Extended anticoagulation offers transient benefit

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 12/31/2014 - 06:00
Display Headline
Extended anticoagulation offers transient benefit

CT scan showing a PE Credit: Medical College of Georgia

SAN FRANCISCO—New research indicates that extending anticoagulant therapy to 2 years can reduce the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) without increasing major bleeding, but this benefit only lasts while patients are receiving the therapy.

In the PADIS-PE study, patients with a first episode of symptomatic, unprovoked pulmonary embolism (PE) received 6 months of treatment with a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), followed by 18 months of warfarin or placebo.

Patients who received warfarin had a 77% reduction in the relative risk of recurrent VTE or major bleeding while they received treatment. But an additional 2 years of follow-up showed that this benefit was lost once patients stopped anticoagulation.

Francis Couturaud, MD, PhD, of the Brest University Hospital Center in Brest, France, presented these data at the 2014 ASH Annual Meeting as LBA-3.*

He and his colleagues randomized patients to receive warfarin (n=184) or placebo (n=187) for 18 months after their intial VKA treatment. Patients were followed for an additional 24 months after treatment ended.

Most baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms, although there was a significantly higher percentage of females in the warfarin arm.

“[Overall,] the mean age was below 60, [and] the mean BMI [body mass index] was below 30,” Dr Couturaud noted. “About 4% of patients had previous cancer [that had been] resolved for more than 2 years, 8% had previous distal DVT [deep vein thrombosis] or superficial venous thrombosis, a quarter of women were on estrogen-containing pills, and about one-third had an associated proximal DVT at the time of PE diagnosis.”

“Before the randomization, the mean duration of VKA [therapy] was 6 months, and the mean percentage of time within the therapeutic range was 70. At inclusion, about one-third of patients had residual perfusion defect, about 15% had residual DVT, the mean D-dimer level was below 500 μg/L, and about 27% had thrombophilia.”

Results

The study’s primary outcome was the composite of recurrent VTE or major bleeding during the 18-month treatment period. Significantly fewer patients met this endpoint in the warfarin arm than in the placebo arm—6 (3.3%) and 25 (13.5%), respectively (hazard ratio [HR]=0.23, P=0.0004).

Likewise, the number of patients with recurrent VTE at 18 months was significantly lower in the warfarin arm than in the placebo arm—3 (1.7%) and 25 (13.5%), respectively (HR=0.11, P<0.0001).

On the other hand, there was no significant difference in the rate of major bleeding between the treatment arms at 18 months. Four patients (2.2%) had major bleeding in the warfarin arm, as did 1 (0.5%) in the placebo arm (HR=4.07, P=0.18).

At 42 months, there was no significant difference between the treatment arms with regard to the composite outcome, the rate of recurrent VTE, or the rate of major bleeding.

The composite outcome occurred in 33 (20.8%) patients in the warfarin arm and 42 (24%) in the placebo arm (HR=0.74, P=0.19). Recurrent VTE occurred in 28 (17.9%) and 39 patients (22.1%), respectively (HR=0.67, P=0.10). And major bleeding occurred in 6 (3.5%) and 5 patients (3%), respectively (HR=1.12, P=0.71).

“[E]xtending anticoagulation for 18 additional months was associated with a major relative risk reduction of 77% of recurrent VTE or major bleeding during the treatment period,” Dr Couturaud said in summary. “However, this benefit was lost during a long-term follow-up of 2 years after stopping anticoagulation.”

“In addition, recurrent VTE occurred in 80% of cases as recurrent PE and in 90% of cases as unprovoked VTE. So additional investigations are needed to identify subgroups of patients at lower risk who may not need indefinite anticoagulation.”

 

 

This study was sponsored by Brest University Hospital. Investigators received research funding from Actelion Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, LEO Pharma, and Bayer.

*Information in the abstract differs from that presented at the meeting.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

CT scan showing a PE Credit: Medical College of Georgia

SAN FRANCISCO—New research indicates that extending anticoagulant therapy to 2 years can reduce the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) without increasing major bleeding, but this benefit only lasts while patients are receiving the therapy.

In the PADIS-PE study, patients with a first episode of symptomatic, unprovoked pulmonary embolism (PE) received 6 months of treatment with a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), followed by 18 months of warfarin or placebo.

Patients who received warfarin had a 77% reduction in the relative risk of recurrent VTE or major bleeding while they received treatment. But an additional 2 years of follow-up showed that this benefit was lost once patients stopped anticoagulation.

Francis Couturaud, MD, PhD, of the Brest University Hospital Center in Brest, France, presented these data at the 2014 ASH Annual Meeting as LBA-3.*

He and his colleagues randomized patients to receive warfarin (n=184) or placebo (n=187) for 18 months after their intial VKA treatment. Patients were followed for an additional 24 months after treatment ended.

Most baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms, although there was a significantly higher percentage of females in the warfarin arm.

“[Overall,] the mean age was below 60, [and] the mean BMI [body mass index] was below 30,” Dr Couturaud noted. “About 4% of patients had previous cancer [that had been] resolved for more than 2 years, 8% had previous distal DVT [deep vein thrombosis] or superficial venous thrombosis, a quarter of women were on estrogen-containing pills, and about one-third had an associated proximal DVT at the time of PE diagnosis.”

“Before the randomization, the mean duration of VKA [therapy] was 6 months, and the mean percentage of time within the therapeutic range was 70. At inclusion, about one-third of patients had residual perfusion defect, about 15% had residual DVT, the mean D-dimer level was below 500 μg/L, and about 27% had thrombophilia.”

Results

The study’s primary outcome was the composite of recurrent VTE or major bleeding during the 18-month treatment period. Significantly fewer patients met this endpoint in the warfarin arm than in the placebo arm—6 (3.3%) and 25 (13.5%), respectively (hazard ratio [HR]=0.23, P=0.0004).

Likewise, the number of patients with recurrent VTE at 18 months was significantly lower in the warfarin arm than in the placebo arm—3 (1.7%) and 25 (13.5%), respectively (HR=0.11, P<0.0001).

On the other hand, there was no significant difference in the rate of major bleeding between the treatment arms at 18 months. Four patients (2.2%) had major bleeding in the warfarin arm, as did 1 (0.5%) in the placebo arm (HR=4.07, P=0.18).

At 42 months, there was no significant difference between the treatment arms with regard to the composite outcome, the rate of recurrent VTE, or the rate of major bleeding.

The composite outcome occurred in 33 (20.8%) patients in the warfarin arm and 42 (24%) in the placebo arm (HR=0.74, P=0.19). Recurrent VTE occurred in 28 (17.9%) and 39 patients (22.1%), respectively (HR=0.67, P=0.10). And major bleeding occurred in 6 (3.5%) and 5 patients (3%), respectively (HR=1.12, P=0.71).

“[E]xtending anticoagulation for 18 additional months was associated with a major relative risk reduction of 77% of recurrent VTE or major bleeding during the treatment period,” Dr Couturaud said in summary. “However, this benefit was lost during a long-term follow-up of 2 years after stopping anticoagulation.”

“In addition, recurrent VTE occurred in 80% of cases as recurrent PE and in 90% of cases as unprovoked VTE. So additional investigations are needed to identify subgroups of patients at lower risk who may not need indefinite anticoagulation.”

 

 

This study was sponsored by Brest University Hospital. Investigators received research funding from Actelion Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, LEO Pharma, and Bayer.

*Information in the abstract differs from that presented at the meeting.

CT scan showing a PE Credit: Medical College of Georgia

SAN FRANCISCO—New research indicates that extending anticoagulant therapy to 2 years can reduce the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) without increasing major bleeding, but this benefit only lasts while patients are receiving the therapy.

In the PADIS-PE study, patients with a first episode of symptomatic, unprovoked pulmonary embolism (PE) received 6 months of treatment with a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), followed by 18 months of warfarin or placebo.

Patients who received warfarin had a 77% reduction in the relative risk of recurrent VTE or major bleeding while they received treatment. But an additional 2 years of follow-up showed that this benefit was lost once patients stopped anticoagulation.

Francis Couturaud, MD, PhD, of the Brest University Hospital Center in Brest, France, presented these data at the 2014 ASH Annual Meeting as LBA-3.*

He and his colleagues randomized patients to receive warfarin (n=184) or placebo (n=187) for 18 months after their intial VKA treatment. Patients were followed for an additional 24 months after treatment ended.

Most baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms, although there was a significantly higher percentage of females in the warfarin arm.

“[Overall,] the mean age was below 60, [and] the mean BMI [body mass index] was below 30,” Dr Couturaud noted. “About 4% of patients had previous cancer [that had been] resolved for more than 2 years, 8% had previous distal DVT [deep vein thrombosis] or superficial venous thrombosis, a quarter of women were on estrogen-containing pills, and about one-third had an associated proximal DVT at the time of PE diagnosis.”

“Before the randomization, the mean duration of VKA [therapy] was 6 months, and the mean percentage of time within the therapeutic range was 70. At inclusion, about one-third of patients had residual perfusion defect, about 15% had residual DVT, the mean D-dimer level was below 500 μg/L, and about 27% had thrombophilia.”

Results

The study’s primary outcome was the composite of recurrent VTE or major bleeding during the 18-month treatment period. Significantly fewer patients met this endpoint in the warfarin arm than in the placebo arm—6 (3.3%) and 25 (13.5%), respectively (hazard ratio [HR]=0.23, P=0.0004).

Likewise, the number of patients with recurrent VTE at 18 months was significantly lower in the warfarin arm than in the placebo arm—3 (1.7%) and 25 (13.5%), respectively (HR=0.11, P<0.0001).

On the other hand, there was no significant difference in the rate of major bleeding between the treatment arms at 18 months. Four patients (2.2%) had major bleeding in the warfarin arm, as did 1 (0.5%) in the placebo arm (HR=4.07, P=0.18).

