User login
American Medical Association (AMA): Annual Meeting of the House of Delegates
AMA delegates decry ICD-10, EHRs
CHICAGO – Coding and computers were among key concerns for physician leaders at the American Medical Association’s annual House of Delegates meeting.
Resolutions from several delegations aimed to delay or scuttle the transition to the newest incarnation of the International Classification of Diseases, ICD-10.
Delegates from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) introduced a resolution urging the association to keep up its campaign to stop ICD-10 implementation, specifically via federal legislation.
Without a statement supporting delay, there is a "perception out there that the AMA has essentially caved on the issue of ICD-10," said ACR delegate Dr. Gary Bryant . "Now that’s not my perception, but I believe it’s the perception, to some degree, among American physicians."
The House adopted instead a resolution calling for the AMA to support federal legislation to delay ICD-10 implementation for 2 years. During that time, payers would not be allowed to deny payment based on the specificity of the diagnosis, but they would be required to provide feedback in the case of an incorrect diagnosis. The resolution was brought by the Colorado delegation.
Dr. Reid Blackwelder, president-elect of the American Academy of Family Physicians, spoke in favor of the resolution.
"It’s not likely that we’re moving from ICD-9, we are." Instead, the resolution "allows our members to have a period of time to get used to the sticker shock," he said.
Another issue is that "ICD-10 initially came into use in 1994 and was never designed to be computer-savvy. ICD-11 is due in 2015, and will be designed to be easily coded by computer software," said Dr. Peter Kaufman, the AGA’s delegate to AMA. "If we go to ICD-10 in 2014, or even 2016, when will we be able to go to the newer, more appropriate 11th Revision?"
The AMA has estimated that the cost of implementing ICD-10 could range from $83,290 to more than $2.7 million per practice, depending on practice size.
Delegates cited major problems with electronic health record interoperability, and some also sought to slow the adoption of electronic health records.
Karthik Sarmah medical student alternate delegate in the California delegation, cited interoperability as a major concern.
"The lack of interoperability is the primary driver of why so many people in this room hate their EHR system," he said, adding that interoperability standards exist, but that there are no incentives for venders to create ways to allow physicians to share their patient data with each other.
Dr. Melissa Garretson, a delegate from the American Academy of Pediatrics, agreed.
"I can’t tell you the number of times I have to repeat labs," and CT scans because data can’t be accessed from other physicians, Dr. Garretson said. She called the lack of interoperability an unfunded mandate on physicians because the vendors aren’t making it possible. "If we force them to do this through legislation, it will finally happen."
Kaufman testified \"there are strong interoperability standards already out there. They may only cover limited amounts of data but they work between programs well. The problem is that while they were required when EHRs were certified by CCHIT, with the advent of Meaningful Use, that requirement to use the same specific standard was no longer mandatory.\" Kaufman went on to state that the standards committees were woefully short of practicing physicians, and called for doctors to join the process to the standards could be completed and be workable for clinicians.
Other delegates were skeptical.
"I have been waiting now for about 12 years for this interoperability to occur and I think I’ll either be retired or dead before it finally does," said Dr. Arthur E. Palamara, a vascular surgeon with the Florida delegation.
The House approved a resolution "seeking legislation or regulation to require all EHR vendors to utilize standard and interoperable software technology to enable cost efficient use of electronic health records across all health care delivery systems including institutional and community based settings of care delivery."
On Twitter @aliciaault
CHICAGO – Coding and computers were among key concerns for physician leaders at the American Medical Association’s annual House of Delegates meeting.
Resolutions from several delegations aimed to delay or scuttle the transition to the newest incarnation of the International Classification of Diseases, ICD-10.
Delegates from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) introduced a resolution urging the association to keep up its campaign to stop ICD-10 implementation, specifically via federal legislation.
Without a statement supporting delay, there is a "perception out there that the AMA has essentially caved on the issue of ICD-10," said ACR delegate Dr. Gary Bryant . "Now that’s not my perception, but I believe it’s the perception, to some degree, among American physicians."
The House adopted instead a resolution calling for the AMA to support federal legislation to delay ICD-10 implementation for 2 years. During that time, payers would not be allowed to deny payment based on the specificity of the diagnosis, but they would be required to provide feedback in the case of an incorrect diagnosis. The resolution was brought by the Colorado delegation.
Dr. Reid Blackwelder, president-elect of the American Academy of Family Physicians, spoke in favor of the resolution.
"It’s not likely that we’re moving from ICD-9, we are." Instead, the resolution "allows our members to have a period of time to get used to the sticker shock," he said.
Another issue is that "ICD-10 initially came into use in 1994 and was never designed to be computer-savvy. ICD-11 is due in 2015, and will be designed to be easily coded by computer software," said Dr. Peter Kaufman, the AGA’s delegate to AMA. "If we go to ICD-10 in 2014, or even 2016, when will we be able to go to the newer, more appropriate 11th Revision?"
The AMA has estimated that the cost of implementing ICD-10 could range from $83,290 to more than $2.7 million per practice, depending on practice size.
Delegates cited major problems with electronic health record interoperability, and some also sought to slow the adoption of electronic health records.
Karthik Sarmah medical student alternate delegate in the California delegation, cited interoperability as a major concern.
"The lack of interoperability is the primary driver of why so many people in this room hate their EHR system," he said, adding that interoperability standards exist, but that there are no incentives for venders to create ways to allow physicians to share their patient data with each other.
Dr. Melissa Garretson, a delegate from the American Academy of Pediatrics, agreed.
"I can’t tell you the number of times I have to repeat labs," and CT scans because data can’t be accessed from other physicians, Dr. Garretson said. She called the lack of interoperability an unfunded mandate on physicians because the vendors aren’t making it possible. "If we force them to do this through legislation, it will finally happen."
Kaufman testified \"there are strong interoperability standards already out there. They may only cover limited amounts of data but they work between programs well. The problem is that while they were required when EHRs were certified by CCHIT, with the advent of Meaningful Use, that requirement to use the same specific standard was no longer mandatory.\" Kaufman went on to state that the standards committees were woefully short of practicing physicians, and called for doctors to join the process to the standards could be completed and be workable for clinicians.
Other delegates were skeptical.
"I have been waiting now for about 12 years for this interoperability to occur and I think I’ll either be retired or dead before it finally does," said Dr. Arthur E. Palamara, a vascular surgeon with the Florida delegation.
