Lucia DiVenere, MA

When the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed in 2010, it represented an intended shift from reactive medicine, with its focus on acute and urgent needs, to a model focused on disease prevention.

OBG Management readers know about the important women’s health services ensured by the ACA, including well-woman care, as well as the key role played by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in winning this coverage. ACOG worked closely with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to help define this set of services. And the ACA ensured that women have access to these services, often without copays and deductibles.

ACOG and the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) work closely on many issues. At first independently and then together, the 2 organizations set out to explore some fundamental issues:

• How does a woman experience the new well-woman benefit when she visits her doctor?
• Does she receive a consistent care set?
• Do some patients have copays while patients in other clinics do not for the same services?
• What does well-woman care mean from one doctor to another, from an ObGyn to an internist to a family physician?

This article explores these issues.

2 initiatives focused on components of women’s health care
During her tenure as president of ACOG, Jeanne Conry, MD, PhD, decided to tackle clinical issues associated with well-woman care. She convened a Well-Woman Task Force, led by Haywood Brown, MD, and included the NWLC among other partner organizations (TABLE).

Table. Partipating organizations of the ACOG Well-Woman Task Force
• American Academy of Family Physicians
• American Academy of Pediatrics
• American Academy of Physician Assistants
• American College of Nurse–Midwives
• American College of Osteopathic Obstetricians and Gynecologists
• Association of Reproductive Health Professionals
• Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric, and Neonatal Nurses
• National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health
• National Medical Association
• National Women’s Law Center
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America
• Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine
• Society of Academic Specialists in General Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Society of Gynecologic Oncology

The NWLC and Brigham and Women’s Hospital also partnered with ACOG and others to help ensure a consistent patient experience. These 2 closely related initiatives were designed to work together to help patients and physicians understand and benefit from new coverage under the ACA.

1. How does a woman experience well-woman care?
Experts associated with these 2 initiatives recognized that well-woman care includes attention to the history, physical examination, counseling, and screening intended to maintain physical, mental, and social wellbeing and general health throughout a woman’s lifespan. Experts also recognized that the ACA guarantees coverage of at least one annual well-woman visit, although not all of the recommended components necessarily would be performed at the same visit or by the same provider.

For many women who have gained insurance coverage under the ACA, the well-woman visit represents their entry into the insured health care system. These women may have limited understanding of the services they should receive during this visit.

To address this issue, the NWLC invited ACOG to participate in its initiative with Brigham and Women’s Hospital to understand the well-woman visit from the patient’s point of view. This effort yielded patient education materials in English and Spanish that help women understand:

• that their health insurance now covers a well-woman visit
• what care is included in that visit
• that there is no deductible or copay for this visit
• how to prepare for this visit
• what questions to ask during the visit.

These materials help women understand that the purpose of the well-woman visit is to provide them with a chance to:

• “receive care and counseling that is appropriate, based on age, cognitive development, and life experience
• review their current health and risks to their health with their health care professional
• ask any questions they may have about their health or risk factors
• talk about what they can do to prevent future health problems
• build a trusting relationship with their health care provider, with an emphasis on confidentiality
• receive appropriate preventive screenings and immunizations and make sure they know which screenings and immunizations they should receive in the future
• review their reproductive plan and contraceptive choices.”¹                 

The materials also advise patients that they may be asked about:

• current health concerns
• current medications, both prescription and over the counter
• family history on both the mother’s and father’s sides
• life management, including family relationships, work, and stress
• substance use habits, including alcohol and tobacco
• sexual activity
• eating habits and physical activity
• past reproductive health experience and any pregnancy complications
• any memory problems (older women)
• screening for depression, anxiety, substance use disorders, and interpersonal violence.

To view some of these materials, visit http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/final_well-womanbrochure.pdf.

2. Does each woman receive consistent well-woman care?
ACOG’s Well-Woman Task Force was shaped by an awareness that many medical societies and government agencies provide recommendations and guidelines about the basic elements of women’s health. While these recommendations and guidelines all may be based on evidence and expert opinion, the recommendations vary. A goal of the task force was to work with providers across the women’s health spectrum to find consensus and provide guidance to women and clinicians with age-appropriate recommendations for a well-woman visit.

In the fall of 2015, the task force’s findings were published in an article entitled “Components of the well-woman visit” in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.² Those findings outline a core set of well-woman care practices across a woman’s lifespan, from adolescence through the reproductive years and into maturity, and they are usable by any provider who cares for adolescent girls or women.

ACOG has summarized its well-woman recommendations, by age, on its website,³ at http://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/ACOG-Departments/Annual-Womens-Health-Care/Well-Woman-Recommendations.

3. Do all women have a copay for the well-woman visit?
Because research has revealed that any type of copay or deductible for preventive care significantly lessens the likelihood that patients will seek out such care, the ACA sought to make basic preventive care available without cost sharing.⁴

The US Department of Health and Human Services notes that: “The Affordable Care Act requires most health plans to cover recommended preventive services without cost sharing. In 2011 and 2012, 71 million Americans with private health insurance gained access to preventive services with no cost sharing because of the law.”⁴

Grandfathered plans (those created or sold before March 23, 2010) are exempt from this requirement, as are Medicare, TRICARE, and traditional Medicaid plans.

4. What does well-woman care mean from one doctor to another?
Under the ACA, well-woman care can be provided by a “wide range of providers, including family physicians, internists, nurse–midwives, nurse practitioners, obstetrician-gynecologists, pediatricians, and physician assistants,” depending on the age of the patient, her particular needs and preferences, and access to health services.²

The ACOG Well-Woman Task Force “focused on delineating the well-woman visit throughout the lifespan, across all providers and health plans.”²

In determining the components of well-woman care, ACOG’s task force compiled existing guidelines from many sources, including the Department of Health and Human Services, the IOM, the US Preventive Services Task Force, and each member organization.

Members categorized guidelines as:

• single source (eg, abdominal examination)
• no agreement (breast cancer/mammography screening)
• limited agreement (pelvic examination)
• general agreement (hypertension, osteoporosis)
• sound agreement (screening for sexually transmitted infections)

The task force also agreed that final recommendations would rely on evidence-based guidelines, evidence-informed guidelines, and uniform expert agreement. Recommendations were considered “strong” if they relied primarily on evidence-based or evidence-informed guidelines and “qualified” if they relied primarily on expert consensus.

Guidelines were further separated into age bands:

• adolescents (13–18 years)
• reproductive-aged women (19–45 years)
• mature women (46–64 years)
• women older than 64 years.

The task force recommended that, during the well-woman visit, health care professionals educate patients about:

• healthy eating habits and maintenance of healthy weight
• exercise and physical activity
• seat belt use
• risk factors for certain types of cancer
• heart health
• breast health
• bone health
• safer sex practices and prevention of sexually transmitted infections
• healthy interpersonal relationships
• prevention and management of chronic disease
• resources for the patient (online, written, community, patient groups)
• medication use
• fall prevention.

Health care providers also should counsel patients regarding:

• recommended preventive screenings and immunizations
• any concerns about mood, such as prolonged periods of sadness, a failure to enjoy what they usually find pleasant, or anxiety or irritability that seems out of proportion to events
• what to expect in terms of effects on mood and anxiety at reproductive life transitions, including menarche, pregnancy, the postpartum period, and perimenopause
• body image issues
• what to expect in terms of the menstrual cycle during perimenopause and menopause
• reproductive health or fertility concerns
• reproductive life planning (contraception appropriate for life stage, reproductive plans, and risk factors, including risk factors for breast and ovarian cancer and cardiovascular disease)
• pregnancy planning, including attaining and maintaining a healthy weight and managing any chronic conditions before or during pregnancy
• what to expect during menopause, including signs and symptoms and options for addressing symptoms (midlife and older women)
• symptoms of cardiovascular disease
• urinary incontinence.

The task force acknowledged that not all of these recommendations can be carried out at a single well-woman visit or by a single provider.

See, again, ACOG’s specific well-woman recommendations, by age range, at http://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/ACOG-Departments/Annual-Womens-Health-Care/Well-Woman-Recommendations.³

How to winnow a long list of recommendations to determine the most pressing issues for a specific patient
In an editorial accompanying the ACOG Well-Woman Task Force report, entitled “Re-envisioning the annual well-woman visit: the task forward,” George F. Sawaya, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, devised a plan to determine the most pressing well-woman needs for a specific patient.¹ He chose as an example a 41-year-old sexually active woman who does not smoke.

While Dr. Sawaya praised the Well-Woman Task Force recommendations for their “comprehensive scope,” he also noted that the sheer number of recommendations might be “overwhelming and difficult to navigate.”¹ One tool for winnowing the recommendations comes from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, which offers an Electronic Preventive Services Selector (http://epss.ahrq.gov/PDA/index.jsp), available both online and as a smartphone app. Once the clinician plugs in the patient’s age and a few risk factors, the tool generates a list of recommended preventive services. This list of services has been evaluated by the US Preventive Services Task Force, with each recommendation graded “A” through “D,” based on benefits versus harms.

Back to that 41-year-old sexually active woman: Using the Electronic Preventive Services Selector, a list of as many as 20 grade A and B recommendations would be generated. However, only 3 of them would be grade A (screening for cervical cancer, HIV, and high blood pressure). An additional 2 grade B recommendations might apply to an average-risk patient such as this: screening for alcohol misuse and depression. All 5 services fall within the Well-Woman Task Force’s recommendations. They also have “good face validity with clinicians as being important, so it seems reasonable that these be prioritized above the others, at least at the first visit,” Dr. Sawaya says.¹

Clinicians can use a similar strategy for patients of various ages and risk factors.

Reference
1. Sawaya GF. Re-envisioning the annual well-woman visit: the task forward [editorial]. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(4):695–696.

The bottom line
By defining and implementing the foundational elements of women’s health, we can improve care for all women and ensure, as Dr. Conry emphasized during her tenure as ACOG president, “that every woman gets the care she needs, every time.”

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

When the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed in 2010, it represented an intended shift from reactive medicine, with its focus on acute and urgent needs, to a model focused on disease prevention.

OBG Management readers know about the important women’s health services ensured by the ACA, including well-woman care, as well as the key role played by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in winning this coverage. ACOG worked closely with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to help define this set of services. And the ACA ensured that women have access to these services, often without copays and deductibles.

ACOG and the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) work closely on many issues. At first independently and then together, the 2 organizations set out to explore some fundamental issues:

• How does a woman experience the new well-woman benefit when she visits her doctor?
• Does she receive a consistent care set?
• Do some patients have copays while patients in other clinics do not for the same services?
• What does well-woman care mean from one doctor to another, from an ObGyn to an internist to a family physician?

This article explores these issues.

2 initiatives focused on components of women’s health care
During her tenure as president of ACOG, Jeanne Conry, MD, PhD, decided to tackle clinical issues associated with well-woman care. She convened a Well-Woman Task Force, led by Haywood Brown, MD, and included the NWLC among other partner organizations (TABLE).