At 42 months, there was no significant difference between the treatment arms with regard to the composite outcome, the rate of recurrent VTE, or the rate of major bleeding.

The composite outcome occurred in 33 (20.8%) patients in the warfarin arm and 42 (24%) in the placebo arm (HR=0.74, P=0.19). Recurrent VTE occurred in 28 (17.9%) and 39 patients (22.1%), respectively (HR=0.67, P=0.10). And major bleeding occurred in 6 (3.5%) and 5 patients (3%), respectively (HR=1.12, P=0.71).

“[E]xtending anticoagulation for 18 additional months was associated with a major relative risk reduction of 77% of recurrent VTE or major bleeding during the treatment period,” Dr Couturaud said in summary. “However, this benefit was lost during a long-term follow-up of 2 years after stopping anticoagulation.”

“In addition, recurrent VTE occurred in 80% of cases as recurrent PE and in 90% of cases as unprovoked VTE. So additional investigations are needed to identify subgroups of patients at lower risk who may not need indefinite anticoagulation.”

 

 

This study was sponsored by Brest University Hospital. Investigators received research funding from Actelion Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, LEO Pharma, and Bayer.

*Information in the abstract differs from that presented at the meeting.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Extended anticoagulation offers transient benefit
Display Headline
Extended anticoagulation offers transient benefit
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

FDA releases warning about IV solutions

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 12/31/2014 - 06:00
Display Headline
FDA releases warning about IV solutions

Credit: FDA
Wallcur IV solution

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is alerting healthcare professionals not to use Wallcur, LLC, simulated intravenous (IV) products in human or animal patients, as the products are for training purposes only.

The FDA has become aware that some Wallcur training IV products have been distributed to healthcare facilities and administered to patients.

There have been reports of serious adverse events associated with some of these products, such as Practi IV Solution Bags.

Before administering IV solutions to patients, healthcare providers should carefully check the labels to ensure that products are not training products.

Wallcur’s training products, which may bear the words “for clinical simulation,” are not to be administered to patients.

If you suspect that any Wallcur training IV products may have been administered to a patient, whether or not the incident has resulted in an adverse event, please report the incident to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting Program.

The FDA said it will continue to investigate and monitor this issue. The agency is also working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to inform healthcare professionals and state health departments.

Publications
Topics

Credit: FDA
Wallcur IV solution

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is alerting healthcare professionals not to use Wallcur, LLC, simulated intravenous (IV) products in human or animal patients, as the products are for training purposes only.

The FDA has become aware that some Wallcur training IV products have been distributed to healthcare facilities and administered to patients.

There have been reports of serious adverse events associated with some of these products, such as Practi IV Solution Bags.

Before administering IV solutions to patients, healthcare providers should carefully check the labels to ensure that products are not training products.

Wallcur’s training products, which may bear the words “for clinical simulation,” are not to be administered to patients.

If you suspect that any Wallcur training IV products may have been administered to a patient, whether or not the incident has resulted in an adverse event, please report the incident to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting Program.

The FDA said it will continue to investigate and monitor this issue. The agency is also working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to inform healthcare professionals and state health departments.

Credit: FDA
Wallcur IV solution

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is alerting healthcare professionals not to use Wallcur, LLC, simulated intravenous (IV) products in human or animal patients, as the products are for training purposes only.

The FDA has become aware that some Wallcur training IV products have been distributed to healthcare facilities and administered to patients.

There have been reports of serious adverse events associated with some of these products, such as Practi IV Solution Bags.

Before administering IV solutions to patients, healthcare providers should carefully check the labels to ensure that products are not training products.

Wallcur’s training products, which may bear the words “for clinical simulation,” are not to be administered to patients.

If you suspect that any Wallcur training IV products may have been administered to a patient, whether or not the incident has resulted in an adverse event, please report the incident to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting Program.

The FDA said it will continue to investigate and monitor this issue. The agency is also working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to inform healthcare professionals and state health departments.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
FDA releases warning about IV solutions
Display Headline
FDA releases warning about IV solutions
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Inpatient vs Outpatient Hospitalization

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/02/2017 - 19:34
Display Headline
Changes to inpatient versus outpatient hospitalization: Medicare's 2‐midnight rule

Status determinations (outpatient versus inpatient) for hospitalized patients have become a routine part of patient care in the United States. Under the guidance provided by the Medicare Benefits Policy Manual, hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries are assigned 1 of these 2 statuses. The status assignment does not affect the care a patient can receive, but rather how the hospital services provided are billed to Medicare. Hospital services provided under inpatient status are billed under Medicare Part A. Hospital services provided under outpatient status, which includes all patients receiving observation services (commonly referred to as under observation), are billed under Medicare Part B. Whether hospital services are billed under Part A or Part B is important to hospitals and Medicare beneficiaries, as both the hospital reimbursement and beneficiary liability can vary greatly depending on whether services are billed under Part A versus Part B. Hospitals are generally reimbursed at a higher rate for services provided as an inpatient (Part A). The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) recently found that Medicare paid nearly three times more for a short inpatient stay than an [outpatient] stay for the same condition.[1] Medicare beneficiary liability also varies based on status. First, beneficiaries hospitalized as inpatients are subject to a deductible under Part A ($1,216 in 2014) for hospital services associated with that hospitalization and any future inpatient hospitalization beyond 60 days of discharge.[2] Beneficiaries hospitalized as outpatients are subject to the Medicare Part B deductible ($147 in 2014), and then a 20% copay on each individual outpatient hospital service, with no cumulative limit.[2, 3] In addition, hospital pharmacy charges for Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized as inpatients are covered under Medicare A. However, for Medicare patients hospitalized as outpatients, many medications are not covered by Medicare Part B benefits. Finally, time spent hospitalized as an outpatient does not count toward the Medicare 3‐day medically necessary inpatient stay requirement to qualify for the skilled nursing facility care benefit following discharge.

HISTORY AND INTENT OF INPATIENT AND OUTPATIENT STATUS DETERMINATIONS

Prior to October 1, 2013, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) stated that physician judgment and an expectation of at least an overnight hospitalization should determine inpatient status of hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries. Guidance as to when inpatient services were covered was found in the Medicare Benefits Policy Manual (MBPM)[4]:

An inpatient is a person who has been admitted to a hospital for bed occupancy for purposes of receiving inpatient hospital services. Generally, a patient is considered an inpatient if formally admitted as inpatient with the expectation that he or she will remain at least overnight and occupy a bed even though it later develops that the patient can be discharged or transferred to another hospital and not actually use a hospital bed overnight. The physician or other practitioner responsible for a patient's care at the hospital is also responsible for deciding whether the patient should be admitted as an inpatient. Physicians should use a 24‐hour period as a benchmark, i.e., they should order admission for patients who are expected to need hospital care for 24 hours or more, and treat other patients on an outpatient basis. However, the decision to admit a patient is a complex medical judgment that can be made only after the physician has considered a number of factors, including the patient's medical history and current medical needs, the types of facilities available to inpatients and to outpatients, the hospital's by‐laws and admissions policies, and the relative appropriateness of treatment in each setting.

For a subset of patients who are hospitalized under outpatient status, billing for observation services is allowed. CMS defines observation as a well defined set of services, that should last less than 24 hours and in only rare and exceptional casesspan more than 48 hours.[5] Many providers recognize the utility of a few additional hours of hospital care and/or testing in a hospital setting to determine whether a patient can go home or needs additional evaluation, monitoring, and/or treatment that can only be provided in a hospital, consistent with the CMS definition of observation.[6] It is important to note that although observation and outpatient are frequently used interchangeably, only outpatient is technically a CMS status. Patients in observation or under observation are, in fact, a subset of patients who are hospitalized under an outpatient status.

Outpatient status may also be appropriate for patients who require hospitalization for routine and expected overnight monitoring following a procedure. These patients are often not eligible for billing of observation services or as an inpatient because alternative methods of billing for the recovery time following the procedure exist. When determining the appropriate status of a Medicare beneficiary for a hospitalization following a procedure, physicians need to be aware of whether a specific procedure appears on the Medicare inpatient‐only procedures list.[7] Per CMS, procedures designated as inpatient only are reimbursed only when the patient is admitted as an inpatient at the time the procedure is performed.[8] Conversely, outpatient status for an overnight hospitalization associated with a procedure not on the inpatient‐only list is generally appropriate. Therefore, patients hospitalized for a procedure that appears on this list should always be hospitalized under inpatient status, regardless of the amount of time that the patient is expected to be hospitalized following the procedure, including those cases for which the hospitalization is expected to be only overnight.[7, 8] Only a limited number of Current Procedural Technology (CPT) codes, mostly surgical, automatically qualify for inpatient status and do not have outpatient prospective payment system eligibility. Although most procedures on the inpatient‐only list are associated with a hospitalization that commonly span at least 2 midnights, such as coronary artery bypass grafting, some potentially overnight stay cases, such as cholecystectomy (CPT 47600) appear on the 2014 inpatient‐only list.[9]

As noted above, prior to October 1, 2013, the Medicare definitions governing outpatient versus inpatient status included a 24‐hour benchmark. However, the MBPM also notes that: Admissions of particular patients are not covered or non‐covered solely on the basis of the length of time the patient actually spends in the hospital.[10]

In practice, status determination was ultimately dependent on physician or other practitioner's complex medical judgment as specified by CMS. To validate this judgment, CMS recommended that reviewers use a screening tool as part of their medical review. This screening tool could include practice guidelines that are well accepted by the medical community but did not require or identify a specific criteria set.[11] Not surprisingly, there was and continues to be great variability in the application of outpatient versus inpatient status across hospitals in actual practice.[1, 12, 13] The ambiguity in the definition of a hospitalized patient's status helped spawn commercial clinical decision tools, such as InterQual (McKesson Corporation, San Francisco, CA) and MCG (formally known as Milliman Care Guidelines; MCG Health, LLC, Seattle, WA), to help define inpatients versus outpatients.[14, 15] However, these guidelines are complex, can be difficult to interpret and apply, and have been criticized for poor predictive value and attempting to replace physician judgment.[16, 17, 18] Furthermore, CMS has never formally endorsed any specific decision tool.