The House approved a resolution "seeking legislation or regulation to require all EHR vendors to utilize standard and interoperable software technology to enable cost efficient use of electronic health records across all health care delivery systems including institutional and community based settings of care delivery."
On Twitter @aliciaault
CHICAGO – Coding and computers were among key concerns for physician leaders at the American Medical Association’s annual House of Delegates meeting.
Resolutions from several delegations aimed to delay or scuttle the transition to the newest incarnation of the International Classification of Diseases, ICD-10.
Delegates from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) introduced a resolution urging the association to keep up its campaign to stop ICD-10 implementation, specifically via federal legislation.
Without a statement supporting delay, there is a "perception out there that the AMA has essentially caved on the issue of ICD-10," said ACR delegate Dr. Gary Bryant . "Now that’s not my perception, but I believe it’s the perception, to some degree, among American physicians."
The House adopted instead a resolution calling for the AMA to support federal legislation to delay ICD-10 implementation for 2 years. During that time, payers would not be allowed to deny payment based on the specificity of the diagnosis, but they would be required to provide feedback in the case of an incorrect diagnosis. The resolution was brought by the Colorado delegation.
Dr. Reid Blackwelder, president-elect of the American Academy of Family Physicians, spoke in favor of the resolution.
"It’s not likely that we’re moving from ICD-9, we are." Instead, the resolution "allows our members to have a period of time to get used to the sticker shock," he said.
Another issue is that "ICD-10 initially came into use in 1994 and was never designed to be computer-savvy. ICD-11 is due in 2015, and will be designed to be easily coded by computer software," said Dr. Peter Kaufman, the AGA’s delegate to AMA. "If we go to ICD-10 in 2014, or even 2016, when will we be able to go to the newer, more appropriate 11th Revision?"
The AMA has estimated that the cost of implementing ICD-10 could range from $83,290 to more than $2.7 million per practice, depending on practice size.
Delegates cited major problems with electronic health record interoperability, and some also sought to slow the adoption of electronic health records.
Karthik Sarmah medical student alternate delegate in the California delegation, cited interoperability as a major concern.
"The lack of interoperability is the primary driver of why so many people in this room hate their EHR system," he said, adding that interoperability standards exist, but that there are no incentives for venders to create ways to allow physicians to share their patient data with each other.
Dr. Melissa Garretson, a delegate from the American Academy of Pediatrics, agreed.
"I can’t tell you the number of times I have to repeat labs," and CT scans because data can’t be accessed from other physicians, Dr. Garretson said. She called the lack of interoperability an unfunded mandate on physicians because the vendors aren’t making it possible. "If we force them to do this through legislation, it will finally happen."
Kaufman testified \"there are strong interoperability standards already out there. They may only cover limited amounts of data but they work between programs well. The problem is that while they were required when EHRs were certified by CCHIT, with the advent of Meaningful Use, that requirement to use the same specific standard was no longer mandatory.\" Kaufman went on to state that the standards committees were woefully short of practicing physicians, and called for doctors to join the process to the standards could be completed and be workable for clinicians.
Other delegates were skeptical.
"I have been waiting now for about 12 years for this interoperability to occur and I think I’ll either be retired or dead before it finally does," said Dr. Arthur E. Palamara, a vascular surgeon with the Florida delegation.
The House approved a resolution "seeking legislation or regulation to require all EHR vendors to utilize standard and interoperable software technology to enable cost efficient use of electronic health records across all health care delivery systems including institutional and community based settings of care delivery."
On Twitter @aliciaault
AT THE AMA HOUSE OF DELEGATES
AMA delegates decry ICD-10, EHRs
CHICAGO – Coding and computers were among key concerns for physician leaders at the American Medical Association’s annual House of Delegates meeting.
Resolutions from several delegations aimed to delay or scuttle the transition to the newest incarnation of the International Classification of Diseases, ICD-10.
Delegates from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) introduced a resolution urging the association to keep up its campaign to stop ICD-10 implementation, specifically via federal legislation.
Without a statement supporting delay, there is a "perception out there that the AMA has essentially caved on the issue of ICD-10," said Dr. Gary Bryant, an ACR delegate. "Now that’s not my perception, but I believe it’s the perception, to some degree, among American physicians."
The House adopted instead a resolution calling for the AMA to support federal legislation to delay ICD-10 implementation for 2 years. During that time, payers would not be allowed to deny payment based on the specificity of the diagnosis, but they would be required to provide feedback in the case of an incorrect diagnosis. The resolution was brought by the Colorado delegation.
Dr. Reid Blackwelder, president-elect of the American Academy of Family Physicians, spoke in favor of the resolution.
"It’s not likely that we’re moving from ICD-9, we are." Instead, the resolution "allows our members to have a period of time to get used to the sticker shock," he said.
The AMA has estimated that the cost of implementing ICD-10 could range from $83,290 to more than $2.7 million per practice, depending on practice size.
Delegates also sought to slow the adoption of electronic health records, citing major problems with interoperability.
Karthik Sarmah, medical student alternate delegate in the California delegation, cited interoperability as a major concern.
"The lack of interoperability is the primary driver of why so many people in this room hate their EHR system," he said, adding that interoperability standards exist, but that there are no incentives for venders to create ways to allow physicians to share their patient data with each other.
Dr. Melissa Garretson, a delegate from the American Academy of Pediatrics, agreed.
"I can’t tell you the number of times I have to repeat labs," and CT scans because data can’t be accessed from other physicians, Dr. Garretson said. She called the lack of interoperability an unfunded mandate on physicians because the vendors aren’t making it possible. "If we force them to do this through legislation, it will finally happen."
Other delegates were skeptical.
"I have been waiting now for about 12 years for this interoperability to occur and I think I’ll either be retired or dead before it finally does," said Dr. Arthur E. Palamara, a vascular surgeon with the Florida delegation.
The House approved a resolution "seeking legislation or regulation to require all EHR vendors to use standard and interoperable software technology to enable cost-efficient use of electronic health records across all health care delivery systems, including institutional and community-based settings of care delivery."
On Twitter @aliciaault
CHICAGO – Coding and computers were among key concerns for physician leaders at the American Medical Association’s annual House of Delegates meeting.
Resolutions from several delegations aimed to delay or scuttle the transition to the newest incarnation of the International Classification of Diseases, ICD-10.