Table. Partipating organizations of the ACOG Well-Woman Task Force
• American Academy of Family Physicians
• American Academy of Pediatrics
• American Academy of Physician Assistants
• American College of Nurse–Midwives
• American College of Osteopathic Obstetricians and Gynecologists
• Association of Reproductive Health Professionals
• Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric, and Neonatal Nurses
• National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health
• National Medical Association
• National Women’s Law Center
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America
• Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine
• Society of Academic Specialists in General Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Society of Gynecologic Oncology

The NWLC and Brigham and Women’s Hospital also partnered with ACOG and others to help ensure a consistent patient experience. These 2 closely related initiatives were designed to work together to help patients and physicians understand and benefit from new coverage under the ACA.

1. How does a woman experience well-woman care?
Experts associated with these 2 initiatives recognized that well-woman care includes attention to the history, physical examination, counseling, and screening intended to maintain physical, mental, and social wellbeing and general health throughout a woman’s lifespan. Experts also recognized that the ACA guarantees coverage of at least one annual well-woman visit, although not all of the recommended components necessarily would be performed at the same visit or by the same provider.

For many women who have gained insurance coverage under the ACA, the well-woman visit represents their entry into the insured health care system. These women may have limited understanding of the services they should receive during this visit.

To address this issue, the NWLC invited ACOG to participate in its initiative with Brigham and Women’s Hospital to understand the well-woman visit from the patient’s point of view. This effort yielded patient education materials in English and Spanish that help women understand:

• that their health insurance now covers a well-woman visit
• what care is included in that visit
• that there is no deductible or copay for this visit
• how to prepare for this visit
• what questions to ask during the visit.

These materials help women understand that the purpose of the well-woman visit is to provide them with a chance to:

• “receive care and counseling that is appropriate, based on age, cognitive development, and life experience
• review their current health and risks to their health with their health care professional
• ask any questions they may have about their health or risk factors
• talk about what they can do to prevent future health problems
• build a trusting relationship with their health care provider, with an emphasis on confidentiality
• receive appropriate preventive screenings and immunizations and make sure they know which screenings and immunizations they should receive in the future
• review their reproductive plan and contraceptive choices.”¹                 

The materials also advise patients that they may be asked about:

• current health concerns
• current medications, both prescription and over the counter
• family history on both the mother’s and father’s sides
• life management, including family relationships, work, and stress
• substance use habits, including alcohol and tobacco
• sexual activity
• eating habits and physical activity
• past reproductive health experience and any pregnancy complications
• any memory problems (older women)
• screening for depression, anxiety, substance use disorders, and interpersonal violence.

To view some of these materials, visit http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/final_well-womanbrochure.pdf.

2. Does each woman receive consistent well-woman care?
ACOG’s Well-Woman Task Force was shaped by an awareness that many medical societies and government agencies provide recommendations and guidelines about the basic elements of women’s health. While these recommendations and guidelines all may be based on evidence and expert opinion, the recommendations vary. A goal of the task force was to work with providers across the women’s health spectrum to find consensus and provide guidance to women and clinicians with age-appropriate recommendations for a well-woman visit.

In the fall of 2015, the task force’s findings were published in an article entitled “Components of the well-woman visit” in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.² Those findings outline a core set of well-woman care practices across a woman’s lifespan, from adolescence through the reproductive years and into maturity, and they are usable by any provider who cares for adolescent girls or women.

ACOG has summarized its well-woman recommendations, by age, on its website,³ at http://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/ACOG-Departments/Annual-Womens-Health-Care/Well-Woman-Recommendations.

3. Do all women have a copay for the well-woman visit?
Because research has revealed that any type of copay or deductible for preventive care significantly lessens the likelihood that patients will seek out such care, the ACA sought to make basic preventive care available without cost sharing.⁴

The US Department of Health and Human Services notes that: “The Affordable Care Act requires most health plans to cover recommended preventive services without cost sharing. In 2011 and 2012, 71 million Americans with private health insurance gained access to preventive services with no cost sharing because of the law.”⁴

Grandfathered plans (those created or sold before March 23, 2010) are exempt from this requirement, as are Medicare, TRICARE, and traditional Medicaid plans.

4. What does well-woman care mean from one doctor to another?
Under the ACA, well-woman care can be provided by a “wide range of providers, including family physicians, internists, nurse–midwives, nurse practitioners, obstetrician-gynecologists, pediatricians, and physician assistants,” depending on the age of the patient, her particular needs and preferences, and access to health services.²

The ACOG Well-Woman Task Force “focused on delineating the well-woman visit throughout the lifespan, across all providers and health plans.”²

In determining the components of well-woman care, ACOG’s task force compiled existing guidelines from many sources, including the Department of Health and Human Services, the IOM, the US Preventive Services Task Force, and each member organization.

Members categorized guidelines as:

• single source (eg, abdominal examination)
• no agreement (breast cancer/mammography screening)
• limited agreement (pelvic examination)
• general agreement (hypertension, osteoporosis)
• sound agreement (screening for sexually transmitted infections)

The task force also agreed that final recommendations would rely on evidence-based guidelines, evidence-informed guidelines, and uniform expert agreement. Recommendations were considered “strong” if they relied primarily on evidence-based or evidence-informed guidelines and “qualified” if they relied primarily on expert consensus.

Guidelines were further separated into age bands:

• adolescents (13–18 years)
• reproductive-aged women (19–45 years)
• mature women (46–64 years)
• women older than 64 years.

The task force recommended that, during the well-woman visit, health care professionals educate patients about:

• healthy eating habits and maintenance of healthy weight
• exercise and physical activity
• seat belt use
• risk factors for certain types of cancer
• heart health
• breast health
• bone health
• safer sex practices and prevention of sexually transmitted infections
• healthy interpersonal relationships
• prevention and management of chronic disease
• resources for the patient (online, written, community, patient groups)
• medication use
• fall prevention.

Health care providers also should counsel patients regarding:

• recommended preventive screenings and immunizations
• any concerns about mood, such as prolonged periods of sadness, a failure to enjoy what they usually find pleasant, or anxiety or irritability that seems out of proportion to events
• what to expect in terms of effects on mood and anxiety at reproductive life transitions, including menarche, pregnancy, the postpartum period, and perimenopause
• body image issues
• what to expect in terms of the menstrual cycle during perimenopause and menopause
• reproductive health or fertility concerns
• reproductive life planning (contraception appropriate for life stage, reproductive plans, and risk factors, including risk factors for breast and ovarian cancer and cardiovascular disease)
• pregnancy planning, including attaining and maintaining a healthy weight and managing any chronic conditions before or during pregnancy
• what to expect during menopause, including signs and symptoms and options for addressing symptoms (midlife and older women)
• symptoms of cardiovascular disease
• urinary incontinence.

The task force acknowledged that not all of these recommendations can be carried out at a single well-woman visit or by a single provider.

See, again, ACOG’s specific well-woman recommendations, by age range, at http://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/ACOG-Departments/Annual-Womens-Health-Care/Well-Woman-Recommendations.³

How to winnow a long list of recommendations to determine the most pressing issues for a specific patient
In an editorial accompanying the ACOG Well-Woman Task Force report, entitled “Re-envisioning the annual well-woman visit: the task forward,” George F. Sawaya, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, devised a plan to determine the most pressing well-woman needs for a specific patient.¹ He chose as an example a 41-year-old sexually active woman who does not smoke.

While Dr. Sawaya praised the Well-Woman Task Force recommendations for their “comprehensive scope,” he also noted that the sheer number of recommendations might be “overwhelming and difficult to navigate.”¹ One tool for winnowing the recommendations comes from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, which offers an Electronic Preventive Services Selector (http://epss.ahrq.gov/PDA/index.jsp), available both online and as a smartphone app. Once the clinician plugs in the patient’s age and a few risk factors, the tool generates a list of recommended preventive services. This list of services has been evaluated by the US Preventive Services Task Force, with each recommendation graded “A” through “D,” based on benefits versus harms.

Back to that 41-year-old sexually active woman: Using the Electronic Preventive Services Selector, a list of as many as 20 grade A and B recommendations would be generated. However, only 3 of them would be grade A (screening for cervical cancer, HIV, and high blood pressure). An additional 2 grade B recommendations might apply to an average-risk patient such as this: screening for alcohol misuse and depression. All 5 services fall within the Well-Woman Task Force’s recommendations. They also have “good face validity with clinicians as being important, so it seems reasonable that these be prioritized above the others, at least at the first visit,” Dr. Sawaya says.¹

Clinicians can use a similar strategy for patients of various ages and risk factors.

Reference
1. Sawaya GF. Re-envisioning the annual well-woman visit: the task forward [editorial]. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(4):695–696.

The bottom line
By defining and implementing the foundational elements of women’s health, we can improve care for all women and ensure, as Dr. Conry emphasized during her tenure as ACOG president, “that every woman gets the care she needs, every time.”

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

When the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed in 2010, it represented an intended shift from reactive medicine, with its focus on acute and urgent needs, to a model focused on disease prevention.

OBG Management readers know about the important women’s health services ensured by the ACA, including well-woman care, as well as the key role played by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in winning this coverage. ACOG worked closely with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to help define this set of services. And the ACA ensured that women have access to these services, often without copays and deductibles.

ACOG and the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) work closely on many issues. At first independently and then together, the 2 organizations set out to explore some fundamental issues:

• How does a woman experience the new well-woman benefit when she visits her doctor?
• Does she receive a consistent care set?
• Do some patients have copays while patients in other clinics do not for the same services?
• What does well-woman care mean from one doctor to another, from an ObGyn to an internist to a family physician?

This article explores these issues.

2 initiatives focused on components of women’s health care
During her tenure as president of ACOG, Jeanne Conry, MD, PhD, decided to tackle clinical issues associated with well-woman care. She convened a Well-Woman Task Force, led by Haywood Brown, MD, and included the NWLC among other partner organizations (TABLE).

Table. Partipating organizations of the ACOG Well-Woman Task Force
• American Academy of Family Physicians
• American Academy of Pediatrics
• American Academy of Physician Assistants
• American College of Nurse–Midwives
• American College of Osteopathic Obstetricians and Gynecologists
• Association of Reproductive Health Professionals
• Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric, and Neonatal Nurses
• National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health
• National Medical Association
• National Women’s Law Center
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America
• Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine
• Society of Academic Specialists in General Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Society of Gynecologic Oncology

The NWLC and Brigham and Women’s Hospital also partnered with ACOG and others to help ensure a consistent patient experience. These 2 closely related initiatives were designed to work together to help patients and physicians understand and benefit from new coverage under the ACA.

1. How does a woman experience well-woman care?
Experts associated with these 2 initiatives recognized that well-woman care includes attention to the history, physical examination, counseling, and screening intended to maintain physical, mental, and social wellbeing and general health throughout a woman’s lifespan. Experts also recognized that the ACA guarantees coverage of at least one annual well-woman visit, although not all of the recommended components necessarily would be performed at the same visit or by the same provider.

For many women who have gained insurance coverage under the ACA, the well-woman visit represents their entry into the insured health care system. These women may have limited understanding of the services they should receive during this visit.

To address this issue, the NWLC invited ACOG to participate in its initiative with Brigham and Women’s Hospital to understand the well-woman visit from the patient’s point of view. This effort yielded patient education materials in English and Spanish that help women understand:

• that their health insurance now covers a well-woman visit
• what care is included in that visit
• that there is no deductible or copay for this visit
• how to prepare for this visit
• what questions to ask during the visit.