INPATIENT AND OUTPATIENT PAYMENTS AND THE RECOVERY AUDIT CONTRACTOR PROGRAM

In 2000, CMS started using Ambulatory Payment Classifications for hospital services, which made inpatient care more financially favorable for hospitals. In response to concerns that hospitals would be incentivized to overuse inpatient status, CMS made a number of changes to their payment system, including the creation of the Recovery Audit Program in 2003. This program was originally called the Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) Program and continues to be most commonly referred to as the RAC program. The RAC program, tasked with finding and correcting improper claims to the Medicare program, began as a demonstration required in the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA), and subsequently became a nationwide audit program under the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. Under this program, private contractors review hospital and billing records of Medicare patients and are paid on a contingency fee (8%12.5%) for all underpayments and overpayments that are identified and corrected.[19] Importantly, the RACs are not subject to any financial penalties for cases improperly denied.

RACs initially targeted many overnight inpatient stays for recoupment. These cases were attractive audit targets because the RACs could argue that the inpatient hospital services were delivered in the improper status based solely on the length of stay, without having to consider in their audit the complexity of decision making or medical necessity of the services provided. However, it is worth noting that with improvement in efficiency and advancements in medical technology, hospitals and physicians have been increasingly able to safely evaluate and treat medically complex and severely ill patients quickly, sometimes with just an overnight stay. As perspective, in 1965, the average length of stay for a Medicare patient was 13 days; in 2010, it was 5.4 days, with over one‐third of hospitalizations lasting <3 days.[20]

Concurrent with the increased RAC denials for services provided in an inpatient status, the use of observation services changed significantly from 2007 to 2012. The average length of stay for Medicare patients under outpatient status with observation services exceeded 24 hours in 2007, was 28.2 hours by 2009,[21] and grew to 29 hours by 2012.[22] Between July 2010 and December 2011, at the University of Wisconsin Hospital, 1 in 6 observation stays lasted longer than 48 hours, suggesting that long observation stays were no longer rare and exceptional as stated in CMS' own definition.[23] This same University of Wisconsin study also found that observation services were not well defined, with 1141 distinct diagnosis codes used for these services.[23]

Additionally, a Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC; described on their website, www.medpac.gov, as a nonpartisan legislative branch agency that provides the US Congress with analysis and policy advice on the Medicare program) 2014 Report to Congress showed that from 2006 to 2012, outpatient services increased 28.5% whereas inpatient discharges decreased 12.6% over the same time period.[22]

Hospitals have also expressed concern that the RAC contingency fee payment model and a lack of penalty for improper denials promotes overzealous auditing.[24, 25] RAC recoupment has increased from approximately $939 million in 2011, to $2.4 billion in 2012, to $3.8 billion in 2013.[26, 27, 28] Given the money now at stake, it is not surprising that hospitals have become very active in appealing RAC denials. Self‐reported data submitted to the American Hospital Association (AHA) for the months January 2014 to March of 2014 show that hospitals now appeal 50% of RAC denials and win 66% of these appeals.[29] The AHA data also show that 69% of self‐reporting hospitals spent over $10,000 to manage their audit and appeals process over this same 3‐month time period, with 11% spending more than $100,000.

This appeals process is not only costly to hospitals, it is also lengthy. As of January 2014, the average wait time for an appeal hearing with an administrative law judge (level 3 appeal) exceeded 16 months.[30] In fact, the appeals process has become so backlogged that hospitals' rights to assignment of level 3 (administrative law judge) appeals have been temporarily suspended.[30] In August 2014, CMS offered a $0.68 on the dollar partial payment for hospitals willing to settle all eligible outstanding appeals in an attempt to relieve the appeals backlog.[31] In addition, the AHA currently has a suit against the US Department of Health & Human Services over the RAC appeals backlog.[32]

Increased use of outpatient status may be driven by pressures from the RAC program and, potentially, by improvements in the efficiency of care. Because hospitals are paid less for care provided under outpatient status than they are for the identical care provided under inpatient status, hospitals faced both potential financial penalty for improvements in efficiency and the threat of RAC audits.

THE 2‐MIDNIGHT RULE: A FIX?

Given the challenges in defining inpatient versus outpatient hospitalization, the increasing use of outpatient status and the increasing length of stay of outpatient hospitalizations with observation services, in 2013, CMS responded with new policies to define the visit status for hospitalized patients. On August 2, 2013, CMS announced the fiscal year 2014 hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System final rule (IPPS‐2014) to become effective October 1, 2013. This document was formally issued as part of the Federal Register on August 19, 2013.[33] Central to the CMS IPPS‐2014 was a 2‐midnight benchmark that offered a major change in how physicians were to determine the status (inpatient vs outpatient) of hospitalized patients. With this 2‐midnight benchmark, now informally known as the 2‐midnight rule, CMS finalized its proposal to generally consider patients that are expected by a practitioner (with knowledge of the case and with admitting privileges) to need hospitalization that will span 2 or more midnights as inpatient. The IPPS‐2014 also finalized the converse of this: hospitalizations expected to span <2 midnights are to be regarded as outpatient with 2 exceptions:

  1. If the hospitalization is associated with a procedure appearing on the previously described Medicare inpatient‐only procedures list, or
  2. A rare and unusual circumstance in which an inpatient admission would be reasonable regardless of length of stay. Currently, unanticipated mechanical ventilation initiated during the hospitalization visit is the only rare and unusual circumstance that qualifies as such an exception.[7]

CMS' stated goals and expectations for the 2‐midnight benchmark were:

  1. Reduce the growing number of prolonged hospitalizations (>48 hours) for Medicare beneficiaries under outpatient status.
  2. Decrease billing disputes between hospitals and Medicare auditors, especially RACs, by establishing more clearly defined, time‐based status criteria.
  3. Reduce the number of outpatient encounters overall. Because CMS expected the rule to convert a net increase of cases from outpatient to inpatient, resulting in higher payments to hospitals, CMS included a 0.2% payment cut in hospital reimbursement in the IPPS‐2014 as an offset.[33, 34]

Although unrelated to the goals and expectations above, the IPPS‐2014 also included a requirement that:

[T]he order [for inpatient admission] must be furnished by a qualified and licensed practitioner who has admitting privileges at the hospital as permitted by State law, and who is knowledgeable about the patient's hospital course, medical plan of care and current condition.

CMS allowed for an authentication (generally regarded as a cosignature that is timed and dated) of the inpatient admission order by an attending physician with admitting privileges, done prior to discharge, in cases where the inpatient order had been placed by a practitioner (such as a resident, fellow, or physician assistant) without admitting privileges. Attending physician authentication of the inpatient admission order must be done prior to discharge [a]s a condition of payment for hospital inpatient services under Medicare Part A.[35]

From the August 2, 2013 announcement until the effective date of October 1, 2013, hospitals had just 2 months to interpret and comply with the IPPS‐2014, a complex 546‐page document that required hospitals to make extensive changes to admission procedures, workflows, and electronic health records (EHRs). In addition, extensive physician, provider, and administrator education was needed. During these 2 months, hospitals continued to request additional information and clarification from CMS regarding many aspects of the IPPS‐2014, including basic questions that included (1) how to apply the 2‐midnight benchmark to patients who were transferred from 1 hospital to another and (2) when the clock started for hospital services in determining a patient's expected length of hospitalization.

Despite concerns voiced by Congress and medical organizations, the new policy went into effect as scheduled.[36, 37] However, just days prior to October 1, 2013, CMS issued a 3‐month limited suspension of auditing and enforcement of the 2‐midnight rule by the RACs that was subsequently extended by CMS 2 more times, first through March 31, 2014 and then again through September 30, 2014. Other audits to be performed by RACs and all other government audits, including those performed by Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) were allowed to continue.[38] In particular, the MACs were instructed to conduct patient status reviews using a probe and educate strategy, which, via educational outreach efforts, would instruct hospitals how to adapt to the new rule. On April 1, 2014, the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 was signed into law, which, under section 111 of this law, permitted CMS to continue medical review activities under the MAC probe and educate process through March of 2015, and prohibited CMS from allowing RACs to conduct inpatient hospital status reviews on claims with these same dates of admission, October 1, 2013 through March 31, 2015.

The MACs were created by the MMA of 2003, which mandated that the Secretary of Health & Human Services replace Part A Fiscal Intermediaries and Part B carriers with Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs).[39] As established by CMS, MACs are multi‐state, regional contractors responsible for administering both Medicare Part A and Medicare Part B claims and serve as the primary operational contact between the Medicare Fee‐For‐Service program, and approximately 1.5 million health care providers enrolled in the program.[39]

THE IPPS‐2014 AND CMS' STATED GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS

In the analysis that accompanied the IPPS‐2014, Medicare expected the use of outpatient services to decrease overall, as the new rules would effectively eliminate almost all outpatient hospitalizations >48 hours. Although no official data are yet available from CMS, our early experience under the 2‐midnight rule has suggested that long observation stays have declined in frequency, a favorable outcome of the new policy. However, as designed, the new 2‐midnight IPPS rule most predominately affects 1‐day stays, or more accurately, 1‐midnight stays. This is because many hospitalizations that previously met inpatient criteria (as defined by commercially available products such as MCG or InterQual), but spanned <2 midnights would have been classified as inpatient prior to October 1, 2013. However, since October 1, 2013, these same hospitalizations are now classified as outpatient. An example of such a case is a patient who presents to an emergency department with symptoms of a transient ischemic attack and has a high ABCD (age 60 years, blood pressure 140/90 mm Hg at initial evaluation, clinical features, duration of symptoms, diabetes score).[40] Prior to the 2‐midnight rule, this patient, based on the severity of the signs and symptoms upon presentation, could have been appropriately hospitalized as an inpatient.