Delegates from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) introduced a resolution urging the association to keep up its campaign to stop ICD-10 implementation, specifically via federal legislation.
Without a statement supporting delay, there is a "perception out there that the AMA has essentially caved on the issue of ICD-10," said Dr. Gary Bryant, an ACR delegate. "Now that’s not my perception, but I believe it’s the perception, to some degree, among American physicians."
The House adopted instead a resolution calling for the AMA to support federal legislation to delay ICD-10 implementation for 2 years. During that time, payers would not be allowed to deny payment based on the specificity of the diagnosis, but they would be required to provide feedback in the case of an incorrect diagnosis. The resolution was brought by the Colorado delegation.
Dr. Reid Blackwelder, president-elect of the American Academy of Family Physicians, spoke in favor of the resolution.
"It’s not likely that we’re moving from ICD-9, we are." Instead, the resolution "allows our members to have a period of time to get used to the sticker shock," he said.
The AMA has estimated that the cost of implementing ICD-10 could range from $83,290 to more than $2.7 million per practice, depending on practice size.
Delegates also sought to slow the adoption of electronic health records, citing major problems with interoperability.
Karthik Sarmah, medical student alternate delegate in the California delegation, cited interoperability as a major concern.
"The lack of interoperability is the primary driver of why so many people in this room hate their EHR system," he said, adding that interoperability standards exist, but that there are no incentives for venders to create ways to allow physicians to share their patient data with each other.
Dr. Melissa Garretson, a delegate from the American Academy of Pediatrics, agreed.
"I can’t tell you the number of times I have to repeat labs," and CT scans because data can’t be accessed from other physicians, Dr. Garretson said. She called the lack of interoperability an unfunded mandate on physicians because the vendors aren’t making it possible. "If we force them to do this through legislation, it will finally happen."
Other delegates were skeptical.
"I have been waiting now for about 12 years for this interoperability to occur and I think I’ll either be retired or dead before it finally does," said Dr. Arthur E. Palamara, a vascular surgeon with the Florida delegation.
The House approved a resolution "seeking legislation or regulation to require all EHR vendors to use standard and interoperable software technology to enable cost-efficient use of electronic health records across all health care delivery systems, including institutional and community-based settings of care delivery."
On Twitter @aliciaault
CHICAGO – Coding and computers were among key concerns for physician leaders at the American Medical Association’s annual House of Delegates meeting.
Resolutions from several delegations aimed to delay or scuttle the transition to the newest incarnation of the International Classification of Diseases, ICD-10.
Delegates from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) introduced a resolution urging the association to keep up its campaign to stop ICD-10 implementation, specifically via federal legislation.
Without a statement supporting delay, there is a "perception out there that the AMA has essentially caved on the issue of ICD-10," said Dr. Gary Bryant, an ACR delegate. "Now that’s not my perception, but I believe it’s the perception, to some degree, among American physicians."
The House adopted instead a resolution calling for the AMA to support federal legislation to delay ICD-10 implementation for 2 years. During that time, payers would not be allowed to deny payment based on the specificity of the diagnosis, but they would be required to provide feedback in the case of an incorrect diagnosis. The resolution was brought by the Colorado delegation.
Dr. Reid Blackwelder, president-elect of the American Academy of Family Physicians, spoke in favor of the resolution.
"It’s not likely that we’re moving from ICD-9, we are." Instead, the resolution "allows our members to have a period of time to get used to the sticker shock," he said.
The AMA has estimated that the cost of implementing ICD-10 could range from $83,290 to more than $2.7 million per practice, depending on practice size.
Delegates also sought to slow the adoption of electronic health records, citing major problems with interoperability.
Karthik Sarmah, medical student alternate delegate in the California delegation, cited interoperability as a major concern.
"The lack of interoperability is the primary driver of why so many people in this room hate their EHR system," he said, adding that interoperability standards exist, but that there are no incentives for venders to create ways to allow physicians to share their patient data with each other.
Dr. Melissa Garretson, a delegate from the American Academy of Pediatrics, agreed.
"I can’t tell you the number of times I have to repeat labs," and CT scans because data can’t be accessed from other physicians, Dr. Garretson said. She called the lack of interoperability an unfunded mandate on physicians because the vendors aren’t making it possible. "If we force them to do this through legislation, it will finally happen."
Other delegates were skeptical.
"I have been waiting now for about 12 years for this interoperability to occur and I think I’ll either be retired or dead before it finally does," said Dr. Arthur E. Palamara, a vascular surgeon with the Florida delegation.
The House approved a resolution "seeking legislation or regulation to require all EHR vendors to use standard and interoperable software technology to enable cost-efficient use of electronic health records across all health care delivery systems, including institutional and community-based settings of care delivery."
On Twitter @aliciaault
AT THE AMA HOUSE OF DELEGATES
AMA: Growing patient responsibility leads to greater hassle
CHICAGO – Administrative hassles are taking too much time and money away from physician practices and the burden is likely to grow as employers ask workers to pay for more of their health care.
That’s the message in the most recent edition of the American Medical Association's National Health Insurer Report Card, released at the organization’s annual House of Delegates meeting.
Patients are being asked to cover as much as a quarter of their health care costs, according to the report card. The problem is exacerbated at the beginning of the year, when many must first satisfy a deductible.
Up to half of claims for which insurers pay $0 are those for which the patient owes the full amount, said Mark Reiger, vice president for payment and reimbursement strategy at NHXS, which helped develop the report card.
"As the burden shifts to the patients, more of your revenue is at risk," Mr. Reiger said, noting that "physicians are not very good at collecting patient responsibility."
Payment problems distract from patient care, said Dr. Barbara McAneny of the AMA Board of Trustees. The ABI study found that physician practices are spending as much as 14% of their revenues on getting paid.
You "should not have to divert as much as 14% of your gross revenue to ensure accurate insurance payments for your services," she said.
According to the report card, insurers have improved their performance since the AMA began monitoring it in 2008.
Dr. McAneny said that although things have gotten better, there’s still a lot of money being left on the table – about $43 billion over the last 3 years. That’s how much physicians and insurers have given up due to less than 100% accuracy in claims processing since 2010.
Even so, error rates have dropped from 20% in 2010 to 7% in the latest report.
Medicare was the most accurate payer (98%). UnitedHealthcare was the most accurate commercial insurer (97.5%), while Regence was the least (85%).