These materials help women understand that the purpose of the well-woman visit is to provide them with a chance to:

• “receive care and counseling that is appropriate, based on age, cognitive development, and life experience
• review their current health and risks to their health with their health care professional
• ask any questions they may have about their health or risk factors
• talk about what they can do to prevent future health problems
• build a trusting relationship with their health care provider, with an emphasis on confidentiality
• receive appropriate preventive screenings and immunizations and make sure they know which screenings and immunizations they should receive in the future
• review their reproductive plan and contraceptive choices.”¹                 

The materials also advise patients that they may be asked about:

• current health concerns
• current medications, both prescription and over the counter
• family history on both the mother’s and father’s sides
• life management, including family relationships, work, and stress
• substance use habits, including alcohol and tobacco
• sexual activity
• eating habits and physical activity
• past reproductive health experience and any pregnancy complications
• any memory problems (older women)
• screening for depression, anxiety, substance use disorders, and interpersonal violence.

To view some of these materials, visit http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/final_well-womanbrochure.pdf.

2. Does each woman receive consistent well-woman care?
ACOG’s Well-Woman Task Force was shaped by an awareness that many medical societies and government agencies provide recommendations and guidelines about the basic elements of women’s health. While these recommendations and guidelines all may be based on evidence and expert opinion, the recommendations vary. A goal of the task force was to work with providers across the women’s health spectrum to find consensus and provide guidance to women and clinicians with age-appropriate recommendations for a well-woman visit.

In the fall of 2015, the task force’s findings were published in an article entitled “Components of the well-woman visit” in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.² Those findings outline a core set of well-woman care practices across a woman’s lifespan, from adolescence through the reproductive years and into maturity, and they are usable by any provider who cares for adolescent girls or women.

ACOG has summarized its well-woman recommendations, by age, on its website,³ at http://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/ACOG-Departments/Annual-Womens-Health-Care/Well-Woman-Recommendations.

3. Do all women have a copay for the well-woman visit?
Because research has revealed that any type of copay or deductible for preventive care significantly lessens the likelihood that patients will seek out such care, the ACA sought to make basic preventive care available without cost sharing.⁴

The US Department of Health and Human Services notes that: “The Affordable Care Act requires most health plans to cover recommended preventive services without cost sharing. In 2011 and 2012, 71 million Americans with private health insurance gained access to preventive services with no cost sharing because of the law.”⁴

Grandfathered plans (those created or sold before March 23, 2010) are exempt from this requirement, as are Medicare, TRICARE, and traditional Medicaid plans.

4. What does well-woman care mean from one doctor to another?
Under the ACA, well-woman care can be provided by a “wide range of providers, including family physicians, internists, nurse–midwives, nurse practitioners, obstetrician-gynecologists, pediatricians, and physician assistants,” depending on the age of the patient, her particular needs and preferences, and access to health services.²

The ACOG Well-Woman Task Force “focused on delineating the well-woman visit throughout the lifespan, across all providers and health plans.”²

In determining the components of well-woman care, ACOG’s task force compiled existing guidelines from many sources, including the Department of Health and Human Services, the IOM, the US Preventive Services Task Force, and each member organization.

Members categorized guidelines as:

• single source (eg, abdominal examination)
• no agreement (breast cancer/mammography screening)
• limited agreement (pelvic examination)
• general agreement (hypertension, osteoporosis)
• sound agreement (screening for sexually transmitted infections)

The task force also agreed that final recommendations would rely on evidence-based guidelines, evidence-informed guidelines, and uniform expert agreement. Recommendations were considered “strong” if they relied primarily on evidence-based or evidence-informed guidelines and “qualified” if they relied primarily on expert consensus.

Guidelines were further separated into age bands:

• adolescents (13–18 years)
• reproductive-aged women (19–45 years)
• mature women (46–64 years)
• women older than 64 years.

The task force recommended that, during the well-woman visit, health care professionals educate patients about:

• healthy eating habits and maintenance of healthy weight
• exercise and physical activity
• seat belt use
• risk factors for certain types of cancer
• heart health
• breast health
• bone health
• safer sex practices and prevention of sexually transmitted infections
• healthy interpersonal relationships
• prevention and management of chronic disease
• resources for the patient (online, written, community, patient groups)
• medication use
• fall prevention.

Health care providers also should counsel patients regarding:

• recommended preventive screenings and immunizations
• any concerns about mood, such as prolonged periods of sadness, a failure to enjoy what they usually find pleasant, or anxiety or irritability that seems out of proportion to events
• what to expect in terms of effects on mood and anxiety at reproductive life transitions, including menarche, pregnancy, the postpartum period, and perimenopause
• body image issues
• what to expect in terms of the menstrual cycle during perimenopause and menopause
• reproductive health or fertility concerns
• reproductive life planning (contraception appropriate for life stage, reproductive plans, and risk factors, including risk factors for breast and ovarian cancer and cardiovascular disease)
• pregnancy planning, including attaining and maintaining a healthy weight and managing any chronic conditions before or during pregnancy
• what to expect during menopause, including signs and symptoms and options for addressing symptoms (midlife and older women)
• symptoms of cardiovascular disease
• urinary incontinence.

The task force acknowledged that not all of these recommendations can be carried out at a single well-woman visit or by a single provider.

See, again, ACOG’s specific well-woman recommendations, by age range, at http://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/ACOG-Departments/Annual-Womens-Health-Care/Well-Woman-Recommendations.³

How to winnow a long list of recommendations to determine the most pressing issues for a specific patient
In an editorial accompanying the ACOG Well-Woman Task Force report, entitled “Re-envisioning the annual well-woman visit: the task forward,” George F. Sawaya, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, devised a plan to determine the most pressing well-woman needs for a specific patient.¹ He chose as an example a 41-year-old sexually active woman who does not smoke.

While Dr. Sawaya praised the Well-Woman Task Force recommendations for their “comprehensive scope,” he also noted that the sheer number of recommendations might be “overwhelming and difficult to navigate.”¹ One tool for winnowing the recommendations comes from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, which offers an Electronic Preventive Services Selector (http://epss.ahrq.gov/PDA/index.jsp), available both online and as a smartphone app. Once the clinician plugs in the patient’s age and a few risk factors, the tool generates a list of recommended preventive services. This list of services has been evaluated by the US Preventive Services Task Force, with each recommendation graded “A” through “D,” based on benefits versus harms.

Back to that 41-year-old sexually active woman: Using the Electronic Preventive Services Selector, a list of as many as 20 grade A and B recommendations would be generated. However, only 3 of them would be grade A (screening for cervical cancer, HIV, and high blood pressure). An additional 2 grade B recommendations might apply to an average-risk patient such as this: screening for alcohol misuse and depression. All 5 services fall within the Well-Woman Task Force’s recommendations. They also have “good face validity with clinicians as being important, so it seems reasonable that these be prioritized above the others, at least at the first visit,” Dr. Sawaya says.¹

Clinicians can use a similar strategy for patients of various ages and risk factors.

Reference
1. Sawaya GF. Re-envisioning the annual well-woman visit: the task forward [editorial]. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(4):695–696.

The bottom line
By defining and implementing the foundational elements of women’s health, we can improve care for all women and ensure, as Dr. Conry emphasized during her tenure as ACOG president, “that every woman gets the care she needs, every time.”

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The Susan G. Komen Foundation estimates that 84% of breast cancers are found through mammography.¹ Clearly, the value of mammography is proven. But controversy and confusion abound on how much mammography, and beginning at what age, is best for women.

Currently, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) all have differing recommendations about mammography and about the importance of clinical breast examinations. These inconsistencies largely are due to different interpretations of the same data, not the data itself, and tend to center on how harm is defined and measured. Importantly, these differences can wreak havoc on our patients’ confidence in our counsel and decision making, and can complicate women’s access to screening. Under the Affordable Care Act, women are guaranteed coverage of annual mammograms, but new USPSTF recommendations, due out soon, may undermine that guarantee.

On October 20, ACOG responded to the ACS’ new recommendations on breast cancer screening by emphasizing our continued advice that women should begin annual mammography screening at age 40, along with a clinical breast exam.²

Consensus conference plansIn an effort to address widespread confusion among patients, health care professionals, and payers, ACOG is convening a consensus conference in January 2016, with the goal of arriving at a consistent set of guidelines that can be agreed to, implemented clinically across the country, and hopefully adopted by insurers, as well. Major organizations and providers of women’s health care, including ACS, will gather to evaluate and interpret the data in greater detail and to consider the available data in the broader context of patient care.

Without doubt, guidelines and recommendations will need to evolve as new evidence emerges, but our hope is that scientific and medical organizations can look at the same evidence and speak with one voice on what is best for women’s health. Our patients would benefit from that alone.

ACOG’s recommendations, summarized

• Clinical breast examination every year for women aged 19 and older.
• Screening mammography every year for women aged 40 and older.
• Breast self-awareness has the potential to detect palpable breast cancer and can be recommended.²

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The Susan G. Komen Foundation estimates that 84% of breast cancers are found through mammography.¹ Clearly, the value of mammography is proven. But controversy and confusion abound on how much mammography, and beginning at what age, is best for women.

Currently, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) all have differing recommendations about mammography and about the importance of clinical breast examinations. These inconsistencies largely are due to different interpretations of the same data, not the data itself, and tend to center on how harm is defined and measured. Importantly, these differences can wreak havoc on our patients’ confidence in our counsel and decision making, and can complicate women’s access to screening. Under the Affordable Care Act, women are guaranteed coverage of annual mammograms, but new USPSTF recommendations, due out soon, may undermine that guarantee.

On October 20, ACOG responded to the ACS’ new recommendations on breast cancer screening by emphasizing our continued advice that women should begin annual mammography screening at age 40, along with a clinical breast exam.²

Consensus conference plansIn an effort to address widespread confusion among patients, health care professionals, and payers, ACOG is convening a consensus conference in January 2016, with the goal of arriving at a consistent set of guidelines that can be agreed to, implemented clinically across the country, and hopefully adopted by insurers, as well. Major organizations and providers of women’s health care, including ACS, will gather to evaluate and interpret the data in greater detail and to consider the available data in the broader context of patient care.

Without doubt, guidelines and recommendations will need to evolve as new evidence emerges, but our hope is that scientific and medical organizations can look at the same evidence and speak with one voice on what is best for women’s health. Our patients would benefit from that alone.

ACOG’s recommendations, summarized

• Clinical breast examination every year for women aged 19 and older.
• Screening mammography every year for women aged 40 and older.
• Breast self-awareness has the potential to detect palpable breast cancer and can be recommended.²

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The Susan G. Komen Foundation estimates that 84% of breast cancers are found through mammography.¹ Clearly, the value of mammography is proven. But controversy and confusion abound on how much mammography, and beginning at what age, is best for women.

Currently, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) all have differing recommendations about mammography and about the importance of clinical breast examinations. These inconsistencies largely are due to different interpretations of the same data, not the data itself, and tend to center on how harm is defined and measured. Importantly, these differences can wreak havoc on our patients’ confidence in our counsel and decision making, and can complicate women’s access to screening. Under the Affordable Care Act, women are guaranteed coverage of annual mammograms, but new USPSTF recommendations, due out soon, may undermine that guarantee.