Now, under the current IPPS and the ability of many hospitals to efficiently evaluate and treat such patient in <2 midnights, the patient should be categorized as an outpatient, at least initially, despite the severity and high risk of his/her presentation. In fiscal year 2013, The Johns Hopkins Hospital had 1791, 1‐day inpatient stays for Medicare beneficiaries, representing 15.2% of all Medicare admissions. Similarly, in the 12 months just prior to the 2‐midnight rule (October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013), 10.4% (1280) of all Medicare encounters at the University of Wisconsin were 1‐day inpatient stays under previous criteria. Because of implementation of the 2‐midnight rule in October 2013, Medicare outpatient hospitalization for 1‐day stays at The Johns Hopkins Hospital increased by 49%, from an average of 117 patients/month to 174 patients/month. Nationally, it is possible that a reduction in long observation stays could be offset by an increase in 1‐day‐stay outpatient hospitalization encounters.

A second key expectation and goal of IPPS‐2014 was, by shifting to a more concrete, time‐based definition of inpatient, to decrease the disagreement between hospitals and auditors regarding patient status (inpatient vs outpatient). As noted earlier, many disputes with auditors for hospitalizations prior to October 2013 did not involve the need or type of hospital services provided, but rather the status under which the care was provided. However, the new time‐based criterion hinges not on actual length of hospitalization, but the expected length of hospitalization as determined by a practitioner with admitting privileges and knowledge of the patient. Accurately and consistently predicting the length of hospitalization has proven to be challenging, even for the most experienced practitioners. Since October 2013, for patients hospitalized at The Johns Hopkins Hospital through its emergency department, the admitting physicians' expectation of whether a patient would require 1 versus 2 or more midnights of necessary hospitalization was correct only half of the time. Given past experience, the RACs may challenge the medical judgment that lead practitioners to expect a hospitalization of 2 or more midnights without having to challenge whether the care provided was medically necessary.

Further, the IPPS‐2014 has not been accompanied by any significant changes to the payment scheme for auditors. RACs continue to be paid a percentage of any monies they determine to have been improperly paid by CMS, but with no penalty for cases that are overturned on appeal. Historically, the vast majority of RAC recovery fees have been due to determination of overpayments by CMS.[41, 42] Despite the 2‐midnight rule, RACs will continue to have a financial incentive to allege overpayment. In the initial probe and educate audits by MACs under the new 2014‐IPPS, despite inpatient admission orders being authenticated and certified by an attending physician, claims are being denied because the documentation does not support an expectation for a 2‐midnight hospitalization. Namely, auditors are continuing to challenge not the medical necessity of the services that hospitals provide, but rather the status in which those services were provided. Thus far, the IPPS‐2014 does not appear to fully remedy the auditing conflict that existed prior to October 2013.

As noted above, the IPPS‐2014 also requires, as of October 1, 2013, as a condition of payment for hospital services under Part A, that the inpatient admission order must be either entered by a practitioner with admitting privileges or authenticated prior to discharge by an attending physician involved in the care of the patient in cases in which the inpatient admission order was entered by a practitioner without admitting privileges (eg, resident, physician assistant, or fellow).[43] The requirement of an attending physician's cosignature has involved major changes to physician workflow and the electronic heath record (EHR) framework at The Johns Hopkins and the University of Wisconsin Hospitals, and does not keep up with modern healthcare systems in which patients are admitted 24 hours a day by a variety of providers (eg, residents, nurse practitioners) who otherwise may write stand‐alone orders. These changes have proven to be time‐consuming, costly, and have not, to our knowledge, improved patient care or utilization of resources.

The new visit status rules have also led to confusion among clinicians. A recent large survey of hospitalists conducted by the Society of Hospital Medicine demonstrated that more than half of respondents disagreed that the 2‐midnight rule improved hospitalist workflow compared to prior observation policy.[44] In addition, only 40% of hospitalists reported confidence in how to apply the rule.[44] Thus, the intent to clarify visit status policy with the IPPS‐2014 has not translated to clear and useful rules for frontline clinicians.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

After over a year under the 2‐midnight rule, although long observation stays may be reduced, it seems unlikely these new regulations will achieve 2 of CMS' stated goals: (1) decreasing the use of outpatient status for hospitalizations and (2) resolving status disputes between auditors and hospitals. In addition, attempts at compliance with the new rules and regulations have diverted large amounts of physician time and hospital resources away from patient care. There is a clear need to reform both the hospitalization status policy and the RAC programs that enforce these rules.

One path Congress and CMS could consider is to reform the current Medicare reimbursement paradigm for hospital services to eliminate the need to distinguish inpatient from outpatient status. For example, H.R. 1179Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act of 2013,[45] of the 113th Congress, if reintroduced, would decouple the link between the qualification for skilled nursing facility benefits from visit status by allowing time spent hospitalized as an outpatient to count toward the 3‐day benchmark. The overarching goals of any visit status policy reform should be to: (1) simplify or eliminate the 2‐track status process for hospitalized patients, (2) stop or minimize the threat of audits based on status, and (3) maintain budget neutrality. Two additional options for consideration would be to: (1) create a low‐acuity modifier for use with patients anticipated to have short stays and low resource use and (2) preselect specific Diagnosis Related Groups based on historical data and create designations for those diagnoses of lesser intensity. Accountable care organizations contracts, a new model for healthcare payment, could potentially be structured to eliminate or simplify payment based on visit status for hospitalized patients. With bundled payments on the horizon and the possible phase‐out of fee‐for‐service reimbursement, the issue may become less paramount in the coming years. No solution will be perfect and must balance costs, ease of administration, and beneficiary protection.

There are reasons to be optimistic that change may soon be realized. CMS is currently considering significant hospitalization status policy reform. In the proposed IPPS‐2015, CMS asked for input on payment for short‐stay hospitalizations and, in the final IPPS‐2015 released August 4, 2014, CMS indicated its willingness to continue to work with stakeholders in revising these policies.[46] Additionally, CMS has responded to hospitals on 3 separate occasions by delaying RAC audits pertaining to the 2‐midnight rule. Further, the current MAC probe and educate audits focus on education with respect to 2‐midnight rule implementation rather than threatening hospitals with major financial penalties.[47] Congress has also been responsive in this area. In addition to the 3 delays announced by CMS, Congress passed legislation that mandated an additional delay to RAC audits that pertain to the 2‐midnight rule. Moreover, the Subcommittee on Health of the House Ways and Means Committee held hearings that included the 2‐midnight rule and RAC reform in May 2014, and the Senate Special Committee on Aging held hearings on the impact of visit status on Medicare beneficiaries in July 2014.[48, 49] Additionally, the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee recently issued a draft bill to address Medicare hospital issues.[50] The OIG has also been responsive to hospital concerns regarding the current RAC program with a recent report recommending that CMS develop additional performance evaluation metrics to improve RAC performance and ensure that RACs are evaluated on all contract requirements.[51] Additionally, MedPAC has been considering several short‐stay payment reform options, modifying the need for a 3‐day inpatient hospitalization to qualify for postdischarge skilled nursing facility benefits and adjusting RAC contingency fees based on overturn rates.[52, 53] These actions by CMS, Congress, and the OIG, as well as the options under consideration by MedPAC, demonstrate a degree of regulatory and legislative responsiveness to hospital and provider concerns in the area of visit status determination.

The Medicare program is vital to tens of millions of disabled and elderly Americans. Fraud and abuse of the Medicare program should not be tolerated. Yet, the current system of assigning, monitoring, and auditing outpatient versus inpatient hospital care is in need of reform. It will be up to CMS and Congress to continue to work with hospitals and physicians to find an improved way to appropriately and fairly compensate hospitals for hospital services in a way that that does not depend on a poorly defined and contentious status of a patient. Such reform must include the RAC program. It is our hope that both CMS and Congress will prioritize status determination and payment reform so that Medicare beneficiaries, physicians, and hospitals all have a sustainable, fair, and transparent process.

Files
References
  1. Testimony of Jodi D Nudelman, Regional Inspector General for the Office of Evaluation and Inspections, Office of the Inspector General, US Department of Health and Human Services, Hearing: Current Hospital Issues in the Medicare Program, House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Health, May 20, 2014. Available at: https://oig.hhs.gov/newsroom/testimony‐and‐speeches/index.asp. Accessed November 24, 2014.
  2. Centers for Medicare 173:19992000.
  3. US Department of Health 49:893909.
  4. US Department of Health 28:95111.
  5. Carlson J. The price of admission: increasing use of decision‐support technology draws criticism for changing roles in hospital‐admissions process. Modern Healthcare website. Available at: http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20121117/MAGAZINE/311179951. Published November 17, 2012. Accessed November 9, 2014.
  6. Wang H, Robinson R, Coppola M, et al. The accuracy of interqual criteria in determining the need for observation versus hospitalization in emergency department patients with chronic heart failure. Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2013;12:192196.
  7. US Department of Health 31:12511259.
  8. MedPAC March 2104 Report to the Congress, Medicare Payment Policy. Available at: http://www.medpac.gov/documents/reports/mar14_entirereport.pdf?sfvrsn=0. Accessed on December 22, 2014.
  9. Sheehy A, Graf B, Gangireddy S, et al, Hospitalized but not admitted: characteristics of patients with “observation status” at an academic medical center. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:19911998.
  10. Sheehy A. The recovery audit contractor program and observation status for hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA Internal Medicine blog. Available at: http://internalmedicineblog.jamainternalmed.com/2014/02/04/the‐recovery‐audit‐contractor‐program‐and‐observation‐status‐for‐hospitalized‐medicare‐beneficiaries. Published February 4, 2014. Accessed June 15, 2014.
  11. Caponi B. Broken RAC system continues to hurt patients, providers. The Hospital Leader blog. Available at: http://blogs.hospitalmedicine.org/Blog/broken‐rac‐system‐continues‐to‐hurt‐patients‐providers. Published April 22, 2014. Accessed June 15, 2014.
  12. US Department of Health 78(160). Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐2013‐08‐19/pdf/2013‐18956.pdf. Accessed August 4, 2014.
  13. US Department of Health use of observation and inpatient stays for Medicare beneficiaries, OEI‐02‐12‐00040. Available at: http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei‐02‐12‐00040.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2014.
  14. US Department of Health
Article PDF
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 10(3)
Page Number
194-201
Sections
Files
Files
Article PDF
Article PDF