The insurers who participated in the report card are Aetna, Anthem, Cigna, Health Care Service Corp., Humana, Regence, UnitedHealthcare, and Medicare.
Insurers were rated according to how quickly they pay claims, how often they pay nothing on a claim, how often they match the contracted fee schedule, whether they disclose the reason for a denial, and a variety of other measures. The report found that the vast majority of claims are paid within 30 days, and most within 15 days. Medicare and Cigna paid 95% of claims within 15 days. In contrast, Aetna paid 66% in the same time frame.
The report shed light on another trend that could lead to more payment problems for physicians: Patients are being required to pay more out of pocket for care. Patients insured by Health Care Service Corp. pay for30% of their care, according to the report card. Most of the other insurers require 20%-25% copays from patients. Humana, on the low end, seeks 15% of the allowable amount from patients.
The AMA is asking payers and vendors to give physicians real-time estimates of the patient’s responsibility at the point of care, Dr. McAneny said.
Among the other findings: Claims denials decreased to 1.8% in 2013, compared with 3% in 2012. Medicare had the highest denial rate at almost 5%.
Insurers also responded more quickly to claims. The fastest, Humana, had a median response time of 6 days, while Aetna was the slowest, with a median response time of 14 days. Medicare matched Aetna, and has maintained that response time since 2008.
Along with the report card, the AMA unveiled its administrative burden index (ABI), which measures how much it costs a practice to rework rejected claims.
Medicare’s performance was not included in the ABI. The ABI score was based largely on the percentage of claims paid after 30 days. The AMA said that the tasks associated with avoidable errors, inefficiency, and waste in the claims process cost an average $2.36 per claim for physicians and insurers. Cigna had the best ABI cost per claim of $1.25 and HCSC had the worst, at $3.32, per claim.
Dr. McAneny said physicians can use the ABI data "to identify the cost of processing claims with the participating health insurers on the report card."
The report card data is based on 2.6 million claims submitted for February and March 2013. It is drawn from 41 states, 80 specialties, and more than 450 practices. It is based exclusively on claims that were submitted electronically and remittances received electronically; therefore, the results may not apply to practices that don’t use electronic submission.
On Twitter @aliciaault
CHICAGO – Administrative hassles are taking too much time and money away from physician practices and the burden is likely to grow as employers ask workers to pay for more of their health care.
That’s the message in the most recent edition of the American Medical Association's National Health Insurer Report Card, released at the organization’s annual House of Delegates meeting.
Patients are being asked to cover as much as a quarter of their health care costs, according to the report card. The problem is exacerbated at the beginning of the year, when many must first satisfy a deductible.
Up to half of claims for which insurers pay $0 are those for which the patient owes the full amount, said Mark Reiger, vice president for payment and reimbursement strategy at NHXS, which helped develop the report card.
"As the burden shifts to the patients, more of your revenue is at risk," Mr. Reiger said, noting that "physicians are not very good at collecting patient responsibility."
Payment problems distract from patient care, said Dr. Barbara McAneny of the AMA Board of Trustees. The ABI study found that physician practices are spending as much as 14% of their revenues on getting paid.
You "should not have to divert as much as 14% of your gross revenue to ensure accurate insurance payments for your services," she said.
According to the report card, insurers have improved their performance since the AMA began monitoring it in 2008.
Dr. McAneny said that although things have gotten better, there’s still a lot of money being left on the table – about $43 billion over the last 3 years. That’s how much physicians and insurers have given up due to less than 100% accuracy in claims processing since 2010.
Even so, error rates have dropped from 20% in 2010 to 7% in the latest report.
Medicare was the most accurate payer (98%). UnitedHealthcare was the most accurate commercial insurer (97.5%), while Regence was the least (85%).
The insurers who participated in the report card are Aetna, Anthem, Cigna, Health Care Service Corp., Humana, Regence, UnitedHealthcare, and Medicare.
Insurers were rated according to how quickly they pay claims, how often they pay nothing on a claim, how often they match the contracted fee schedule, whether they disclose the reason for a denial, and a variety of other measures. The report found that the vast majority of claims are paid within 30 days, and most within 15 days. Medicare and Cigna paid 95% of claims within 15 days. In contrast, Aetna paid 66% in the same time frame.
The report shed light on another trend that could lead to more payment problems for physicians: Patients are being required to pay more out of pocket for care. Patients insured by Health Care Service Corp. pay for30% of their care, according to the report card. Most of the other insurers require 20%-25% copays from patients. Humana, on the low end, seeks 15% of the allowable amount from patients.
The AMA is asking payers and vendors to give physicians real-time estimates of the patient’s responsibility at the point of care, Dr. McAneny said.
Among the other findings: Claims denials decreased to 1.8% in 2013, compared with 3% in 2012. Medicare had the highest denial rate at almost 5%.
Insurers also responded more quickly to claims. The fastest, Humana, had a median response time of 6 days, while Aetna was the slowest, with a median response time of 14 days. Medicare matched Aetna, and has maintained that response time since 2008.
Along with the report card, the AMA unveiled its administrative burden index (ABI), which measures how much it costs a practice to rework rejected claims.
Medicare’s performance was not included in the ABI. The ABI score was based largely on the percentage of claims paid after 30 days. The AMA said that the tasks associated with avoidable errors, inefficiency, and waste in the claims process cost an average $2.36 per claim for physicians and insurers. Cigna had the best ABI cost per claim of $1.25 and HCSC had the worst, at $3.32, per claim.
Dr. McAneny said physicians can use the ABI data "to identify the cost of processing claims with the participating health insurers on the report card."
The report card data is based on 2.6 million claims submitted for February and March 2013. It is drawn from 41 states, 80 specialties, and more than 450 practices. It is based exclusively on claims that were submitted electronically and remittances received electronically; therefore, the results may not apply to practices that don’t use electronic submission.
On Twitter @aliciaault
CHICAGO – Administrative hassles are taking too much time and money away from physician practices and the burden is likely to grow as employers ask workers to pay for more of their health care.
That’s the message in the most recent edition of the American Medical Association's National Health Insurer Report Card, released at the organization’s annual House of Delegates meeting.
Patients are being asked to cover as much as a quarter of their health care costs, according to the report card. The problem is exacerbated at the beginning of the year, when many must first satisfy a deductible.
