have patient satisfaction scores in the 90s, that is still good, but it is important to ask what they consider an issue (such as no-show rates) and to continually improve.”

Prior to adding pain management to your ASC, Mr. Heifferon suggests looking at three areas — patient flow, wait time and time from admission to discharge. “You need to respect the patients time as much as your own,” he says. “Because of the nature of an ambulatory surgery (need for another person to drive/pick up patient, etc.) it is important to be able to give the patient a close approximation of the amount of time they will spend at the center.”

For this reason, ASCs need to ensure they will be able to handle the patient load and the quick turnover time needed for pain procedures, which are typically about 15 minutes in length. The short procedure times often mean patients will wait longer in prep and recovery than in the actual time it takes to perform the procedure. Therefore, efficiency is critical.

Physician output may also be affected by poor patient satisfaction, according to Mr. Heifferon and Ms. Masztak. “Poor patient outcomes can often result in a physician using pain management or the surgery center less,” Mr. Heifferon says. “You may not know this until you drill down to and examine trends on a physician level.”

Step four: Understand payor issues specific to pain management
Communication is essential to ensuring the ASC and physician are reimbursed properly for pain management procedures. “You need to check whether a patient’s insurance covers the pain management procedures and make sure the billing department is aware of co-pays or what current outstanding debt may be,” says Ms. Masztak. “Also, communicate with the patient to know whether insurance is covering the procedure and with the physician to make sure medical necessity is demonstrated.”

Mr. Heifferon says it is important to communicate any costs to the patient prior to the procedure.

Mr. Heifferon and Ms. Masztak offer the following advice for ensuring proper billing and reimbursement of pain management procedures in your surgery center:

• Know your billing guidelines per insurance carrier for pain management procedure.
• Make sure the physician’s and ASC’s charges match exactly.
• The correct levels must be billed, so it is important to know the difference between disc levels and in-between levels and have this clarified on the physician’s report as necessary.
• Know modifiers that pertain to the ASC and its procedures.
• Anesthesia is billed per insurance carrier guidelines, so be aware of what is and can be used for the procedure.

Step five: Offer profitable procedures
As with any service line offered in your ASC, providing the right mix of procedures is essential to success. It is essential that all procedures be verified for insurance coverage in the ASC prior to the physician performing the procedure.

The following eight procedures are identified by Mr. Heiffron and Ms. Masztak as the most common performed in a surgery center:

• SI steroid joint injection
• Cervical epidural steroid injection
• Lumbar epidural steroid injection
• Spinal Cord Stimulator Trials are done to evaluate whether this is the best mechanism to control chronic pain
• Cervical facet injection
• Lumbar facet injection
• Transforaminal epidural steroid injections and selective nerve blocks
• Radiofrequency ablation procedures. It is important to not that prior to adding RFA to a surgical center, proper cost and volume analysis is necessary. These units are expensive and if volume is not adequate, then a per case arrangement with the unit cost built into the supplies often can be arranged.

“With the constant downward pressure on professional reimbursement, interventional pain management physicians should be looking for alternative sources of income and for reductions in practice overhead expense. Participation in an ASC offers an opportunity for both,” says Mr. Heifferon.

Learn more about Deca Health.

Society of Interventional Radiology Supports Vertebroplasty in Properly Selected Patients

In spite of recent reports that showed vertebroplasty was as effective as placebo, the Society of Interventional Radiology has come out in support of the procedure as an effective procedure for properly selected patients, as the society says was not the case in the studies, according to an SIR news release.

“Hundreds of thousands of patients have greatly benefited from vertebroplasty with almost complete resolution of their pain; tens of thousands dependent on intravenous narcotics have been discharged from the hospital virtually pain- and drug-free following their treatment,” SIR President Brian F. Stainken, MD, FSIR, said in the release. “Candidates for the procedure are those who have failed to respond to conventional medical treatment (such as rest, analgesics and narcotic drugs). Vertebroplasty can give patients their lives back. Interventional radiologists have the critical skills in imaging and patient care that make them experts at determining which patients are the most appropriate candidates to receive the treatment.”