Status determinations (outpatient versus inpatient) for hospitalized patients have become a routine part of patient care in the United States. Under the guidance provided by the Medicare Benefits Policy Manual, hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries are assigned 1 of these 2 statuses. The status assignment does not affect the care a patient can receive, but rather how the hospital services provided are billed to Medicare. Hospital services provided under inpatient status are billed under Medicare Part A. Hospital services provided under outpatient status, which includes all patients receiving observation services (commonly referred to as under observation), are billed under Medicare Part B. Whether hospital services are billed under Part A or Part B is important to hospitals and Medicare beneficiaries, as both the hospital reimbursement and beneficiary liability can vary greatly depending on whether services are billed under Part A versus Part B. Hospitals are generally reimbursed at a higher rate for services provided as an inpatient (Part A). The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) recently found that Medicare paid nearly three times more for a short inpatient stay than an [outpatient] stay for the same condition.[1] Medicare beneficiary liability also varies based on status. First, beneficiaries hospitalized as inpatients are subject to a deductible under Part A ($1,216 in 2014) for hospital services associated with that hospitalization and any future inpatient hospitalization beyond 60 days of discharge.[2] Beneficiaries hospitalized as outpatients are subject to the Medicare Part B deductible ($147 in 2014), and then a 20% copay on each individual outpatient hospital service, with no cumulative limit.[2, 3] In addition, hospital pharmacy charges for Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized as inpatients are covered under Medicare A. However, for Medicare patients hospitalized as outpatients, many medications are not covered by Medicare Part B benefits. Finally, time spent hospitalized as an outpatient does not count toward the Medicare 3‐day medically necessary inpatient stay requirement to qualify for the skilled nursing facility care benefit following discharge.

HISTORY AND INTENT OF INPATIENT AND OUTPATIENT STATUS DETERMINATIONS

Prior to October 1, 2013, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) stated that physician judgment and an expectation of at least an overnight hospitalization should determine inpatient status of hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries. Guidance as to when inpatient services were covered was found in the Medicare Benefits Policy Manual (MBPM)[4]:

An inpatient is a person who has been admitted to a hospital for bed occupancy for purposes of receiving inpatient hospital services. Generally, a patient is considered an inpatient if formally admitted as inpatient with the expectation that he or she will remain at least overnight and occupy a bed even though it later develops that the patient can be discharged or transferred to another hospital and not actually use a hospital bed overnight. The physician or other practitioner responsible for a patient's care at the hospital is also responsible for deciding whether the patient should be admitted as an inpatient. Physicians should use a 24‐hour period as a benchmark, i.e., they should order admission for patients who are expected to need hospital care for 24 hours or more, and treat other patients on an outpatient basis. However, the decision to admit a patient is a complex medical judgment that can be made only after the physician has considered a number of factors, including the patient's medical history and current medical needs, the types of facilities available to inpatients and to outpatients, the hospital's by‐laws and admissions policies, and the relative appropriateness of treatment in each setting.

For a subset of patients who are hospitalized under outpatient status, billing for observation services is allowed. CMS defines observation as a well defined set of services, that should last less than 24 hours and in only rare and exceptional casesspan more than 48 hours.[5] Many providers recognize the utility of a few additional hours of hospital care and/or testing in a hospital setting to determine whether a patient can go home or needs additional evaluation, monitoring, and/or treatment that can only be provided in a hospital, consistent with the CMS definition of observation.[6] It is important to note that although observation and outpatient are frequently used interchangeably, only outpatient is technically a CMS status. Patients in observation or under observation are, in fact, a subset of patients who are hospitalized under an outpatient status.

Outpatient status may also be appropriate for patients who require hospitalization for routine and expected overnight monitoring following a procedure. These patients are often not eligible for billing of observation services or as an inpatient because alternative methods of billing for the recovery time following the procedure exist. When determining the appropriate status of a Medicare beneficiary for a hospitalization following a procedure, physicians need to be aware of whether a specific procedure appears on the Medicare inpatient‐only procedures list.[7] Per CMS, procedures designated as inpatient only are reimbursed only when the patient is admitted as an inpatient at the time the procedure is performed.[8] Conversely, outpatient status for an overnight hospitalization associated with a procedure not on the inpatient‐only list is generally appropriate. Therefore, patients hospitalized for a procedure that appears on this list should always be hospitalized under inpatient status, regardless of the amount of time that the patient is expected to be hospitalized following the procedure, including those cases for which the hospitalization is expected to be only overnight.[7, 8] Only a limited number of Current Procedural Technology (CPT) codes, mostly surgical, automatically qualify for inpatient status and do not have outpatient prospective payment system eligibility. Although most procedures on the inpatient‐only list are associated with a hospitalization that commonly span at least 2 midnights, such as coronary artery bypass grafting, some potentially overnight stay cases, such as cholecystectomy (CPT 47600) appear on the 2014 inpatient‐only list.[9]

As noted above, prior to October 1, 2013, the Medicare definitions governing outpatient versus inpatient status included a 24‐hour benchmark. However, the MBPM also notes that: Admissions of particular patients are not covered or non‐covered solely on the basis of the length of time the patient actually spends in the hospital.[10]

In practice, status determination was ultimately dependent on physician or other practitioner's complex medical judgment as specified by CMS. To validate this judgment, CMS recommended that reviewers use a screening tool as part of their medical review. This screening tool could include practice guidelines that are well accepted by the medical community but did not require or identify a specific criteria set.[11] Not surprisingly, there was and continues to be great variability in the application of outpatient versus inpatient status across hospitals in actual practice.[1, 12, 13] The ambiguity in the definition of a hospitalized patient's status helped spawn commercial clinical decision tools, such as InterQual (McKesson Corporation, San Francisco, CA) and MCG (formally known as Milliman Care Guidelines; MCG Health, LLC, Seattle, WA), to help define inpatients versus outpatients.[14, 15] However, these guidelines are complex, can be difficult to interpret and apply, and have been criticized for poor predictive value and attempting to replace physician judgment.[16, 17, 18] Furthermore, CMS has never formally endorsed any specific decision tool.

INPATIENT AND OUTPATIENT PAYMENTS AND THE RECOVERY AUDIT CONTRACTOR PROGRAM

In 2000, CMS started using Ambulatory Payment Classifications for hospital services, which made inpatient care more financially favorable for hospitals. In response to concerns that hospitals would be incentivized to overuse inpatient status, CMS made a number of changes to their payment system, including the creation of the Recovery Audit Program in 2003. This program was originally called the Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) Program and continues to be most commonly referred to as the RAC program. The RAC program, tasked with finding and correcting improper claims to the Medicare program, began as a demonstration required in the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA), and subsequently became a nationwide audit program under the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. Under this program, private contractors review hospital and billing records of Medicare patients and are paid on a contingency fee (8%12.5%) for all underpayments and overpayments that are identified and corrected.[19] Importantly, the RACs are not subject to any financial penalties for cases improperly denied.

RACs initially targeted many overnight inpatient stays for recoupment. These cases were attractive audit targets because the RACs could argue that the inpatient hospital services were delivered in the improper status based solely on the length of stay, without having to consider in their audit the complexity of decision making or medical necessity of the services provided. However, it is worth noting that with improvement in efficiency and advancements in medical technology, hospitals and physicians have been increasingly able to safely evaluate and treat medically complex and severely ill patients quickly, sometimes with just an overnight stay. As perspective, in 1965, the average length of stay for a Medicare patient was 13 days; in 2010, it was 5.4 days, with over one‐third of hospitalizations lasting <3 days.[20]

Concurrent with the increased RAC denials for services provided in an inpatient status, the use of observation services changed significantly from 2007 to 2012. The average length of stay for Medicare patients under outpatient status with observation services exceeded 24 hours in 2007, was 28.2 hours by 2009,[21] and grew to 29 hours by 2012.[22] Between July 2010 and December 2011, at the University of Wisconsin Hospital, 1 in 6 observation stays lasted longer than 48 hours, suggesting that long observation stays were no longer rare and exceptional as stated in CMS' own definition.[23] This same University of Wisconsin study also found that observation services were not well defined, with 1141 distinct diagnosis codes used for these services.[23]

Additionally, a Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC; described on their website, www.medpac.gov, as a nonpartisan legislative branch agency that provides the US Congress with analysis and policy advice on the Medicare program) 2014 Report to Congress showed that from 2006 to 2012, outpatient services increased 28.5% whereas inpatient discharges decreased 12.6% over the same time period.[22]

Hospitals have also expressed concern that the RAC contingency fee payment model and a lack of penalty for improper denials promotes overzealous auditing.[24, 25] RAC recoupment has increased from approximately $939 million in 2011, to $2.4 billion in 2012, to $3.8 billion in 2013.[26, 27, 28] Given the money now at stake, it is not surprising that hospitals have become very active in appealing RAC denials. Self‐reported data submitted to the American Hospital Association (AHA) for the months January 2014 to March of 2014 show that hospitals now appeal 50% of RAC denials and win 66% of these appeals.[29] The AHA data also show that 69% of self‐reporting hospitals spent over $10,000 to manage their audit and appeals process over this same 3‐month time period, with 11% spending more than $100,000.