Up to half of claims for which insurers pay $0 are those for which the patient owes the full amount, said Mark Reiger, vice president for payment and reimbursement strategy at NHXS, which helped develop the report card.
"As the burden shifts to the patients, more of your revenue is at risk," Mr. Reiger said, noting that "physicians are not very good at collecting patient responsibility."
Payment problems distract from patient care, said Dr. Barbara McAneny of the AMA Board of Trustees. The ABI study found that physician practices are spending as much as 14% of their revenues on getting paid.
You "should not have to divert as much as 14% of your gross revenue to ensure accurate insurance payments for your services," she said.
According to the report card, insurers have improved their performance since the AMA began monitoring it in 2008.
Dr. McAneny said that although things have gotten better, there’s still a lot of money being left on the table – about $43 billion over the last 3 years. That’s how much physicians and insurers have given up due to less than 100% accuracy in claims processing since 2010.
Even so, error rates have dropped from 20% in 2010 to 7% in the latest report.
Medicare was the most accurate payer (98%). UnitedHealthcare was the most accurate commercial insurer (97.5%), while Regence was the least (85%).
The insurers who participated in the report card are Aetna, Anthem, Cigna, Health Care Service Corp., Humana, Regence, UnitedHealthcare, and Medicare.
Insurers were rated according to how quickly they pay claims, how often they pay nothing on a claim, how often they match the contracted fee schedule, whether they disclose the reason for a denial, and a variety of other measures. The report found that the vast majority of claims are paid within 30 days, and most within 15 days. Medicare and Cigna paid 95% of claims within 15 days. In contrast, Aetna paid 66% in the same time frame.
The report shed light on another trend that could lead to more payment problems for physicians: Patients are being required to pay more out of pocket for care. Patients insured by Health Care Service Corp. pay for30% of their care, according to the report card. Most of the other insurers require 20%-25% copays from patients. Humana, on the low end, seeks 15% of the allowable amount from patients.
The AMA is asking payers and vendors to give physicians real-time estimates of the patient’s responsibility at the point of care, Dr. McAneny said.
Among the other findings: Claims denials decreased to 1.8% in 2013, compared with 3% in 2012. Medicare had the highest denial rate at almost 5%.
Insurers also responded more quickly to claims. The fastest, Humana, had a median response time of 6 days, while Aetna was the slowest, with a median response time of 14 days. Medicare matched Aetna, and has maintained that response time since 2008.
Along with the report card, the AMA unveiled its administrative burden index (ABI), which measures how much it costs a practice to rework rejected claims.
Medicare’s performance was not included in the ABI. The ABI score was based largely on the percentage of claims paid after 30 days. The AMA said that the tasks associated with avoidable errors, inefficiency, and waste in the claims process cost an average $2.36 per claim for physicians and insurers. Cigna had the best ABI cost per claim of $1.25 and HCSC had the worst, at $3.32, per claim.
Dr. McAneny said physicians can use the ABI data "to identify the cost of processing claims with the participating health insurers on the report card."
The report card data is based on 2.6 million claims submitted for February and March 2013. It is drawn from 41 states, 80 specialties, and more than 450 practices. It is based exclusively on claims that were submitted electronically and remittances received electronically; therefore, the results may not apply to practices that don’t use electronic submission.
On Twitter @aliciaault
AT THE AMA HOUSE OF DELEGATES
Sunshine Act: Tracking of gifts, payments starts in August
CHICAGO – Worried that erroneous data about your relationships with industry will be publicly reported under the federal Sunshine Act? Officials from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services spoke at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association House of Delegates June 17 in an effort to allay those fears.
The Sunshine Act, which requires manufacturers to report to the CMS almost all payments and gifts made to physicians and teaching hospitals, became law as part of the Affordable Care Act. Final rules for the ACA’s Sunshine Act provisions, which the government is now calling the Open Payments Program, were issued in February.
Once data have been collected and processed, physicians will have 45 days to dispute and correct manufacturers’ reports, the CMS officials said.
After that, the data will be made public. The 5 months of data that will be collected for this year – starting Aug. 1 – will be released publicly in September 2014. Going forward, the previous year’s data will be reported each June.
Although physicians will not report their data directly to the CMS, they will be expected to take an active role in ensuring the program is successful, according to Anita Griner, deputy director of the data sharing and partnership group at the agency’s Center for Program Integrity.
Manufacturers will start compiling data on Aug. 1 on payments to physicians for consulting, honoraria, grants, gifts, meals, travel, royalties, and speaking at events, including continuing education programs. In January, the CMS will encourage physicians and teaching hospitals to register with the agency, most likely through a web portal. Once registered, doctors will be notified when data about them has been submitted, Ms. Griner explained.
Providers will have 45 days to dispute the data. If they see something false, misleading, or wrong, they must indicate their dispute to the agency and then work out the dispute with the manufacturer. The data will be flagged as "disputed" on the public website.
If physicians don’t bring a dispute to the agency’s attention within the 45-day window, it could take months for the dispute to be noted on the website, Ms. Griner said, and if the dispute is not settled within a year, the manufacturer’s data will be the de facto report to the public.
"We encourage you to come in, get involved, and dispute things that are inaccurate," she said.
She and her colleague, Dr. Shantanu Agrawal, medical director of the agency’s Center for Program Integrity, urged physicians to track their own data.
In July, the CMS plans to release a free app for Android and Apple smartphones that will include all the categories that manufacturers must report. The agency also plans to release one for industry so that sales reps and others can upload data directly to physician contacts.
One physician questioned whether the public would "stampede" to get a look at the payment data, noting that he had never been asked by any patients whether a manufacturer had taken him to dinner. "I think it will be interesting to see if that occurs," said Dr. Agrawal.
On Twitter @aliciaault
CHICAGO – Worried that erroneous data about your relationships with industry will be publicly reported under the federal Sunshine Act? Officials from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services spoke at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association House of Delegates June 17 in an effort to allay those fears.
The Sunshine Act, which requires manufacturers to report to the CMS almost all payments and gifts made to physicians and teaching hospitals, became law as part of the Affordable Care Act. Final rules for the ACA’s Sunshine Act provisions, which the government is now calling the Open Payments Program, were issued in February.
Once data have been collected and processed, physicians will have 45 days to dispute and correct manufacturers’ reports, the CMS officials said.
After that, the data will be made public. The 5 months of data that will be collected for this year – starting Aug. 1 – will be released publicly in September 2014. Going forward, the previous year’s data will be reported each June.