On October 20, ACOG responded to the ACS’ new recommendations on breast cancer screening by emphasizing our continued advice that women should begin annual mammography screening at age 40, along with a clinical breast exam.²

Consensus conference plansIn an effort to address widespread confusion among patients, health care professionals, and payers, ACOG is convening a consensus conference in January 2016, with the goal of arriving at a consistent set of guidelines that can be agreed to, implemented clinically across the country, and hopefully adopted by insurers, as well. Major organizations and providers of women’s health care, including ACS, will gather to evaluate and interpret the data in greater detail and to consider the available data in the broader context of patient care.

Without doubt, guidelines and recommendations will need to evolve as new evidence emerges, but our hope is that scientific and medical organizations can look at the same evidence and speak with one voice on what is best for women’s health. Our patients would benefit from that alone.

ACOG’s recommendations, summarized

• Clinical breast examination every year for women aged 19 and older.
• Screening mammography every year for women aged 40 and older.
• Breast self-awareness has the potential to detect palpable breast cancer and can be recommended.²

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

In a widely anticipated judgment on the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the law on June 26, 2015. The case at hand, King v. Burwell, challenged whether individuals purchasing health insurance through federal exchanges were eligible for federal premium subsidies. This ruling cemented the ACA into law and avoided a potential calamity in the private health insurance market. Let’s take a closer look.

What the case was about
The ACA allows states to set up their own health insurance exchanges or participate in a federally run exchange. Although the drafters of the ACA had expected each state to set up its own exchange, two-thirds of the states declined to do so, many in opposition to the ACA. As a result, 7 million citizens in 34 states now purchase their health ­insurance through federally created exchanges.

The plaintiffs in King v. Burwell argued that, because the legislation refers to those enrolled “through an Exchange established by the State,” individuals in states with federally run exchanges are not eligible for subsidies.

The law states:

The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether to adhere to those exact words or to honor Congress’ intent to allow individuals to purchase subsidized insurance on any type of exchange.

What might have happened
We’ve explored in previous articles the interconnectedness of many sections of the ACA. Nowhere is that interconnectedness more clearly demonstrated than here. In order to ensure that private health insurers provide better coverage, the law requires them to abide by important consumer protections, including the elimination of “preexisting condition” exclusions. In order to prevent adverse selection and keep insurers solvent under these new rules, all individuals are required to have health care coverage—the individual mandate. If everyone is required to purchase health insurance, it has to be affordable, so lower-income individuals were promised subsidies, paid for 100% by the federal government, to help them cover their premiums when insurance is purchased through an exchange. Take away the subsidies and the whole thing starts to unravel.

The Urban Institute estimated that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of King, which would have eliminated the subsidies in states using a federal exchange, would have reduced federal tax subsidies by $29 billion in 2016, making coverage unaffordable for many and increasing the ranks of the uninsured by 8.2 million people.¹

Louise Sheiner and Brendan Mochoruk of the Brookings Institute speculated that healthy individuals would disproportionately leave the marketplace, triggering 35% increases in insurance premiums for those remaining, as well as significant increases in premiums for those who just lost their subsidies.² Many observers, including these experts, forecast that insurance companies would exit the federal exchanges altogether, triggering a health insurance “death spiral”: As premiums rise, the healthiest customers leave the marketplace, causing premiums to rise more, causing more healthy people to leave, and so on.

Clearly, this Supreme Court decision has had dramatic, long-term, real-world effects on millions of Americans. On the national level, 6,387,789 individuals were at risk of losing their tax credits if the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of King. That number represents more than $1.7 billion in total monthly tax credits. For a look at how a judgment in favor of King would have affected subsidies on a state-by-state basis, see TABLE 1.

How premium subsidies work
Premium subsidies are actually tax credits. Individuals and families can qualify for them to purchase any type of health insurance offered on an exchange, except catastrophic coverage. To receive the premium tax credit for coverage starting in 2015, a marketplace enrollee must:

The premium tax credit caps the amount that an individual or family must spend on their monthly payments for health insurance. The cap depends on the family’s income; lower-income families have a lower cap. The amount of the tax credit remains the same, so a person who purchases a more expensive plan pays the cost difference (TABLE 2).

The ruling’s effect on women’s health
On June 26, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists President Mark S. DeFrancesco, MD, MBA, hailed the Supreme Court decision, saying, “Importantly, recent data have shown that newly insured adults under the ACA were more likely to be ­women. Those who did gain coverage through the ACA reported better access to health care and better financial security from medical costs.”

“Without question, many women enrollees were able to purchase health insurance coverage due, in part, to the ACA subsidies that helped make this purchase affordable. In fact, government data have suggested that roughly 85% of health exchange enrollees received subsidies,” Dr. DeFrancesco said.

“If the Supreme Court had overturned this important assistance, approximately 4.8 million women would have been unable to afford the coverage that they need. The impact also would have been widespread; as these women were forced to leave the insurance marketplace, it is likely that premiums throughout the marketplace would have risen dramatically,” he continued.

“Instead, patients—especially the low- and moderate-income American women who have particularly benefited from ACA subsidies—will continue to have the peace of mind that comes with insurance coverage.”

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

In a widely anticipated judgment on the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the law on June 26, 2015. The case at hand, King v. Burwell, challenged whether individuals purchasing health insurance through federal exchanges were eligible for federal premium subsidies. This ruling cemented the ACA into law and avoided a potential calamity in the private health insurance market. Let’s take a closer look.

What the case was about
The ACA allows states to set up their own health insurance exchanges or participate in a federally run exchange. Although the drafters of the ACA had expected each state to set up its own exchange, two-thirds of the states declined to do so, many in opposition to the ACA. As a result, 7 million citizens in 34 states now purchase their health ­insurance through federally created exchanges.

The plaintiffs in King v. Burwell argued that, because the legislation refers to those enrolled “through an Exchange established by the State,” individuals in states with federally run exchanges are not eligible for subsidies.

The law states:

The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether to adhere to those exact words or to honor Congress’ intent to allow individuals to purchase subsidized insurance on any type of exchange.

What might have happened
We’ve explored in previous articles the interconnectedness of many sections of the ACA. Nowhere is that interconnectedness more clearly demonstrated than here. In order to ensure that private health insurers provide better coverage, the law requires them to abide by important consumer protections, including the elimination of “preexisting condition” exclusions. In order to prevent adverse selection and keep insurers solvent under these new rules, all individuals are required to have health care coverage—the individual mandate. If everyone is required to purchase health insurance, it has to be affordable, so lower-income individuals were promised subsidies, paid for 100% by the federal government, to help them cover their premiums when insurance is purchased through an exchange. Take away the subsidies and the whole thing starts to unravel.

The Urban Institute estimated that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of King, which would have eliminated the subsidies in states using a federal exchange, would have reduced federal tax subsidies by $29 billion in 2016, making coverage unaffordable for many and increasing the ranks of the uninsured by 8.2 million people.¹

Louise Sheiner and Brendan Mochoruk of the Brookings Institute speculated that healthy individuals would disproportionately leave the marketplace, triggering 35% increases in insurance premiums for those remaining, as well as significant increases in premiums for those who just lost their subsidies.² Many observers, including these experts, forecast that insurance companies would exit the federal exchanges altogether, triggering a health insurance “death spiral”: As premiums rise, the healthiest customers leave the marketplace, causing premiums to rise more, causing more healthy people to leave, and so on.

Clearly, this Supreme Court decision has had dramatic, long-term, real-world effects on millions of Americans. On the national level, 6,387,789 individuals were at risk of losing their tax credits if the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of King. That number represents more than $1.7 billion in total monthly tax credits. For a look at how a judgment in favor of King would have affected subsidies on a state-by-state basis, see TABLE 1.

How premium subsidies work
Premium subsidies are actually tax credits. Individuals and families can qualify for them to purchase any type of health insurance offered on an exchange, except catastrophic coverage. To receive the premium tax credit for coverage starting in 2015, a marketplace enrollee must:

The premium tax credit caps the amount that an individual or family must spend on their monthly payments for health insurance. The cap depends on the family’s income; lower-income families have a lower cap. The amount of the tax credit remains the same, so a person who purchases a more expensive plan pays the cost difference (TABLE 2).

The ruling’s effect on women’s health
On June 26, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists President Mark S. DeFrancesco, MD, MBA, hailed the Supreme Court decision, saying, “Importantly, recent data have shown that newly insured adults under the ACA were more likely to be ­women. Those who did gain coverage through the ACA reported better access to health care and better financial security from medical costs.”

“Without question, many women enrollees were able to purchase health insurance coverage due, in part, to the ACA subsidies that helped make this purchase affordable. In fact, government data have suggested that roughly 85% of health exchange enrollees received subsidies,” Dr. DeFrancesco said.

“If the Supreme Court had overturned this important assistance, approximately 4.8 million women would have been unable to afford the coverage that they need. The impact also would have been widespread; as these women were forced to leave the insurance marketplace, it is likely that premiums throughout the marketplace would have risen dramatically,” he continued.

“Instead, patients—especially the low- and moderate-income American women who have particularly benefited from ACA subsidies—will continue to have the peace of mind that comes with insurance coverage.”

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

In a widely anticipated judgment on the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the law on June 26, 2015. The case at hand, King v. Burwell, challenged whether individuals purchasing health insurance through federal exchanges were eligible for federal premium subsidies. This ruling cemented the ACA into law and avoided a potential calamity in the private health insurance market. Let’s take a closer look.

What the case was about
The ACA allows states to set up their own health insurance exchanges or participate in a federally run exchange. Although the drafters of the ACA had expected each state to set up its own exchange, two-thirds of the states declined to do so, many in opposition to the ACA. As a result, 7 million citizens in 34 states now purchase their health ­insurance through federally created exchanges.

The plaintiffs in King v. Burwell argued that, because the legislation refers to those enrolled “through an Exchange established by the State,” individuals in states with federally run exchanges are not eligible for subsidies.

The law states:

The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether to adhere to those exact words or to honor Congress’ intent to allow individuals to purchase subsidized insurance on any type of exchange.

What might have happened
We’ve explored in previous articles the interconnectedness of many sections of the ACA. Nowhere is that interconnectedness more clearly demonstrated than here. In order to ensure that private health insurers provide better coverage, the law requires them to abide by important consumer protections, including the elimination of “preexisting condition” exclusions. In order to prevent adverse selection and keep insurers solvent under these new rules, all individuals are required to have health care coverage—the individual mandate. If everyone is required to purchase health insurance, it has to be affordable, so lower-income individuals were promised subsidies, paid for 100% by the federal government, to help them cover their premiums when insurance is purchased through an exchange. Take away the subsidies and the whole thing starts to unravel.

The Urban Institute estimated that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of King, which would have eliminated the subsidies in states using a federal exchange, would have reduced federal tax subsidies by $29 billion in 2016, making coverage unaffordable for many and increasing the ranks of the uninsured by 8.2 million people.¹

Louise Sheiner and Brendan Mochoruk of the Brookings Institute speculated that healthy individuals would disproportionately leave the marketplace, triggering 35% increases in insurance premiums for those remaining, as well as significant increases in premiums for those who just lost their subsidies.² Many observers, including these experts, forecast that insurance companies would exit the federal exchanges altogether, triggering a health insurance “death spiral”: As premiums rise, the healthiest customers leave the marketplace, causing premiums to rise more, causing more healthy people to leave, and so on.