This appeals process is not only costly to hospitals, it is also lengthy. As of January 2014, the average wait time for an appeal hearing with an administrative law judge (level 3 appeal) exceeded 16 months.[30] In fact, the appeals process has become so backlogged that hospitals' rights to assignment of level 3 (administrative law judge) appeals have been temporarily suspended.[30] In August 2014, CMS offered a $0.68 on the dollar partial payment for hospitals willing to settle all eligible outstanding appeals in an attempt to relieve the appeals backlog.[31] In addition, the AHA currently has a suit against the US Department of Health & Human Services over the RAC appeals backlog.[32]

Increased use of outpatient status may be driven by pressures from the RAC program and, potentially, by improvements in the efficiency of care. Because hospitals are paid less for care provided under outpatient status than they are for the identical care provided under inpatient status, hospitals faced both potential financial penalty for improvements in efficiency and the threat of RAC audits.

THE 2‐MIDNIGHT RULE: A FIX?

Given the challenges in defining inpatient versus outpatient hospitalization, the increasing use of outpatient status and the increasing length of stay of outpatient hospitalizations with observation services, in 2013, CMS responded with new policies to define the visit status for hospitalized patients. On August 2, 2013, CMS announced the fiscal year 2014 hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System final rule (IPPS‐2014) to become effective October 1, 2013. This document was formally issued as part of the Federal Register on August 19, 2013.[33] Central to the CMS IPPS‐2014 was a 2‐midnight benchmark that offered a major change in how physicians were to determine the status (inpatient vs outpatient) of hospitalized patients. With this 2‐midnight benchmark, now informally known as the 2‐midnight rule, CMS finalized its proposal to generally consider patients that are expected by a practitioner (with knowledge of the case and with admitting privileges) to need hospitalization that will span 2 or more midnights as inpatient. The IPPS‐2014 also finalized the converse of this: hospitalizations expected to span <2 midnights are to be regarded as outpatient with 2 exceptions:

  1. If the hospitalization is associated with a procedure appearing on the previously described Medicare inpatient‐only procedures list, or
  2. A rare and unusual circumstance in which an inpatient admission would be reasonable regardless of length of stay. Currently, unanticipated mechanical ventilation initiated during the hospitalization visit is the only rare and unusual circumstance that qualifies as such an exception.[7]

CMS' stated goals and expectations for the 2‐midnight benchmark were:

  1. Reduce the growing number of prolonged hospitalizations (>48 hours) for Medicare beneficiaries under outpatient status.
  2. Decrease billing disputes between hospitals and Medicare auditors, especially RACs, by establishing more clearly defined, time‐based status criteria.
  3. Reduce the number of outpatient encounters overall. Because CMS expected the rule to convert a net increase of cases from outpatient to inpatient, resulting in higher payments to hospitals, CMS included a 0.2% payment cut in hospital reimbursement in the IPPS‐2014 as an offset.[33, 34]

Although unrelated to the goals and expectations above, the IPPS‐2014 also included a requirement that:

[T]he order [for inpatient admission] must be furnished by a qualified and licensed practitioner who has admitting privileges at the hospital as permitted by State law, and who is knowledgeable about the patient's hospital course, medical plan of care and current condition.

CMS allowed for an authentication (generally regarded as a cosignature that is timed and dated) of the inpatient admission order by an attending physician with admitting privileges, done prior to discharge, in cases where the inpatient order had been placed by a practitioner (such as a resident, fellow, or physician assistant) without admitting privileges. Attending physician authentication of the inpatient admission order must be done prior to discharge [a]s a condition of payment for hospital inpatient services under Medicare Part A.[35]

From the August 2, 2013 announcement until the effective date of October 1, 2013, hospitals had just 2 months to interpret and comply with the IPPS‐2014, a complex 546‐page document that required hospitals to make extensive changes to admission procedures, workflows, and electronic health records (EHRs). In addition, extensive physician, provider, and administrator education was needed. During these 2 months, hospitals continued to request additional information and clarification from CMS regarding many aspects of the IPPS‐2014, including basic questions that included (1) how to apply the 2‐midnight benchmark to patients who were transferred from 1 hospital to another and (2) when the clock started for hospital services in determining a patient's expected length of hospitalization.

Despite concerns voiced by Congress and medical organizations, the new policy went into effect as scheduled.[36, 37] However, just days prior to October 1, 2013, CMS issued a 3‐month limited suspension of auditing and enforcement of the 2‐midnight rule by the RACs that was subsequently extended by CMS 2 more times, first through March 31, 2014 and then again through September 30, 2014. Other audits to be performed by RACs and all other government audits, including those performed by Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) were allowed to continue.[38] In particular, the MACs were instructed to conduct patient status reviews using a probe and educate strategy, which, via educational outreach efforts, would instruct hospitals how to adapt to the new rule. On April 1, 2014, the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 was signed into law, which, under section 111 of this law, permitted CMS to continue medical review activities under the MAC probe and educate process through March of 2015, and prohibited CMS from allowing RACs to conduct inpatient hospital status reviews on claims with these same dates of admission, October 1, 2013 through March 31, 2015.

The MACs were created by the MMA of 2003, which mandated that the Secretary of Health & Human Services replace Part A Fiscal Intermediaries and Part B carriers with Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs).[39] As established by CMS, MACs are multi‐state, regional contractors responsible for administering both Medicare Part A and Medicare Part B claims and serve as the primary operational contact between the Medicare Fee‐For‐Service program, and approximately 1.5 million health care providers enrolled in the program.[39]

THE IPPS‐2014 AND CMS' STATED GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS

In the analysis that accompanied the IPPS‐2014, Medicare expected the use of outpatient services to decrease overall, as the new rules would effectively eliminate almost all outpatient hospitalizations >48 hours. Although no official data are yet available from CMS, our early experience under the 2‐midnight rule has suggested that long observation stays have declined in frequency, a favorable outcome of the new policy. However, as designed, the new 2‐midnight IPPS rule most predominately affects 1‐day stays, or more accurately, 1‐midnight stays. This is because many hospitalizations that previously met inpatient criteria (as defined by commercially available products such as MCG or InterQual), but spanned <2 midnights would have been classified as inpatient prior to October 1, 2013. However, since October 1, 2013, these same hospitalizations are now classified as outpatient. An example of such a case is a patient who presents to an emergency department with symptoms of a transient ischemic attack and has a high ABCD (age 60 years, blood pressure 140/90 mm Hg at initial evaluation, clinical features, duration of symptoms, diabetes score).[40] Prior to the 2‐midnight rule, this patient, based on the severity of the signs and symptoms upon presentation, could have been appropriately hospitalized as an inpatient.

Now, under the current IPPS and the ability of many hospitals to efficiently evaluate and treat such patient in <2 midnights, the patient should be categorized as an outpatient, at least initially, despite the severity and high risk of his/her presentation. In fiscal year 2013, The Johns Hopkins Hospital had 1791, 1‐day inpatient stays for Medicare beneficiaries, representing 15.2% of all Medicare admissions. Similarly, in the 12 months just prior to the 2‐midnight rule (October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013), 10.4% (1280) of all Medicare encounters at the University of Wisconsin were 1‐day inpatient stays under previous criteria. Because of implementation of the 2‐midnight rule in October 2013, Medicare outpatient hospitalization for 1‐day stays at The Johns Hopkins Hospital increased by 49%, from an average of 117 patients/month to 174 patients/month. Nationally, it is possible that a reduction in long observation stays could be offset by an increase in 1‐day‐stay outpatient hospitalization encounters.

A second key expectation and goal of IPPS‐2014 was, by shifting to a more concrete, time‐based definition of inpatient, to decrease the disagreement between hospitals and auditors regarding patient status (inpatient vs outpatient). As noted earlier, many disputes with auditors for hospitalizations prior to October 2013 did not involve the need or type of hospital services provided, but rather the status under which the care was provided. However, the new time‐based criterion hinges not on actual length of hospitalization, but the expected length of hospitalization as determined by a practitioner with admitting privileges and knowledge of the patient. Accurately and consistently predicting the length of hospitalization has proven to be challenging, even for the most experienced practitioners. Since October 2013, for patients hospitalized at The Johns Hopkins Hospital through its emergency department, the admitting physicians' expectation of whether a patient would require 1 versus 2 or more midnights of necessary hospitalization was correct only half of the time. Given past experience, the RACs may challenge the medical judgment that lead practitioners to expect a hospitalization of 2 or more midnights without having to challenge whether the care provided was medically necessary.

Further, the IPPS‐2014 has not been accompanied by any significant changes to the payment scheme for auditors. RACs continue to be paid a percentage of any monies they determine to have been improperly paid by CMS, but with no penalty for cases that are overturned on appeal. Historically, the vast majority of RAC recovery fees have been due to determination of overpayments by CMS.[41, 42] Despite the 2‐midnight rule, RACs will continue to have a financial incentive to allege overpayment. In the initial probe and educate audits by MACs under the new 2014‐IPPS, despite inpatient admission orders being authenticated and certified by an attending physician, claims are being denied because the documentation does not support an expectation for a 2‐midnight hospitalization. Namely, auditors are continuing to challenge not the medical necessity of the services that hospitals provide, but rather the status in which those services were provided. Thus far, the IPPS‐2014 does not appear to fully remedy the auditing conflict that existed prior to October 2013.