Although physicians will not report their data directly to the CMS, they will be expected to take an active role in ensuring the program is successful, according to Anita Griner, deputy director of the data sharing and partnership group at the agency’s Center for Program Integrity.
Manufacturers will start compiling data on Aug. 1 on payments to physicians for consulting, honoraria, grants, gifts, meals, travel, royalties, and speaking at events, including continuing education programs. In January, the CMS will encourage physicians and teaching hospitals to register with the agency, most likely through a web portal. Once registered, doctors will be notified when data about them has been submitted, Ms. Griner explained.
Providers will have 45 days to dispute the data. If they see something false, misleading, or wrong, they must indicate their dispute to the agency and then work out the dispute with the manufacturer. The data will be flagged as "disputed" on the public website.
If physicians don’t bring a dispute to the agency’s attention within the 45-day window, it could take months for the dispute to be noted on the website, Ms. Griner said, and if the dispute is not settled within a year, the manufacturer’s data will be the de facto report to the public.
"We encourage you to come in, get involved, and dispute things that are inaccurate," she said.
She and her colleague, Dr. Shantanu Agrawal, medical director of the agency’s Center for Program Integrity, urged physicians to track their own data.
In July, the CMS plans to release a free app for Android and Apple smartphones that will include all the categories that manufacturers must report. The agency also plans to release one for industry so that sales reps and others can upload data directly to physician contacts.
One physician questioned whether the public would "stampede" to get a look at the payment data, noting that he had never been asked by any patients whether a manufacturer had taken him to dinner. "I think it will be interesting to see if that occurs," said Dr. Agrawal.
On Twitter @aliciaault
CHICAGO – Worried that erroneous data about your relationships with industry will be publicly reported under the federal Sunshine Act? Officials from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services spoke at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association House of Delegates June 17 in an effort to allay those fears.
The Sunshine Act, which requires manufacturers to report to the CMS almost all payments and gifts made to physicians and teaching hospitals, became law as part of the Affordable Care Act. Final rules for the ACA’s Sunshine Act provisions, which the government is now calling the Open Payments Program, were issued in February.
Once data have been collected and processed, physicians will have 45 days to dispute and correct manufacturers’ reports, the CMS officials said.
After that, the data will be made public. The 5 months of data that will be collected for this year – starting Aug. 1 – will be released publicly in September 2014. Going forward, the previous year’s data will be reported each June.
Although physicians will not report their data directly to the CMS, they will be expected to take an active role in ensuring the program is successful, according to Anita Griner, deputy director of the data sharing and partnership group at the agency’s Center for Program Integrity.
Manufacturers will start compiling data on Aug. 1 on payments to physicians for consulting, honoraria, grants, gifts, meals, travel, royalties, and speaking at events, including continuing education programs. In January, the CMS will encourage physicians and teaching hospitals to register with the agency, most likely through a web portal. Once registered, doctors will be notified when data about them has been submitted, Ms. Griner explained.
Providers will have 45 days to dispute the data. If they see something false, misleading, or wrong, they must indicate their dispute to the agency and then work out the dispute with the manufacturer. The data will be flagged as "disputed" on the public website.
If physicians don’t bring a dispute to the agency’s attention within the 45-day window, it could take months for the dispute to be noted on the website, Ms. Griner said, and if the dispute is not settled within a year, the manufacturer’s data will be the de facto report to the public.
"We encourage you to come in, get involved, and dispute things that are inaccurate," she said.
She and her colleague, Dr. Shantanu Agrawal, medical director of the agency’s Center for Program Integrity, urged physicians to track their own data.
In July, the CMS plans to release a free app for Android and Apple smartphones that will include all the categories that manufacturers must report. The agency also plans to release one for industry so that sales reps and others can upload data directly to physician contacts.
One physician questioned whether the public would "stampede" to get a look at the payment data, noting that he had never been asked by any patients whether a manufacturer had taken him to dinner. "I think it will be interesting to see if that occurs," said Dr. Agrawal.
On Twitter @aliciaault
AT THE AMA HOUSE OF DELEGATES
AMA delegates say obesity is a disease
CHICAGO – The American Medical Association’s chief policy-making body has decided that obesity should be considered not just a disease risk factor, but an actual disease state that warrants insurance coverage for all aspects of prevention and treatment.
At the annual meeting of the AMA House of Delegates, it voted 276-181 on June 18 to support a resolution that was brought forward by several specialty organizations that called on the AMA to "recognize obesity as a disease state with multiple pathophysiological aspects requiring a range of interventions to advance obesity treatment and prevention."
The vote ensures that the resolution becomes official AMA policy.
The resolution was sponsored by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American College of Cardiology, the Endocrine Society, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the American Urological Association, and the American College of Surgeons.
Preliminary testimony on the resolution a few days before the floor vote was "mixed," according to the committee report presented to the delegates. The committee recommended adopting the resolution, but the AMA’s Council on Science and Public Health had urged against it in its report to the delegates.
Speaking to the House of Delegates, Dr. Robert Gilchick, a member of the council, said, "We did not think the evidence rose to the level where obesity could be recognized as its own distinct medical disease state."
He noted that, although obesity is a risk factor, it may not in and of itself indicate illness. Some people who are considered obese by virtue of their body mass index might actually be healthy and fit, said Dr. Gilchick. "Why should a third of Americans be diagnosed with having a disease if they aren’t necessarily sick?" he asked.
Calling it a disease risks promoting medical interventions over other potential solutions, like lifestyle changes and advocating policies to improve nutrition and the exercise environment, Dr. Gilchick added.
Dr. Jonathan D. Leffert, a delegate from the AACE, said that the resolution should pass because obesity, like other diseases, has multifactorial causes and can be addressed through behavioral, medical, and surgical treatments. "The scientific evidence is overwhelming," he said.
"We know that it is a disease," Dr. Jeffrey Cain, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in an interview after the vote. By calling obesity a disease, physicians will get more resources to help their patients. Hopefully, the AMA’s call to action will move insurers to improve coverage sooner rather than later, he said.
Immediately after the vote, the AACE issued a statement lauding the AMA delegates’ action. "The action by the AMA House of Delegates represents a major step in addressing obesity head-on and helping patients to get appropriate interventions and treatment they need," AACE President Jeffrey Mechanick said in the statement.