Clearly, this Supreme Court decision has had dramatic, long-term, real-world effects on millions of Americans. On the national level, 6,387,789 individuals were at risk of losing their tax credits if the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of King. That number represents more than $1.7 billion in total monthly tax credits. For a look at how a judgment in favor of King would have affected subsidies on a state-by-state basis, see TABLE 1.

How premium subsidies work
Premium subsidies are actually tax credits. Individuals and families can qualify for them to purchase any type of health insurance offered on an exchange, except catastrophic coverage. To receive the premium tax credit for coverage starting in 2015, a marketplace enrollee must:

The premium tax credit caps the amount that an individual or family must spend on their monthly payments for health insurance. The cap depends on the family’s income; lower-income families have a lower cap. The amount of the tax credit remains the same, so a person who purchases a more expensive plan pays the cost difference (TABLE 2).

The ruling’s effect on women’s health
On June 26, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists President Mark S. DeFrancesco, MD, MBA, hailed the Supreme Court decision, saying, “Importantly, recent data have shown that newly insured adults under the ACA were more likely to be ­women. Those who did gain coverage through the ACA reported better access to health care and better financial security from medical costs.”

“Without question, many women enrollees were able to purchase health insurance coverage due, in part, to the ACA subsidies that helped make this purchase affordable. In fact, government data have suggested that roughly 85% of health exchange enrollees received subsidies,” Dr. DeFrancesco said.

“If the Supreme Court had overturned this important assistance, approximately 4.8 million women would have been unable to afford the coverage that they need. The impact also would have been widespread; as these women were forced to leave the insurance marketplace, it is likely that premiums throughout the marketplace would have risen dramatically,” he continued.

“Instead, patients—especially the low- and moderate-income American women who have particularly benefited from ACA subsidies—will continue to have the peace of mind that comes with insurance coverage.”

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Congratulations, OBG Management readers! After years of hard work and collective advocacy on your part, the US Congress finally passed, and President Barack Obama quickly signed into law, a permanent repeal of the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) physician payment system. Yes, celebrations are in order.

The US House of Representatives passed the bill, HR 2, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA), sponsored by American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Fellow and US Rep. ­Michael ­Burgess (R-TX), on March 26, with 382 Republicans and Democrats voting “Yes.” The Senate followed, on April 14, and agreed with the House to repeal, forever, the Medicare SGR, passing the Burgess bill without amendment, on a bipartisan vote of 92–8. With only hours to go before the scheduled 21.2% cut took effect, the President signed the bill, now Public Law (PL) 114-10, on April 16. The President noted that he was “proud to sign the bill into law.” ACOG is proud to have been such an important part of this landmark moment.

SGR: the perennial nemesis of physicians
The SGR has wreaked havoc on medicine and patient care for 15 years or more. Approximately 30,000 ObGyns participate in Medicare, and many private health insurers use Medicare payment policies, as does TriCare, the nation’s health care coverage for military members and their families. The SGR’s effect was felt widely across medicine, making it nearly impossible for physician practices to invest in health information technology and other patient safety advances, or even to plan for the next year or continue accepting Medicare patients.

When it was introduced last year, HR 2 was supported by more than 600 national and state medical societies and specialty organizations, plus patient and provider organizations, policy think tanks, and advocacy groups across the political spectrum.

ACOG Fellows petitioned their members of Congress with incredible passion, perseverance, and commitment to put an end to the SGR wrecking ball. Hundreds flew into Washington, DC, sent thousands of emails, made phone calls, wrote letters, and personally lobbied at home and in the halls of Congress.

Special kudos, too, to our champions in Congress, and there are many, led by ACOG Fellows and US Reps. Dr. Burgess and Phil Roe, MD (R-TN). Burgess wrote the House bill and, together with Roe, pushed nonstop to get this bill over the finish line. It wouldn’t have happened without them.

ACOG worked tirelessly on its own and in coalition with the American Medical Association, surgical groups, and many other partners. We were able to win important provisions in the statute that we anticipate will greatly help ObGyns successfully transition to this new payment system.

PL114-10 replaces the SGR with a new payment system intended to promote care coordination and quality improvement and lead to better health for our nation’s seniors. Congress developed this new payment plan with the physician community, rather than imposing it on us. That’s why throughout the statute, we see repeated requirements that the Secretary of Health and Human Services must develop quality measures, alternative payment models, and a host of key aspects with input from and in consultation with physicians and the relevant medical specialties, ensuring that physicians retain their preeminent roles in these areas. Funding is provided for quality measure development at $15 million per year from 2015 to 2019.

This law will likely change physician practices more than the ACA ever will, and Congress agreed that physicians should be integral to its development to ensure that they can continue to thrive and provide high-quality care and access for their patients.

Let’s take a closer look at the new Medicare payment system—especially what it will mean for your practice.

What the new law does
Important provisions

MACRA stabilizes the Medicare payment system by permanently repealing the SGR and scheduling payments into the future:

Two payment system options reward continuous quality improvement
Option 1: MIPS. MACRA consolidates and expands pay-for-performance incentives within the old SGR fee-for-service system, creating the new MIPS. Under MIPS, the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), electronic health record (EHR) meaningful use incentive program, and physician value-based modifiers (VBMs) become a single program. In 2019, a physician’s individual score on these measures will be used to adjust his or her Medicare payments, and the penalties previously associated with these programs come to an end.

MACRA creates 4 categories of measures that are weighted to calculate an individual physician’s MIPS score:

Physicians will only be assessed on the categories, measures, and activities that apply to them. A physician’s composite score (0–100) will be compared with a performance threshold that reflects all physicians. Those who score above the threshold will receive increased payments; those who score below the threshold will receive reduced payments. Physicians will know these thresholds in advance and will know the score they must reach to avoid penalties and win higher reimbursements in each performance period.

As physicians as a whole improve their performance, the threshold will move with them. So each year, physicians will have the incentive to keep improving their quality, resource use, clinical improvement, and EHR use. A physician’s payment adjustment in one year will not affect his or her payment adjustment in the next year.

The range of potential payment adjustments based on MIPS performance measures increases each year through 2022. Providers who have high scores are rewarded with a 4% increase in 2019. By 2022, the reward is 9%. The program is budget-neutral, so total positive adjustments across all providers will equal total negative adjustments across all providers to poor performers. Separate funds are set aside to reward the highest performers, who will earn bonuses of up to 10% of their fee-for-service payment rate from 2019 through 2024, as well as to help low performers improve and qualify for increased payments from 2016 through 2020.

Help for physicians includes:

Option 2: APMs. Physicians can earn higher fees by opting out of MIPS fee for service and participating in APMs. The law defines qualifying APMs as those that require participating providers to take on “more than nominal” financial risk, report quality measures, and use certified EHR technology.

APMs will cover multiple services, show that they can limit the growth of spending, and use performance-based methods of compensation. These and other provisions will likely continue the trend away from physicians practicing in solo or small-group fee-for-service practices into risk-based multispecialty settings that are subject to increased management and oversight.

From 2019 to 2024, qualified APM physicians will receive a 5% annual lump sum bonus based on their prior year’s physician fee-schedule payments plus shared savings from participation. This bonus is based on patient volume, not just revenue, to make it easier for ObGyns to qualify. To make the bonus widely available, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must test APMs designed for specific specialties and physicians in small practices. As in MIPS, top APM performers will also receive an additional bonus.

To qualify, physicians must meet increasing thresholds for the percentage of their revenue that they receive through APMs. Those who are below but near the required level of APM revenue can be exempted from MIPS adjustments.

Who pays the bill?
Medicare beneficiaries pay more
The new law increases the percentage of Medicare Parts B and D premiums that high-income beneficiaries must pay beginning in 2018:

This change will affect about 2% of Medicare beneficiaries; half of all Medicare beneficiaries currently have annual incomes below $26,000.¹

Medigap “first-dollar coverage” will end
Many Medigap plans on the market today provide “first-dollar coverage” for beneficiaries, which means that the plans pay the deductibles and copayments so that the beneficiaries have no out-of-pocket costs. Beginning in 2020, Medigap plans will only be available to cover costs above the Medicare Part B deductible, currently $147 per year, for new Medigap enrollees. Many lawmakers thought it was important for Medicare beneficiaries to have “skin in the game.”

The law cuts payments for some providers
To partially offset the cost of repealing the SGR, MACRA cuts Medicare payments to hospitals and postacute providers. It:

The law extends many programs
These programs are vital to support the future ObGyn workforce and access to health care. Among these programs are:

Next steps
It’s very important that ObGyns and other physicians use these early years to understand and get ready for the new payment systems. ACOG is developing educational material for our members, and will work closely with our colleague medical organizations and the Department of Health and Human Services to develop key aspects of the law and ensure that it is properly implemented to work for physicians and patients.

Share your thoughts on this article! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Congratulations, OBG Management readers! After years of hard work and collective advocacy on your part, the US Congress finally passed, and President Barack Obama quickly signed into law, a permanent repeal of the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) physician payment system. Yes, celebrations are in order.

The US House of Representatives passed the bill, HR 2, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA), sponsored by American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Fellow and US Rep. ­Michael ­Burgess (R-TX), on March 26, with 382 Republicans and Democrats voting “Yes.” The Senate followed, on April 14, and agreed with the House to repeal, forever, the Medicare SGR, passing the Burgess bill without amendment, on a bipartisan vote of 92–8. With only hours to go before the scheduled 21.2% cut took effect, the President signed the bill, now Public Law (PL) 114-10, on April 16. The President noted that he was “proud to sign the bill into law.” ACOG is proud to have been such an important part of this landmark moment.

SGR: the perennial nemesis of physicians
The SGR has wreaked havoc on medicine and patient care for 15 years or more. Approximately 30,000 ObGyns participate in Medicare, and many private health insurers use Medicare payment policies, as does TriCare, the nation’s health care coverage for military members and their families. The SGR’s effect was felt widely across medicine, making it nearly impossible for physician practices to invest in health information technology and other patient safety advances, or even to plan for the next year or continue accepting Medicare patients.

When it was introduced last year, HR 2 was supported by more than 600 national and state medical societies and specialty organizations, plus patient and provider organizations, policy think tanks, and advocacy groups across the political spectrum.

ACOG Fellows petitioned their members of Congress with incredible passion, perseverance, and commitment to put an end to the SGR wrecking ball. Hundreds flew into Washington, DC, sent thousands of emails, made phone calls, wrote letters, and personally lobbied at home and in the halls of Congress.

Special kudos, too, to our champions in Congress, and there are many, led by ACOG Fellows and US Reps. Dr. Burgess and Phil Roe, MD (R-TN). Burgess wrote the House bill and, together with Roe, pushed nonstop to get this bill over the finish line. It wouldn’t have happened without them.

ACOG worked tirelessly on its own and in coalition with the American Medical Association, surgical groups, and many other partners. We were able to win important provisions in the statute that we anticipate will greatly help ObGyns successfully transition to this new payment system.