As noted above, the IPPS‐2014 also requires, as of October 1, 2013, as a condition of payment for hospital services under Part A, that the inpatient admission order must be either entered by a practitioner with admitting privileges or authenticated prior to discharge by an attending physician involved in the care of the patient in cases in which the inpatient admission order was entered by a practitioner without admitting privileges (eg, resident, physician assistant, or fellow).[43] The requirement of an attending physician's cosignature has involved major changes to physician workflow and the electronic heath record (EHR) framework at The Johns Hopkins and the University of Wisconsin Hospitals, and does not keep up with modern healthcare systems in which patients are admitted 24 hours a day by a variety of providers (eg, residents, nurse practitioners) who otherwise may write stand‐alone orders. These changes have proven to be time‐consuming, costly, and have not, to our knowledge, improved patient care or utilization of resources.

The new visit status rules have also led to confusion among clinicians. A recent large survey of hospitalists conducted by the Society of Hospital Medicine demonstrated that more than half of respondents disagreed that the 2‐midnight rule improved hospitalist workflow compared to prior observation policy.[44] In addition, only 40% of hospitalists reported confidence in how to apply the rule.[44] Thus, the intent to clarify visit status policy with the IPPS‐2014 has not translated to clear and useful rules for frontline clinicians.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

After over a year under the 2‐midnight rule, although long observation stays may be reduced, it seems unlikely these new regulations will achieve 2 of CMS' stated goals: (1) decreasing the use of outpatient status for hospitalizations and (2) resolving status disputes between auditors and hospitals. In addition, attempts at compliance with the new rules and regulations have diverted large amounts of physician time and hospital resources away from patient care. There is a clear need to reform both the hospitalization status policy and the RAC programs that enforce these rules.

One path Congress and CMS could consider is to reform the current Medicare reimbursement paradigm for hospital services to eliminate the need to distinguish inpatient from outpatient status. For example, H.R. 1179Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act of 2013,[45] of the 113th Congress, if reintroduced, would decouple the link between the qualification for skilled nursing facility benefits from visit status by allowing time spent hospitalized as an outpatient to count toward the 3‐day benchmark. The overarching goals of any visit status policy reform should be to: (1) simplify or eliminate the 2‐track status process for hospitalized patients, (2) stop or minimize the threat of audits based on status, and (3) maintain budget neutrality. Two additional options for consideration would be to: (1) create a low‐acuity modifier for use with patients anticipated to have short stays and low resource use and (2) preselect specific Diagnosis Related Groups based on historical data and create designations for those diagnoses of lesser intensity. Accountable care organizations contracts, a new model for healthcare payment, could potentially be structured to eliminate or simplify payment based on visit status for hospitalized patients. With bundled payments on the horizon and the possible phase‐out of fee‐for‐service reimbursement, the issue may become less paramount in the coming years. No solution will be perfect and must balance costs, ease of administration, and beneficiary protection.

There are reasons to be optimistic that change may soon be realized. CMS is currently considering significant hospitalization status policy reform. In the proposed IPPS‐2015, CMS asked for input on payment for short‐stay hospitalizations and, in the final IPPS‐2015 released August 4, 2014, CMS indicated its willingness to continue to work with stakeholders in revising these policies.[46] Additionally, CMS has responded to hospitals on 3 separate occasions by delaying RAC audits pertaining to the 2‐midnight rule. Further, the current MAC probe and educate audits focus on education with respect to 2‐midnight rule implementation rather than threatening hospitals with major financial penalties.[47] Congress has also been responsive in this area. In addition to the 3 delays announced by CMS, Congress passed legislation that mandated an additional delay to RAC audits that pertain to the 2‐midnight rule. Moreover, the Subcommittee on Health of the House Ways and Means Committee held hearings that included the 2‐midnight rule and RAC reform in May 2014, and the Senate Special Committee on Aging held hearings on the impact of visit status on Medicare beneficiaries in July 2014.[48, 49] Additionally, the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee recently issued a draft bill to address Medicare hospital issues.[50] The OIG has also been responsive to hospital concerns regarding the current RAC program with a recent report recommending that CMS develop additional performance evaluation metrics to improve RAC performance and ensure that RACs are evaluated on all contract requirements.[51] Additionally, MedPAC has been considering several short‐stay payment reform options, modifying the need for a 3‐day inpatient hospitalization to qualify for postdischarge skilled nursing facility benefits and adjusting RAC contingency fees based on overturn rates.[52, 53] These actions by CMS, Congress, and the OIG, as well as the options under consideration by MedPAC, demonstrate a degree of regulatory and legislative responsiveness to hospital and provider concerns in the area of visit status determination.

The Medicare program is vital to tens of millions of disabled and elderly Americans. Fraud and abuse of the Medicare program should not be tolerated. Yet, the current system of assigning, monitoring, and auditing outpatient versus inpatient hospital care is in need of reform. It will be up to CMS and Congress to continue to work with hospitals and physicians to find an improved way to appropriately and fairly compensate hospitals for hospital services in a way that that does not depend on a poorly defined and contentious status of a patient. Such reform must include the RAC program. It is our hope that both CMS and Congress will prioritize status determination and payment reform so that Medicare beneficiaries, physicians, and hospitals all have a sustainable, fair, and transparent process.

Status determinations (outpatient versus inpatient) for hospitalized patients have become a routine part of patient care in the United States. Under the guidance provided by the Medicare Benefits Policy Manual, hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries are assigned 1 of these 2 statuses. The status assignment does not affect the care a patient can receive, but rather how the hospital services provided are billed to Medicare. Hospital services provided under inpatient status are billed under Medicare Part A. Hospital services provided under outpatient status, which includes all patients receiving observation services (commonly referred to as under observation), are billed under Medicare Part B. Whether hospital services are billed under Part A or Part B is important to hospitals and Medicare beneficiaries, as both the hospital reimbursement and beneficiary liability can vary greatly depending on whether services are billed under Part A versus Part B. Hospitals are generally reimbursed at a higher rate for services provided as an inpatient (Part A). The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) recently found that Medicare paid nearly three times more for a short inpatient stay than an [outpatient] stay for the same condition.[1] Medicare beneficiary liability also varies based on status. First, beneficiaries hospitalized as inpatients are subject to a deductible under Part A ($1,216 in 2014) for hospital services associated with that hospitalization and any future inpatient hospitalization beyond 60 days of discharge.[2] Beneficiaries hospitalized as outpatients are subject to the Medicare Part B deductible ($147 in 2014), and then a 20% copay on each individual outpatient hospital service, with no cumulative limit.[2, 3] In addition, hospital pharmacy charges for Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized as inpatients are covered under Medicare A. However, for Medicare patients hospitalized as outpatients, many medications are not covered by Medicare Part B benefits. Finally, time spent hospitalized as an outpatient does not count toward the Medicare 3‐day medically necessary inpatient stay requirement to qualify for the skilled nursing facility care benefit following discharge.

HISTORY AND INTENT OF INPATIENT AND OUTPATIENT STATUS DETERMINATIONS

Prior to October 1, 2013, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) stated that physician judgment and an expectation of at least an overnight hospitalization should determine inpatient status of hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries. Guidance as to when inpatient services were covered was found in the Medicare Benefits Policy Manual (MBPM)[4]:

An inpatient is a person who has been admitted to a hospital for bed occupancy for purposes of receiving inpatient hospital services. Generally, a patient is considered an inpatient if formally admitted as inpatient with the expectation that he or she will remain at least overnight and occupy a bed even though it later develops that the patient can be discharged or transferred to another hospital and not actually use a hospital bed overnight. The physician or other practitioner responsible for a patient's care at the hospital is also responsible for deciding whether the patient should be admitted as an inpatient. Physicians should use a 24‐hour period as a benchmark, i.e., they should order admission for patients who are expected to need hospital care for 24 hours or more, and treat other patients on an outpatient basis. However, the decision to admit a patient is a complex medical judgment that can be made only after the physician has considered a number of factors, including the patient's medical history and current medical needs, the types of facilities available to inpatients and to outpatients, the hospital's by‐laws and admissions policies, and the relative appropriateness of treatment in each setting.

For a subset of patients who are hospitalized under outpatient status, billing for observation services is allowed. CMS defines observation as a well defined set of services, that should last less than 24 hours and in only rare and exceptional casesspan more than 48 hours.[5] Many providers recognize the utility of a few additional hours of hospital care and/or testing in a hospital setting to determine whether a patient can go home or needs additional evaluation, monitoring, and/or treatment that can only be provided in a hospital, consistent with the CMS definition of observation.[6] It is important to note that although observation and outpatient are frequently used interchangeably, only outpatient is technically a CMS status. Patients in observation or under observation are, in fact, a subset of patients who are hospitalized under an outpatient status.

Outpatient status may also be appropriate for patients who require hospitalization for routine and expected overnight monitoring following a procedure. These patients are often not eligible for billing of observation services or as an inpatient because alternative methods of billing for the recovery time following the procedure exist. When determining the appropriate status of a Medicare beneficiary for a hospitalization following a procedure, physicians need to be aware of whether a specific procedure appears on the Medicare inpatient‐only procedures list.[7] Per CMS, procedures designated as inpatient only are reimbursed only when the patient is admitted as an inpatient at the time the procedure is performed.[8] Conversely, outpatient status for an overnight hospitalization associated with a procedure not on the inpatient‐only list is generally appropriate. Therefore, patients hospitalized for a procedure that appears on this list should always be hospitalized under inpatient status, regardless of the amount of time that the patient is expected to be hospitalized following the procedure, including those cases for which the hospitalization is expected to be only overnight.[7, 8] Only a limited number of Current Procedural Technology (CPT) codes, mostly surgical, automatically qualify for inpatient status and do not have outpatient prospective payment system eligibility. Although most procedures on the inpatient‐only list are associated with a hospitalization that commonly span at least 2 midnights, such as coronary artery bypass grafting, some potentially overnight stay cases, such as cholecystectomy (CPT 47600) appear on the 2014 inpatient‐only list.[9]

As noted above, prior to October 1, 2013, the Medicare definitions governing outpatient versus inpatient status included a 24‐hour benchmark. However, the MBPM also notes that: Admissions of particular patients are not covered or non‐covered solely on the basis of the length of time the patient actually spends in the hospital.[10]

In practice, status determination was ultimately dependent on physician or other practitioner's complex medical judgment as specified by CMS. To validate this judgment, CMS recommended that reviewers use a screening tool as part of their medical review. This screening tool could include practice guidelines that are well accepted by the medical community but did not require or identify a specific criteria set.[11] Not surprisingly, there was and continues to be great variability in the application of outpatient versus inpatient status across hospitals in actual practice.[1, 12, 13] The ambiguity in the definition of a hospitalized patient's status helped spawn commercial clinical decision tools, such as InterQual (McKesson Corporation, San Francisco, CA) and MCG (formally known as Milliman Care Guidelines; MCG Health, LLC, Seattle, WA), to help define inpatients versus outpatients.[14, 15] However, these guidelines are complex, can be difficult to interpret and apply, and have been criticized for poor predictive value and attempting to replace physician judgment.[16, 17, 18] Furthermore, CMS has never formally endorsed any specific decision tool.