Being overweight or obese increases the risk of breast cancer, coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, gallbladder disease, osteoarthritis, colon cancer, hypertension, and stroke and contributes as much as $210 billion a year to the nation’s health costs, according to the AACE.
On Twitter @aliciaault
CHICAGO – The American Medical Association’s chief policy-making body has decided that obesity should be considered not just a disease risk factor, but an actual disease state that warrants insurance coverage for all aspects of prevention and treatment.
At the annual meeting of the AMA House of Delegates, it voted 276-181 on June 18 to support a resolution that was brought forward by several specialty organizations that called on the AMA to "recognize obesity as a disease state with multiple pathophysiological aspects requiring a range of interventions to advance obesity treatment and prevention."
The vote ensures that the resolution becomes official AMA policy.
The resolution was sponsored by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American College of Cardiology, the Endocrine Society, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the American Urological Association, and the American College of Surgeons.
Preliminary testimony on the resolution a few days before the floor vote was "mixed," according to the committee report presented to the delegates. The committee recommended adopting the resolution, but the AMA’s Council on Science and Public Health had urged against it in its report to the delegates.
Speaking to the House of Delegates, Dr. Robert Gilchick, a member of the council, said, "We did not think the evidence rose to the level where obesity could be recognized as its own distinct medical disease state."
He noted that, although obesity is a risk factor, it may not in and of itself indicate illness. Some people who are considered obese by virtue of their body mass index might actually be healthy and fit, said Dr. Gilchick. "Why should a third of Americans be diagnosed with having a disease if they aren’t necessarily sick?" he asked.
Calling it a disease risks promoting medical interventions over other potential solutions, like lifestyle changes and advocating policies to improve nutrition and the exercise environment, Dr. Gilchick added.
Dr. Jonathan D. Leffert, a delegate from the AACE, said that the resolution should pass because obesity, like other diseases, has multifactorial causes and can be addressed through behavioral, medical, and surgical treatments. "The scientific evidence is overwhelming," he said.
"We know that it is a disease," Dr. Jeffrey Cain, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in an interview after the vote. By calling obesity a disease, physicians will get more resources to help their patients. Hopefully, the AMA’s call to action will move insurers to improve coverage sooner rather than later, he said.
Immediately after the vote, the AACE issued a statement lauding the AMA delegates’ action. "The action by the AMA House of Delegates represents a major step in addressing obesity head-on and helping patients to get appropriate interventions and treatment they need," AACE President Jeffrey Mechanick said in the statement.
Being overweight or obese increases the risk of breast cancer, coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, gallbladder disease, osteoarthritis, colon cancer, hypertension, and stroke and contributes as much as $210 billion a year to the nation’s health costs, according to the AACE.
On Twitter @aliciaault
CHICAGO – The American Medical Association’s chief policy-making body has decided that obesity should be considered not just a disease risk factor, but an actual disease state that warrants insurance coverage for all aspects of prevention and treatment.
At the annual meeting of the AMA House of Delegates, it voted 276-181 on June 18 to support a resolution that was brought forward by several specialty organizations that called on the AMA to "recognize obesity as a disease state with multiple pathophysiological aspects requiring a range of interventions to advance obesity treatment and prevention."
The vote ensures that the resolution becomes official AMA policy.
The resolution was sponsored by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American College of Cardiology, the Endocrine Society, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the American Urological Association, and the American College of Surgeons.
Preliminary testimony on the resolution a few days before the floor vote was "mixed," according to the committee report presented to the delegates. The committee recommended adopting the resolution, but the AMA’s Council on Science and Public Health had urged against it in its report to the delegates.
Speaking to the House of Delegates, Dr. Robert Gilchick, a member of the council, said, "We did not think the evidence rose to the level where obesity could be recognized as its own distinct medical disease state."
He noted that, although obesity is a risk factor, it may not in and of itself indicate illness. Some people who are considered obese by virtue of their body mass index might actually be healthy and fit, said Dr. Gilchick. "Why should a third of Americans be diagnosed with having a disease if they aren’t necessarily sick?" he asked.
Calling it a disease risks promoting medical interventions over other potential solutions, like lifestyle changes and advocating policies to improve nutrition and the exercise environment, Dr. Gilchick added.
Dr. Jonathan D. Leffert, a delegate from the AACE, said that the resolution should pass because obesity, like other diseases, has multifactorial causes and can be addressed through behavioral, medical, and surgical treatments. "The scientific evidence is overwhelming," he said.
"We know that it is a disease," Dr. Jeffrey Cain, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in an interview after the vote. By calling obesity a disease, physicians will get more resources to help their patients. Hopefully, the AMA’s call to action will move insurers to improve coverage sooner rather than later, he said.
Immediately after the vote, the AACE issued a statement lauding the AMA delegates’ action. "The action by the AMA House of Delegates represents a major step in addressing obesity head-on and helping patients to get appropriate interventions and treatment they need," AACE President Jeffrey Mechanick said in the statement.
Being overweight or obese increases the risk of breast cancer, coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, gallbladder disease, osteoarthritis, colon cancer, hypertension, and stroke and contributes as much as $210 billion a year to the nation’s health costs, according to the AACE.
On Twitter @aliciaault
AT THE AMA HOUSE OF DELEGATES
AMA delegates say obesity is a disease
CHICAGO – The American Medical Association’s chief policy-making body has decided that obesity should be considered not just a disease risk factor, but an actual disease state that warrants insurance coverage for all aspects of prevention and treatment.
At the annual meeting of the AMA House of Delegates, it voted 276-181 on June 18 to support a resolution that was brought forward by several specialty organizations that called on the AMA to "recognize obesity as a disease state with multiple pathophysiological aspects requiring a range of interventions to advance obesity treatment and prevention."
The vote ensures that the resolution becomes official AMA policy.
The resolution was sponsored by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American College of Cardiology, the Endocrine Society, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the American Urological Association, and the American College of Surgeons.
Preliminary testimony on the resolution a few days before the floor vote was "mixed," according to the committee report presented to the delegates. The committee recommended adopting the resolution, but the AMA’s Council on Science and Public Health had urged against it in its report to the delegates.
Speaking to the House of Delegates, Dr. Robert Gilchick, a member of the council, said, "We did not think the evidence rose to the level where obesity could be recognized as its own distinct medical disease state."