PL114-10 replaces the SGR with a new payment system intended to promote care coordination and quality improvement and lead to better health for our nation’s seniors. Congress developed this new payment plan with the physician community, rather than imposing it on us. That’s why throughout the statute, we see repeated requirements that the Secretary of Health and Human Services must develop quality measures, alternative payment models, and a host of key aspects with input from and in consultation with physicians and the relevant medical specialties, ensuring that physicians retain their preeminent roles in these areas. Funding is provided for quality measure development at $15 million per year from 2015 to 2019.

This law will likely change physician practices more than the ACA ever will, and Congress agreed that physicians should be integral to its development to ensure that they can continue to thrive and provide high-quality care and access for their patients.

Let’s take a closer look at the new Medicare payment system—especially what it will mean for your practice.

What the new law does
Important provisions

MACRA stabilizes the Medicare payment system by permanently repealing the SGR and scheduling payments into the future:

Two payment system options reward continuous quality improvement
Option 1: MIPS. MACRA consolidates and expands pay-for-performance incentives within the old SGR fee-for-service system, creating the new MIPS. Under MIPS, the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), electronic health record (EHR) meaningful use incentive program, and physician value-based modifiers (VBMs) become a single program. In 2019, a physician’s individual score on these measures will be used to adjust his or her Medicare payments, and the penalties previously associated with these programs come to an end.

MACRA creates 4 categories of measures that are weighted to calculate an individual physician’s MIPS score:

Physicians will only be assessed on the categories, measures, and activities that apply to them. A physician’s composite score (0–100) will be compared with a performance threshold that reflects all physicians. Those who score above the threshold will receive increased payments; those who score below the threshold will receive reduced payments. Physicians will know these thresholds in advance and will know the score they must reach to avoid penalties and win higher reimbursements in each performance period.

As physicians as a whole improve their performance, the threshold will move with them. So each year, physicians will have the incentive to keep improving their quality, resource use, clinical improvement, and EHR use. A physician’s payment adjustment in one year will not affect his or her payment adjustment in the next year.

The range of potential payment adjustments based on MIPS performance measures increases each year through 2022. Providers who have high scores are rewarded with a 4% increase in 2019. By 2022, the reward is 9%. The program is budget-neutral, so total positive adjustments across all providers will equal total negative adjustments across all providers to poor performers. Separate funds are set aside to reward the highest performers, who will earn bonuses of up to 10% of their fee-for-service payment rate from 2019 through 2024, as well as to help low performers improve and qualify for increased payments from 2016 through 2020.

Help for physicians includes:

Option 2: APMs. Physicians can earn higher fees by opting out of MIPS fee for service and participating in APMs. The law defines qualifying APMs as those that require participating providers to take on “more than nominal” financial risk, report quality measures, and use certified EHR technology.

APMs will cover multiple services, show that they can limit the growth of spending, and use performance-based methods of compensation. These and other provisions will likely continue the trend away from physicians practicing in solo or small-group fee-for-service practices into risk-based multispecialty settings that are subject to increased management and oversight.

From 2019 to 2024, qualified APM physicians will receive a 5% annual lump sum bonus based on their prior year’s physician fee-schedule payments plus shared savings from participation. This bonus is based on patient volume, not just revenue, to make it easier for ObGyns to qualify. To make the bonus widely available, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must test APMs designed for specific specialties and physicians in small practices. As in MIPS, top APM performers will also receive an additional bonus.

To qualify, physicians must meet increasing thresholds for the percentage of their revenue that they receive through APMs. Those who are below but near the required level of APM revenue can be exempted from MIPS adjustments.

Who pays the bill?
Medicare beneficiaries pay more
The new law increases the percentage of Medicare Parts B and D premiums that high-income beneficiaries must pay beginning in 2018:

This change will affect about 2% of Medicare beneficiaries; half of all Medicare beneficiaries currently have annual incomes below $26,000.¹

Medigap “first-dollar coverage” will end
Many Medigap plans on the market today provide “first-dollar coverage” for beneficiaries, which means that the plans pay the deductibles and copayments so that the beneficiaries have no out-of-pocket costs. Beginning in 2020, Medigap plans will only be available to cover costs above the Medicare Part B deductible, currently $147 per year, for new Medigap enrollees. Many lawmakers thought it was important for Medicare beneficiaries to have “skin in the game.”

The law cuts payments for some providers
To partially offset the cost of repealing the SGR, MACRA cuts Medicare payments to hospitals and postacute providers. It:

The law extends many programs
These programs are vital to support the future ObGyn workforce and access to health care. Among these programs are:

Next steps
It’s very important that ObGyns and other physicians use these early years to understand and get ready for the new payment systems. ACOG is developing educational material for our members, and will work closely with our colleague medical organizations and the Department of Health and Human Services to develop key aspects of the law and ensure that it is properly implemented to work for physicians and patients.

Share your thoughts on this article! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Congratulations, OBG Management readers! After years of hard work and collective advocacy on your part, the US Congress finally passed, and President Barack Obama quickly signed into law, a permanent repeal of the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) physician payment system. Yes, celebrations are in order.

The US House of Representatives passed the bill, HR 2, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA), sponsored by American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Fellow and US Rep. ­Michael ­Burgess (R-TX), on March 26, with 382 Republicans and Democrats voting “Yes.” The Senate followed, on April 14, and agreed with the House to repeal, forever, the Medicare SGR, passing the Burgess bill without amendment, on a bipartisan vote of 92–8. With only hours to go before the scheduled 21.2% cut took effect, the President signed the bill, now Public Law (PL) 114-10, on April 16. The President noted that he was “proud to sign the bill into law.” ACOG is proud to have been such an important part of this landmark moment.

SGR: the perennial nemesis of physicians
The SGR has wreaked havoc on medicine and patient care for 15 years or more. Approximately 30,000 ObGyns participate in Medicare, and many private health insurers use Medicare payment policies, as does TriCare, the nation’s health care coverage for military members and their families. The SGR’s effect was felt widely across medicine, making it nearly impossible for physician practices to invest in health information technology and other patient safety advances, or even to plan for the next year or continue accepting Medicare patients.

When it was introduced last year, HR 2 was supported by more than 600 national and state medical societies and specialty organizations, plus patient and provider organizations, policy think tanks, and advocacy groups across the political spectrum.

ACOG Fellows petitioned their members of Congress with incredible passion, perseverance, and commitment to put an end to the SGR wrecking ball. Hundreds flew into Washington, DC, sent thousands of emails, made phone calls, wrote letters, and personally lobbied at home and in the halls of Congress.

Special kudos, too, to our champions in Congress, and there are many, led by ACOG Fellows and US Reps. Dr. Burgess and Phil Roe, MD (R-TN). Burgess wrote the House bill and, together with Roe, pushed nonstop to get this bill over the finish line. It wouldn’t have happened without them.

ACOG worked tirelessly on its own and in coalition with the American Medical Association, surgical groups, and many other partners. We were able to win important provisions in the statute that we anticipate will greatly help ObGyns successfully transition to this new payment system.

PL114-10 replaces the SGR with a new payment system intended to promote care coordination and quality improvement and lead to better health for our nation’s seniors. Congress developed this new payment plan with the physician community, rather than imposing it on us. That’s why throughout the statute, we see repeated requirements that the Secretary of Health and Human Services must develop quality measures, alternative payment models, and a host of key aspects with input from and in consultation with physicians and the relevant medical specialties, ensuring that physicians retain their preeminent roles in these areas. Funding is provided for quality measure development at $15 million per year from 2015 to 2019.

This law will likely change physician practices more than the ACA ever will, and Congress agreed that physicians should be integral to its development to ensure that they can continue to thrive and provide high-quality care and access for their patients.

Let’s take a closer look at the new Medicare payment system—especially what it will mean for your practice.

What the new law does
Important provisions

MACRA stabilizes the Medicare payment system by permanently repealing the SGR and scheduling payments into the future:

Two payment system options reward continuous quality improvement
Option 1: MIPS. MACRA consolidates and expands pay-for-performance incentives within the old SGR fee-for-service system, creating the new MIPS. Under MIPS, the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), electronic health record (EHR) meaningful use incentive program, and physician value-based modifiers (VBMs) become a single program. In 2019, a physician’s individual score on these measures will be used to adjust his or her Medicare payments, and the penalties previously associated with these programs come to an end.

MACRA creates 4 categories of measures that are weighted to calculate an individual physician’s MIPS score:

Physicians will only be assessed on the categories, measures, and activities that apply to them. A physician’s composite score (0–100) will be compared with a performance threshold that reflects all physicians. Those who score above the threshold will receive increased payments; those who score below the threshold will receive reduced payments. Physicians will know these thresholds in advance and will know the score they must reach to avoid penalties and win higher reimbursements in each performance period.

As physicians as a whole improve their performance, the threshold will move with them. So each year, physicians will have the incentive to keep improving their quality, resource use, clinical improvement, and EHR use. A physician’s payment adjustment in one year will not affect his or her payment adjustment in the next year.

The range of potential payment adjustments based on MIPS performance measures increases each year through 2022. Providers who have high scores are rewarded with a 4% increase in 2019. By 2022, the reward is 9%. The program is budget-neutral, so total positive adjustments across all providers will equal total negative adjustments across all providers to poor performers. Separate funds are set aside to reward the highest performers, who will earn bonuses of up to 10% of their fee-for-service payment rate from 2019 through 2024, as well as to help low performers improve and qualify for increased payments from 2016 through 2020.

Help for physicians includes:

Option 2: APMs. Physicians can earn higher fees by opting out of MIPS fee for service and participating in APMs. The law defines qualifying APMs as those that require participating providers to take on “more than nominal” financial risk, report quality measures, and use certified EHR technology.

APMs will cover multiple services, show that they can limit the growth of spending, and use performance-based methods of compensation. These and other provisions will likely continue the trend away from physicians practicing in solo or small-group fee-for-service practices into risk-based multispecialty settings that are subject to increased management and oversight.

From 2019 to 2024, qualified APM physicians will receive a 5% annual lump sum bonus based on their prior year’s physician fee-schedule payments plus shared savings from participation. This bonus is based on patient volume, not just revenue, to make it easier for ObGyns to qualify. To make the bonus widely available, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must test APMs designed for specific specialties and physicians in small practices. As in MIPS, top APM performers will also receive an additional bonus.

To qualify, physicians must meet increasing thresholds for the percentage of their revenue that they receive through APMs. Those who are below but near the required level of APM revenue can be exempted from MIPS adjustments.

Who pays the bill?
Medicare beneficiaries pay more
The new law increases the percentage of Medicare Parts B and D premiums that high-income beneficiaries must pay beginning in 2018:

This change will affect about 2% of Medicare beneficiaries; half of all Medicare beneficiaries currently have annual incomes below $26,000.¹

Medigap “first-dollar coverage” will end
Many Medigap plans on the market today provide “first-dollar coverage” for beneficiaries, which means that the plans pay the deductibles and copayments so that the beneficiaries have no out-of-pocket costs. Beginning in 2020, Medigap plans will only be available to cover costs above the Medicare Part B deductible, currently $147 per year, for new Medigap enrollees. Many lawmakers thought it was important for Medicare beneficiaries to have “skin in the game.”