The two studies in debate were published in August in the New England Journal of Medicine and showed that patients received similar results when injected with medical bone-grade cement (vertebroplasty) or a placebo. Criticism of the studies include small numbers of patients treated; the small percentage of eligible patients who were actually enrolled in the trial; inclusion of patients with milder degrees of pain and disability than are usually treated in a typical practice; the small amount of cement injected; treatment of patients with chronic compression fractures; the incomplete use of MRI or CT to confirm that the fracture was the likely source of pain; and the high rate of crossover from placebo to vertebroplasty in one of the studies, according to the release.

SIR worries that the decisions based on possibly flawed findings could lead to insurers to deny coverage of the procedures in osteoporosis patients who could benefit from it, according to the release. Results from additional studies on the procedure are scheduled to be released at SIR’s annual meeting in March.

Read the SIR’s report on patient selection in vertebroplasty (pdf).

Working with Distributors What You Need to Know

According to the Healthcare Distribution Management Association (HDMA), the U.S. healthcare system saves nearly $32 billion each year with distributor’s streamlined, aggregated ordering and efficient shipping logistics. SurgiStrategies spoke with ERI, a medical imaging equipment distributor to discuss some key components of what a distributor has to offer.

Q: describe the key roles of a distributor in the outpatient marketplace — how do they serve the niche between manufacturers and the end user?

Simply stated, a distributor must know what they are selling and the products’ appropriate applications. This permits a customer to receive accurate answers to presale questions allowing them to purchase with confidence. Furthermore, post sale support is just as critical. We often work with customers to properly integrate their new equipment and use it to its fullest potential. Given our extensive experience and our close working relationships with manufacturers, we can recommend best installation and operating practices to provide an optimal end-user experience.

Another important role for vendors is to serve as the flexible middleman between manufacturers and end-users. Given the manufacturers’ high overhead, they typically require significant minimum orders and demand very specific payment methods. Furthermore, manufacturers will often implement irregular production cycles, causing inventory surplus and shortages that are not readily apparent to the customer. This in turn may cause significant delays when ordering equipment and supplies. We anticipate these cycles and account for additional environmental factors. For example, we see a significant increase in gel-warmer sales as winter approaches and we adjust our inventory accordingly.

Q: can distributors bring value – added services that a direct – from – manufacturer approach can’t, and why?

In addition to providing purchasing advice and post-sale support, we also offer free equipment demonstrations and trials. This has been a very effective sales tool for our company and illustrates our confidence in our products and support. Customers are afforded the opportunity to put our equipment through their daily processes and workload. Relative to the manufacturers, our company is small by comparison but we believe that works to our advantage. Customers won’t become lost in the inherent bureaucracy of large companies, which allows for immediate and straight forward service. Customers frequently call in with a desperate need for equipment to be delivered the next morning. Our small stature allows us to quickly process and ship their order for overnight delivery.

Q: how are distributors addressing the perception that distributors are the expensive middleman in the healthcare supply chain, so to speak?

The first obvious solution to the “expensive middleman” perception is to not be expensive. We maintain low prices by controlling our overhead business expenses and make smart purchasing decisions from our manufacturers. The next step is to fighting this perception is to promote our value added services discussed above, i.e., equipment demonstrations, flexibility, and prompt customer service. Lastly, we believe we save our customers money by advising the right equipment for their needs and not pushing equipment that is disproportionate to their requirements.

Q: what advice can distributors offer to customers in terms of savvy purchasing practices?

Shop around for lower prices! This difficult economy has caused a strain on everyone’s budget and you may be pleasantly surprised to find that you can save a significant amount of money by searching the Internet for a better deal. Also, ask your distributors for bulk discounts or flat rate shipping options. You may be able to save money on shipping costs by combining regular orders. Do not be afraid to call and ask questions if it’s your first time ordering this particular piece of equipment. It also helps to be knowledgeable about the equipment’s intended application and any other equipment that it will be connected to. If you feel outside your comfort level, encourage the end user to ask these questions directly.

Next Page »