He noted that, although obesity is a risk factor, it may not in and of itself indicate illness. Some people who are considered obese by virtue of their body mass index might actually be healthy and fit, said Dr. Gilchick. "Why should a third of Americans be diagnosed with having a disease if they aren’t necessarily sick?" he asked.
Calling it a disease risks promoting medical interventions over other potential solutions, like lifestyle changes and advocating policies to improve nutrition and the exercise environment, Dr. Gilchick added.
Dr. Jonathan D. Leffert, a delegate from the AACE, said that the resolution should pass because obesity, like other diseases, has multifactorial causes and can be addressed through behavioral, medical, and surgical treatments. "The scientific evidence is overwhelming," he said.
"We know that it is a disease," Dr. Jeffrey Cain, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in an interview after the vote. By calling obesity a disease, physicians will get more resources to help their patients. Hopefully, the AMA’s call to action will move insurers to improve coverage sooner rather than later, he said.
Immediately after the vote, the AACE issued a statement lauding the AMA delegates’ action. "The action by the AMA House of Delegates represents a major step in addressing obesity head-on and helping patients to get appropriate interventions and treatment they need," AACE President Jeffrey Mechanick said in the statement.
Being overweight or obese increases the risk of breast cancer, coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, gallbladder disease, osteoarthritis, colon cancer, hypertension, and stroke and contributes as much as $210 billion a year to the nation’s health costs, according to the AACE.
On Twitter @aliciaault
CHICAGO – The American Medical Association’s chief policy-making body has decided that obesity should be considered not just a disease risk factor, but an actual disease state that warrants insurance coverage for all aspects of prevention and treatment.
At the annual meeting of the AMA House of Delegates, it voted 276-181 on June 18 to support a resolution that was brought forward by several specialty organizations that called on the AMA to "recognize obesity as a disease state with multiple pathophysiological aspects requiring a range of interventions to advance obesity treatment and prevention."
The vote ensures that the resolution becomes official AMA policy.
The resolution was sponsored by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American College of Cardiology, the Endocrine Society, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the American Urological Association, and the American College of Surgeons.
Preliminary testimony on the resolution a few days before the floor vote was "mixed," according to the committee report presented to the delegates. The committee recommended adopting the resolution, but the AMA’s Council on Science and Public Health had urged against it in its report to the delegates.
Speaking to the House of Delegates, Dr. Robert Gilchick, a member of the council, said, "We did not think the evidence rose to the level where obesity could be recognized as its own distinct medical disease state."
He noted that, although obesity is a risk factor, it may not in and of itself indicate illness. Some people who are considered obese by virtue of their body mass index might actually be healthy and fit, said Dr. Gilchick. "Why should a third of Americans be diagnosed with having a disease if they aren’t necessarily sick?" he asked.
Calling it a disease risks promoting medical interventions over other potential solutions, like lifestyle changes and advocating policies to improve nutrition and the exercise environment, Dr. Gilchick added.
Dr. Jonathan D. Leffert, a delegate from the AACE, said that the resolution should pass because obesity, like other diseases, has multifactorial causes and can be addressed through behavioral, medical, and surgical treatments. "The scientific evidence is overwhelming," he said.
"We know that it is a disease," Dr. Jeffrey Cain, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in an interview after the vote. By calling obesity a disease, physicians will get more resources to help their patients. Hopefully, the AMA’s call to action will move insurers to improve coverage sooner rather than later, he said.
Immediately after the vote, the AACE issued a statement lauding the AMA delegates’ action. "The action by the AMA House of Delegates represents a major step in addressing obesity head-on and helping patients to get appropriate interventions and treatment they need," AACE President Jeffrey Mechanick said in the statement.
Being overweight or obese increases the risk of breast cancer, coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, gallbladder disease, osteoarthritis, colon cancer, hypertension, and stroke and contributes as much as $210 billion a year to the nation’s health costs, according to the AACE.
On Twitter @aliciaault
CHICAGO – The American Medical Association’s chief policy-making body has decided that obesity should be considered not just a disease risk factor, but an actual disease state that warrants insurance coverage for all aspects of prevention and treatment.
At the annual meeting of the AMA House of Delegates, it voted 276-181 on June 18 to support a resolution that was brought forward by several specialty organizations that called on the AMA to "recognize obesity as a disease state with multiple pathophysiological aspects requiring a range of interventions to advance obesity treatment and prevention."
The vote ensures that the resolution becomes official AMA policy.
The resolution was sponsored by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American College of Cardiology, the Endocrine Society, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the American Urological Association, and the American College of Surgeons.
Preliminary testimony on the resolution a few days before the floor vote was "mixed," according to the committee report presented to the delegates. The committee recommended adopting the resolution, but the AMA’s Council on Science and Public Health had urged against it in its report to the delegates.
Speaking to the House of Delegates, Dr. Robert Gilchick, a member of the council, said, "We did not think the evidence rose to the level where obesity could be recognized as its own distinct medical disease state."
He noted that, although obesity is a risk factor, it may not in and of itself indicate illness. Some people who are considered obese by virtue of their body mass index might actually be healthy and fit, said Dr. Gilchick. "Why should a third of Americans be diagnosed with having a disease if they aren’t necessarily sick?" he asked.
Calling it a disease risks promoting medical interventions over other potential solutions, like lifestyle changes and advocating policies to improve nutrition and the exercise environment, Dr. Gilchick added.
Dr. Jonathan D. Leffert, a delegate from the AACE, said that the resolution should pass because obesity, like other diseases, has multifactorial causes and can be addressed through behavioral, medical, and surgical treatments. "The scientific evidence is overwhelming," he said.
"We know that it is a disease," Dr. Jeffrey Cain, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in an interview after the vote. By calling obesity a disease, physicians will get more resources to help their patients. Hopefully, the AMA’s call to action will move insurers to improve coverage sooner rather than later, he said.
Immediately after the vote, the AACE issued a statement lauding the AMA delegates’ action. "The action by the AMA House of Delegates represents a major step in addressing obesity head-on and helping patients to get appropriate interventions and treatment they need," AACE President Jeffrey Mechanick said in the statement.
Being overweight or obese increases the risk of breast cancer, coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, gallbladder disease, osteoarthritis, colon cancer, hypertension, and stroke and contributes as much as $210 billion a year to the nation’s health costs, according to the AACE.
On Twitter @aliciaault
AT THE AMA HOUSE OF DELEGATES