The law cuts payments for some providers
To partially offset the cost of repealing the SGR, MACRA cuts Medicare payments to hospitals and postacute providers. It:

The law extends many programs
These programs are vital to support the future ObGyn workforce and access to health care. Among these programs are:

Next steps
It’s very important that ObGyns and other physicians use these early years to understand and get ready for the new payment systems. ACOG is developing educational material for our members, and will work closely with our colleague medical organizations and the Department of Health and Human Services to develop key aspects of the law and ensure that it is properly implemented to work for physicians and patients.

Share your thoughts on this article! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Sometimes it’s difficult to figure out which way is forward. For the past few years, private insurers and the federal government (through the Medicare program) have been experimenting with and putting in place different ways of paying physicians for the care they provide. Many alternatives are designed to increase value for our nation’s health care dollars and improve quality of care, often through care coordination. Most involve different ways of “bundling” care—paying a single sum for a patient’s episode of care rather than separate payments each time a physician encounters a patient.

For more than 20 years, Medicare has bundled most surgeries, paying 1 sum to the physician and requiring only 1 copayment from the beneficiary patient. In this way, when a patient needs surgery, Medicare pays the surgeon 1 payment for preparation the day before surgery, for the surgery itself, and for either 10 or 90 days of follow-up care, depending on the specific procedure involved (TABLE 1). Similarly the patient has had 1 copay for the entire episode of care. This ­bundling is called global surgical codes, and it applies to coding, billing, and reimbursement.

This approach may change soon—and not for the better. In this article, I describe how the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) plan to eliminate global surgery bundling, as well as the efforts under way by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and other organizations to stop the proposed change.

The CMS plan to eliminate surgical bundling
In a significant twist from the trend toward bundling and care coordination, CMS finalized its proposed policy in its 2015 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule final rule to transition all 10- and 90-day global surgical codes to 0-day global surgical codes by 2017 and 2018, respectively. Beginning in 2017 for 10-day global codes and 2018 for 90-day codes, physicians will be paid separately for the day of surgery and for evaluation and management (E&M) provided on the day before and any days after. Patients will have copays for each physician intervention.

CMS has decided to move forward with this change despite overwhelming concern and opposition on the part of both patients and physicians. This change would affect more than 4,200 services on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule—well over one-third of the 9,900 current procedural terminology (CPT) codes.

The new codes and increased paperwork and billing are daunting, and would result in an estimated 63 million additional claims per year to account for postsurgical E&M services. The cost to CMS alone for this huge new mountain of claims may be as high as $95 million per year. Moreover, under the new system, patients may not return for the full range of follow-up care needed if they get billed for every visit, possibly resulting in poorer outcomes.

CMS’ justification for unbundling
CMS argues that this change is needed because many surgeons are failing to provide as much care (as many E&M follow-up visits) as they’re paid to deliver under the 10- and 90-day codes. As evidence, CMS points to 3 reports published by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General:

Based largely on these reports, CMS has determined that it cannot verify the number of visits, level of service, and relative costs of the services included in a global package, in large part because the current valuation methodology relies on survey data estimating the resources used in a typical case, instead of on actual data.

In each of these reports, the Inspector General also found smaller numbers of cases where surgeons provided more E&M care than was covered under the global payment. In each report, the Inspector General suggests that CMS should do more to identify and correctly value misvalued codes. ACOG Vice President for Health Policy Barbara Levy, MD, who is also chair of the Relative Value Scale Update Committee, or RUC, makes a compelling case that the RUC has identified and corrected many global surgical codes since these reports were issued and is in the process of revising more codes. She also argues that the RUC is the appropriate place to address these issues.

Policy analysis finds that total RVUs would decline
CMS has indicated that it intends to use a formula for converting the 10- and 90-day global services into 0-day services by simply reducing the work relative value units (RVUs) for the service by the number of work RVUs in the postoperative visits. The American College of Surgeons asked Health Policy Alternatives (HPA), a consulting firm, to analyze the CMS decision. HPA found that “systematically convert[ing] all global surgical codes to 0-day global codes by backing out of the bundled E&M services reduces the total RVUs and each component (work, practice expense, and malpractice) for surgical codes. Specifically, for surgical specialties, the impact of this transition on all Medicare reimbursed codes results in the following reductions:

This modeling resulted in a total overall payment increase of 0.1% for generalists and a payment increase of 0.3% for medical specialists.”⁴

HPA’s findings related to the malpractice component are especially interesting for the ObGyn specialty. “Model results demonstrate that this policy results in significant redistribution of malpractice away from the main specialty provider of the surgical procedure into the entire group of providers (surgical and nonsurgical),” notes the HPA report.⁴ “Most impacted will be specialties with higher malpractice expenses, such as neurosurgeons and cardiac surgeons.”⁴ We could add ObGyns to that list.

ACOG cites numerous objections
ACOG is deeply involved in opposing this new CMS policy and preventing it from ever going into effect, working on our own, in coalition with our medical organization colleagues and patient organizations, and working closely with the US Congress.

ACOG and 28 other medical organizations, including the American Medical Association (AMA), summarized our opposition in a letter to US House and Senate Democratic and Republican leaders in December 2014, saying that this new policy:

Detracts from quality of care, impedes patient access, and complicates patient copays

Undermines Medicare reform initiatives

Increases administrative burden

Obstructs clinical registry data collection and quality improvement

Additional ACOG concerns
ACOG added these concerns to our opposition to the CMS plan:

We have important allies
The American Association of Retired ­Persons (AARP) joined us in September 2014, when it formally asked CMS to abandon this new policy. In a letter to CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner, AARP noted that, “from a beneficiary perspective, we are concerned that this unbundling could produce considerable confusion and cause beneficiaries to receive multiple explanations of Medicare benefits (and incur separate cost-sharing obligations) related to a single surgical procedure….[G]iven the obvious methodological uncertainty and complexity involved in determining appropriate values for a very large number of ‘new’ 0-day global services, and the likely confusion surrounding the resulting increase in Medicare claims, AARP has serious doubts regarding the benefit of this unbundling proposal. We suggest [that] CMS consider other available alternatives, including the re-valuation of global services whose current values are believed to be incorrect.”⁶

Also in September, 27 Republican and Democratic members of Congress wrote a strong letter to CMS echoing the medical community’s concerns. The letter and many months of congressional leadership have been spearheaded by Representatives Larry Bucshon, MD, and Ami Bera, MD—demonstrating the value of having physicians in elective office. Other physician members of Congress who have provided outstanding leadership include ACOG Fellows and Representatives Michael Burgess, MD, and Phil Roe, MD, as well as Representatives Tom Price, MD; Andy Harris, MD; Joe Heck, DO; Charles Boustany, MD; Raul Ruiz, MD; and Dan Benishek, MD.

This important group of physician leaders, ACOG, AARP, and the surgical community are hard at work to derail or significantly delay what most physicians and policy analysts see as a very bad idea.

Congress takes action
In April 2015, Congress passed HR2, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Bill, which most notably repealed the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate formula. Included in this law is an important provision to halt implementation of CMS’ plan to unbundle all 10- and 90-day global codes.

Section 523 of that law requires CMS to periodically collect information on the services that surgeons furnish during these global periods, beginning no later than 2017, and use that information to ensure that the bundled payment amounts for surgical services are accurate. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is given the authority to withhold a portion of payment for services with a 10- or 90-day global period to incentivize the reporting of information. The Secretary can stop collecting this information from surgeons once the needed data can be obtained through other mechanisms, such as clinical data registries and electronic medical records.

Congressmen Bucshon and Bera championed this provision, along with nearly all physician members of the US House of Representatives. This change ensures a thorough, data-driven approach to appropriately valuing surgical services, including those provided by ObGyn subspecialists, such as urogynecologists and gynecologic oncologists.

Acknowledgment
The author thanks Barbara Levy, MD, ACOG Vice President for Health Policy, for her helpful comments.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Sometimes it’s difficult to figure out which way is forward. For the past few years, private insurers and the federal government (through the Medicare program) have been experimenting with and putting in place different ways of paying physicians for the care they provide. Many alternatives are designed to increase value for our nation’s health care dollars and improve quality of care, often through care coordination. Most involve different ways of “bundling” care—paying a single sum for a patient’s episode of care rather than separate payments each time a physician encounters a patient.

For more than 20 years, Medicare has bundled most surgeries, paying 1 sum to the physician and requiring only 1 copayment from the beneficiary patient. In this way, when a patient needs surgery, Medicare pays the surgeon 1 payment for preparation the day before surgery, for the surgery itself, and for either 10 or 90 days of follow-up care, depending on the specific procedure involved (TABLE 1). Similarly the patient has had 1 copay for the entire episode of care. This ­bundling is called global surgical codes, and it applies to coding, billing, and reimbursement.

This approach may change soon—and not for the better. In this article, I describe how the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) plan to eliminate global surgery bundling, as well as the efforts under way by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and other organizations to stop the proposed change.

The CMS plan to eliminate surgical bundling
In a significant twist from the trend toward bundling and care coordination, CMS finalized its proposed policy in its 2015 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule final rule to transition all 10- and 90-day global surgical codes to 0-day global surgical codes by 2017 and 2018, respectively. Beginning in 2017 for 10-day global codes and 2018 for 90-day codes, physicians will be paid separately for the day of surgery and for evaluation and management (E&M) provided on the day before and any days after. Patients will have copays for each physician intervention.

CMS has decided to move forward with this change despite overwhelming concern and opposition on the part of both patients and physicians. This change would affect more than 4,200 services on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule—well over one-third of the 9,900 current procedural terminology (CPT) codes.

The new codes and increased paperwork and billing are daunting, and would result in an estimated 63 million additional claims per year to account for postsurgical E&M services. The cost to CMS alone for this huge new mountain of claims may be as high as $95 million per year. Moreover, under the new system, patients may not return for the full range of follow-up care needed if they get billed for every visit, possibly resulting in poorer outcomes.

CMS’ justification for unbundling
CMS argues that this change is needed because many surgeons are failing to provide as much care (as many E&M follow-up visits) as they’re paid to deliver under the 10- and 90-day codes. As evidence, CMS points to 3 reports published by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General:

Based largely on these reports, CMS has determined that it cannot verify the number of visits, level of service, and relative costs of the services included in a global package, in large part because the current valuation methodology relies on survey data estimating the resources used in a typical case, instead of on actual data.

In each of these reports, the Inspector General also found smaller numbers of cases where surgeons provided more E&M care than was covered under the global payment. In each report, the Inspector General suggests that CMS should do more to identify and correctly value misvalued codes. ACOG Vice President for Health Policy Barbara Levy, MD, who is also chair of the Relative Value Scale Update Committee, or RUC, makes a compelling case that the RUC has identified and corrected many global surgical codes since these reports were issued and is in the process of revising more codes. She also argues that the RUC is the appropriate place to address these issues.

Policy analysis finds that total RVUs would decline
CMS has indicated that it intends to use a formula for converting the 10- and 90-day global services into 0-day services by simply reducing the work relative value units (RVUs) for the service by the number of work RVUs in the postoperative visits. The American College of Surgeons asked Health Policy Alternatives (HPA), a consulting firm, to analyze the CMS decision. HPA found that “systematically convert[ing] all global surgical codes to 0-day global codes by backing out of the bundled E&M services reduces the total RVUs and each component (work, practice expense, and malpractice) for surgical codes. Specifically, for surgical specialties, the impact of this transition on all Medicare reimbursed codes results in the following reductions:

This modeling resulted in a total overall payment increase of 0.1% for generalists and a payment increase of 0.3% for medical specialists.”⁴

HPA’s findings related to the malpractice component are especially interesting for the ObGyn specialty. “Model results demonstrate that this policy results in significant redistribution of malpractice away from the main specialty provider of the surgical procedure into the entire group of providers (surgical and nonsurgical),” notes the HPA report.⁴ “Most impacted will be specialties with higher malpractice expenses, such as neurosurgeons and cardiac surgeons.”⁴ We could add ObGyns to that list.

ACOG cites numerous objections
ACOG is deeply involved in opposing this new CMS policy and preventing it from ever going into effect, working on our own, in coalition with our medical organization colleagues and patient organizations, and working closely with the US Congress.

ACOG and 28 other medical organizations, including the American Medical Association (AMA), summarized our opposition in a letter to US House and Senate Democratic and Republican leaders in December 2014, saying that this new policy:

Detracts from quality of care, impedes patient access, and complicates patient copays

Undermines Medicare reform initiatives

Increases administrative burden

Obstructs clinical registry data collection and quality improvement

Additional ACOG concerns
ACOG added these concerns to our opposition to the CMS plan:

We have important allies
The American Association of Retired ­Persons (AARP) joined us in September 2014, when it formally asked CMS to abandon this new policy. In a letter to CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner, AARP noted that, “from a beneficiary perspective, we are concerned that this unbundling could produce considerable confusion and cause beneficiaries to receive multiple explanations of Medicare benefits (and incur separate cost-sharing obligations) related to a single surgical procedure….[G]iven the obvious methodological uncertainty and complexity involved in determining appropriate values for a very large number of ‘new’ 0-day global services, and the likely confusion surrounding the resulting increase in Medicare claims, AARP has serious doubts regarding the benefit of this unbundling proposal. We suggest [that] CMS consider other available alternatives, including the re-valuation of global services whose current values are believed to be incorrect.”⁶

Also in September, 27 Republican and Democratic members of Congress wrote a strong letter to CMS echoing the medical community’s concerns. The letter and many months of congressional leadership have been spearheaded by Representatives Larry Bucshon, MD, and Ami Bera, MD—demonstrating the value of having physicians in elective office. Other physician members of Congress who have provided outstanding leadership include ACOG Fellows and Representatives Michael Burgess, MD, and Phil Roe, MD, as well as Representatives Tom Price, MD; Andy Harris, MD; Joe Heck, DO; Charles Boustany, MD; Raul Ruiz, MD; and Dan Benishek, MD.

This important group of physician leaders, ACOG, AARP, and the surgical community are hard at work to derail or significantly delay what most physicians and policy analysts see as a very bad idea.

Congress takes action
In April 2015, Congress passed HR2, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Bill, which most notably repealed the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate formula. Included in this law is an important provision to halt implementation of CMS’ plan to unbundle all 10- and 90-day global codes.

Section 523 of that law requires CMS to periodically collect information on the services that surgeons furnish during these global periods, beginning no later than 2017, and use that information to ensure that the bundled payment amounts for surgical services are accurate. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is given the authority to withhold a portion of payment for services with a 10- or 90-day global period to incentivize the reporting of information. The Secretary can stop collecting this information from surgeons once the needed data can be obtained through other mechanisms, such as clinical data registries and electronic medical records.

Congressmen Bucshon and Bera championed this provision, along with nearly all physician members of the US House of Representatives. This change ensures a thorough, data-driven approach to appropriately valuing surgical services, including those provided by ObGyn subspecialists, such as urogynecologists and gynecologic oncologists.

Acknowledgment
The author thanks Barbara Levy, MD, ACOG Vice President for Health Policy, for her helpful comments.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Sometimes it’s difficult to figure out which way is forward. For the past few years, private insurers and the federal government (through the Medicare program) have been experimenting with and putting in place different ways of paying physicians for the care they provide. Many alternatives are designed to increase value for our nation’s health care dollars and improve quality of care, often through care coordination. Most involve different ways of “bundling” care—paying a single sum for a patient’s episode of care rather than separate payments each time a physician encounters a patient.

For more than 20 years, Medicare has bundled most surgeries, paying 1 sum to the physician and requiring only 1 copayment from the beneficiary patient. In this way, when a patient needs surgery, Medicare pays the surgeon 1 payment for preparation the day before surgery, for the surgery itself, and for either 10 or 90 days of follow-up care, depending on the specific procedure involved (TABLE 1). Similarly the patient has had 1 copay for the entire episode of care. This ­bundling is called global surgical codes, and it applies to coding, billing, and reimbursement.

This approach may change soon—and not for the better. In this article, I describe how the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) plan to eliminate global surgery bundling, as well as the efforts under way by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and other organizations to stop the proposed change.

The CMS plan to eliminate surgical bundling
In a significant twist from the trend toward bundling and care coordination, CMS finalized its proposed policy in its 2015 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule final rule to transition all 10- and 90-day global surgical codes to 0-day global surgical codes by 2017 and 2018, respectively. Beginning in 2017 for 10-day global codes and 2018 for 90-day codes, physicians will be paid separately for the day of surgery and for evaluation and management (E&M) provided on the day before and any days after. Patients will have copays for each physician intervention.

CMS has decided to move forward with this change despite overwhelming concern and opposition on the part of both patients and physicians. This change would affect more than 4,200 services on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule—well over one-third of the 9,900 current procedural terminology (CPT) codes.

The new codes and increased paperwork and billing are daunting, and would result in an estimated 63 million additional claims per year to account for postsurgical E&M services. The cost to CMS alone for this huge new mountain of claims may be as high as $95 million per year. Moreover, under the new system, patients may not return for the full range of follow-up care needed if they get billed for every visit, possibly resulting in poorer outcomes.

CMS’ justification for unbundling
CMS argues that this change is needed because many surgeons are failing to provide as much care (as many E&M follow-up visits) as they’re paid to deliver under the 10- and 90-day codes. As evidence, CMS points to 3 reports published by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General:

Based largely on these reports, CMS has determined that it cannot verify the number of visits, level of service, and relative costs of the services included in a global package, in large part because the current valuation methodology relies on survey data estimating the resources used in a typical case, instead of on actual data.

In each of these reports, the Inspector General also found smaller numbers of cases where surgeons provided more E&M care than was covered under the global payment. In each report, the Inspector General suggests that CMS should do more to identify and correctly value misvalued codes. ACOG Vice President for Health Policy Barbara Levy, MD, who is also chair of the Relative Value Scale Update Committee, or RUC, makes a compelling case that the RUC has identified and corrected many global surgical codes since these reports were issued and is in the process of revising more codes. She also argues that the RUC is the appropriate place to address these issues.

Policy analysis finds that total RVUs would decline
CMS has indicated that it intends to use a formula for converting the 10- and 90-day global services into 0-day services by simply reducing the work relative value units (RVUs) for the service by the number of work RVUs in the postoperative visits. The American College of Surgeons asked Health Policy Alternatives (HPA), a consulting firm, to analyze the CMS decision. HPA found that “systematically convert[ing] all global surgical codes to 0-day global codes by backing out of the bundled E&M services reduces the total RVUs and each component (work, practice expense, and malpractice) for surgical codes. Specifically, for surgical specialties, the impact of this transition on all Medicare reimbursed codes results in the following reductions:

This modeling resulted in a total overall payment increase of 0.1% for generalists and a payment increase of 0.3% for medical specialists.”⁴

HPA’s findings related to the malpractice component are especially interesting for the ObGyn specialty. “Model results demonstrate that this policy results in significant redistribution of malpractice away from the main specialty provider of the surgical procedure into the entire group of providers (surgical and nonsurgical),” notes the HPA report.⁴ “Most impacted will be specialties with higher malpractice expenses, such as neurosurgeons and cardiac surgeons.”⁴ We could add ObGyns to that list.

ACOG cites numerous objections
ACOG is deeply involved in opposing this new CMS policy and preventing it from ever going into effect, working on our own, in coalition with our medical organization colleagues and patient organizations, and working closely with the US Congress.

ACOG and 28 other medical organizations, including the American Medical Association (AMA), summarized our opposition in a letter to US House and Senate Democratic and Republican leaders in December 2014, saying that this new policy:

Detracts from quality of care, impedes patient access, and complicates patient copays

Undermines Medicare reform initiatives

Increases administrative burden

Obstructs clinical registry data collection and quality improvement

Additional ACOG concerns
ACOG added these concerns to our opposition to the CMS plan:

We have important allies
The American Association of Retired ­Persons (AARP) joined us in September 2014, when it formally asked CMS to abandon this new policy. In a letter to CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner, AARP noted that, “from a beneficiary perspective, we are concerned that this unbundling could produce considerable confusion and cause beneficiaries to receive multiple explanations of Medicare benefits (and incur separate cost-sharing obligations) related to a single surgical procedure….[G]iven the obvious methodological uncertainty and complexity involved in determining appropriate values for a very large number of ‘new’ 0-day global services, and the likely confusion surrounding the resulting increase in Medicare claims, AARP has serious doubts regarding the benefit of this unbundling proposal. We suggest [that] CMS consider other available alternatives, including the re-valuation of global services whose current values are believed to be incorrect.”⁶

Also in September, 27 Republican and Democratic members of Congress wrote a strong letter to CMS echoing the medical community’s concerns. The letter and many months of congressional leadership have been spearheaded by Representatives Larry Bucshon, MD, and Ami Bera, MD—demonstrating the value of having physicians in elective office. Other physician members of Congress who have provided outstanding leadership include ACOG Fellows and Representatives Michael Burgess, MD, and Phil Roe, MD, as well as Representatives Tom Price, MD; Andy Harris, MD; Joe Heck, DO; Charles Boustany, MD; Raul Ruiz, MD; and Dan Benishek, MD.

This important group of physician leaders, ACOG, AARP, and the surgical community are hard at work to derail or significantly delay what most physicians and policy analysts see as a very bad idea.

Congress takes action
In April 2015, Congress passed HR2, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Bill, which most notably repealed the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate formula. Included in this law is an important provision to halt implementation of CMS’ plan to unbundle all 10- and 90-day global codes.

Section 523 of that law requires CMS to periodically collect information on the services that surgeons furnish during these global periods, beginning no later than 2017, and use that information to ensure that the bundled payment amounts for surgical services are accurate. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is given the authority to withhold a portion of payment for services with a 10- or 90-day global period to incentivize the reporting of information. The Secretary can stop collecting this information from surgeons once the needed data can be obtained through other mechanisms, such as clinical data registries and electronic medical records.

Congressmen Bucshon and Bera championed this provision, along with nearly all physician members of the US House of Representatives. This change ensures a thorough, data-driven approach to appropriately valuing surgical services, including those provided by ObGyn subspecialists, such as urogynecologists and gynecologic oncologists.

Acknowledgment
The author thanks Barbara Levy, MD, ACOG Vice President for Health Policy, for her helpful comments.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.