INPATIENT AND OUTPATIENT PAYMENTS AND THE RECOVERY AUDIT CONTRACTOR PROGRAM

In 2000, CMS started using Ambulatory Payment Classifications for hospital services, which made inpatient care more financially favorable for hospitals. In response to concerns that hospitals would be incentivized to overuse inpatient status, CMS made a number of changes to their payment system, including the creation of the Recovery Audit Program in 2003. This program was originally called the Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) Program and continues to be most commonly referred to as the RAC program. The RAC program, tasked with finding and correcting improper claims to the Medicare program, began as a demonstration required in the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA), and subsequently became a nationwide audit program under the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. Under this program, private contractors review hospital and billing records of Medicare patients and are paid on a contingency fee (8%12.5%) for all underpayments and overpayments that are identified and corrected.[19] Importantly, the RACs are not subject to any financial penalties for cases improperly denied.

RACs initially targeted many overnight inpatient stays for recoupment. These cases were attractive audit targets because the RACs could argue that the inpatient hospital services were delivered in the improper status based solely on the length of stay, without having to consider in their audit the complexity of decision making or medical necessity of the services provided. However, it is worth noting that with improvement in efficiency and advancements in medical technology, hospitals and physicians have been increasingly able to safely evaluate and treat medically complex and severely ill patients quickly, sometimes with just an overnight stay. As perspective, in 1965, the average length of stay for a Medicare patient was 13 days; in 2010, it was 5.4 days, with over one‐third of hospitalizations lasting <3 days.[20]

Concurrent with the increased RAC denials for services provided in an inpatient status, the use of observation services changed significantly from 2007 to 2012. The average length of stay for Medicare patients under outpatient status with observation services exceeded 24 hours in 2007, was 28.2 hours by 2009,[21] and grew to 29 hours by 2012.[22] Between July 2010 and December 2011, at the University of Wisconsin Hospital, 1 in 6 observation stays lasted longer than 48 hours, suggesting that long observation stays were no longer rare and exceptional as stated in CMS' own definition.[23] This same University of Wisconsin study also found that observation services were not well defined, with 1141 distinct diagnosis codes used for these services.[23]

Additionally, a Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC; described on their website, www.medpac.gov, as a nonpartisan legislative branch agency that provides the US Congress with analysis and policy advice on the Medicare program) 2014 Report to Congress showed that from 2006 to 2012, outpatient services increased 28.5% whereas inpatient discharges decreased 12.6% over the same time period.[22]

Hospitals have also expressed concern that the RAC contingency fee payment model and a lack of penalty for improper denials promotes overzealous auditing.[24, 25] RAC recoupment has increased from approximately $939 million in 2011, to $2.4 billion in 2012, to $3.8 billion in 2013.[26, 27, 28] Given the money now at stake, it is not surprising that hospitals have become very active in appealing RAC denials. Self‐reported data submitted to the American Hospital Association (AHA) for the months January 2014 to March of 2014 show that hospitals now appeal 50% of RAC denials and win 66% of these appeals.[29] The AHA data also show that 69% of self‐reporting hospitals spent over $10,000 to manage their audit and appeals process over this same 3‐month time period, with 11% spending more than $100,000.

This appeals process is not only costly to hospitals, it is also lengthy. As of January 2014, the average wait time for an appeal hearing with an administrative law judge (level 3 appeal) exceeded 16 months.[30] In fact, the appeals process has become so backlogged that hospitals' rights to assignment of level 3 (administrative law judge) appeals have been temporarily suspended.[30] In August 2014, CMS offered a $0.68 on the dollar partial payment for hospitals willing to settle all eligible outstanding appeals in an attempt to relieve the appeals backlog.[31] In addition, the AHA currently has a suit against the US Department of Health & Human Services over the RAC appeals backlog.[32]

Increased use of outpatient status may be driven by pressures from the RAC program and, potentially, by improvements in the efficiency of care. Because hospitals are paid less for care provided under outpatient status than they are for the identical care provided under inpatient status, hospitals faced both potential financial penalty for improvements in efficiency and the threat of RAC audits.

THE 2‐MIDNIGHT RULE: A FIX?

Given the challenges in defining inpatient versus outpatient hospitalization, the increasing use of outpatient status and the increasing length of stay of outpatient hospitalizations with observation services, in 2013, CMS responded with new policies to define the visit status for hospitalized patients. On August 2, 2013, CMS announced the fiscal year 2014 hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System final rule (IPPS‐2014) to become effective October 1, 2013. This document was formally issued as part of the Federal Register on August 19, 2013.[33] Central to the CMS IPPS‐2014 was a 2‐midnight benchmark that offered a major change in how physicians were to determine the status (inpatient vs outpatient) of hospitalized patients. With this 2‐midnight benchmark, now informally known as the 2‐midnight rule, CMS finalized its proposal to generally consider patients that are expected by a practitioner (with knowledge of the case and with admitting privileges) to need hospitalization that will span 2 or more midnights as inpatient. The IPPS‐2014 also finalized the converse of this: hospitalizations expected to span <2 midnights are to be regarded as outpatient with 2 exceptions:

  1. If the hospitalization is associated with a procedure appearing on the previously described Medicare inpatient‐only procedures list, or
  2. A rare and unusual circumstance in which an inpatient admission would be reasonable regardless of length of stay. Currently, unanticipated mechanical ventilation initiated during the hospitalization visit is the only rare and unusual circumstance that qualifies as such an exception.[7]

CMS' stated goals and expectations for the 2‐midnight benchmark were:

  1. Reduce the growing number of prolonged hospitalizations (>48 hours) for Medicare beneficiaries under outpatient status.
  2. Decrease billing disputes between hospitals and Medicare auditors, especially RACs, by establishing more clearly defined, time‐based status criteria.
  3. Reduce the number of outpatient encounters overall. Because CMS expected the rule to convert a net increase of cases from outpatient to inpatient, resulting in higher payments to hospitals, CMS included a 0.2% payment cut in hospital reimbursement in the IPPS‐2014 as an offset.[33, 34]

Although unrelated to the goals and expectations above, the IPPS‐2014 also included a requirement that:

[T]he order [for inpatient admission] must be furnished by a qualified and licensed practitioner who has admitting privileges at the hospital as permitted by State law, and who is knowledgeable about the patient's hospital course, medical plan of care and current condition.

CMS allowed for an authentication (generally regarded as a cosignature that is timed and dated) of the inpatient admission order by an attending physician with admitting privileges, done prior to discharge, in cases where the inpatient order had been placed by a practitioner (such as a resident, fellow, or physician assistant) without admitting privileges. Attending physician authentication of the inpatient admission order must be done prior to discharge [a]s a condition of payment for hospital inpatient services under Medicare Part A.[35]

From the August 2, 2013 announcement until the effective date of October 1, 2013, hospitals had just 2 months to interpret and comply with the IPPS‐2014, a complex 546‐page document that required hospitals to make extensive changes to admission procedures, workflows, and electronic health records (EHRs). In addition, extensive physician, provider, and administrator education was needed. During these 2 months, hospitals continued to request additional information and clarification from CMS regarding many aspects of the IPPS‐2014, including basic questions that included (1) how to apply the 2‐midnight benchmark to patients who were transferred from 1 hospital to another and (2) when the clock started for hospital services in determining a patient's expected length of hospitalization.

Despite concerns voiced by Congress and medical organizations, the new policy went into effect as scheduled.[36, 37] However, just days prior to October 1, 2013, CMS issued a 3‐month limited suspension of auditing and enforcement of the 2‐midnight rule by the RACs that was subsequently extended by CMS 2 more times, first through March 31, 2014 and then again through September 30, 2014. Other audits to be performed by RACs and all other government audits, including those performed by Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) were allowed to continue.[38] In particular, the MACs were instructed to conduct patient status reviews using a probe and educate strategy, which, via educational outreach efforts, would instruct hospitals how to adapt to the new rule. On April 1, 2014, the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 was signed into law, which, under section 111 of this law, permitted CMS to continue medical review activities under the MAC probe and educate process through March of 2015, and prohibited CMS from allowing RACs to conduct inpatient hospital status reviews on claims with these same dates of admission, October 1, 2013 through March 31, 2015.

The MACs were created by the MMA of 2003, which mandated that the Secretary of Health & Human Services replace Part A Fiscal Intermediaries and Part B carriers with Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs).[39] As established by CMS, MACs are multi‐state, regional contractors responsible for administering both Medicare Part A and Medicare Part B claims and serve as the primary operational contact between the Medicare Fee‐For‐Service program, and approximately 1.5 million health care providers enrolled in the program.[39]

THE IPPS‐2014 AND CMS' STATED GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS

In the analysis that accompanied the IPPS‐2014, Medicare expected the use of outpatient services to decrease overall, as the new rules would effectively eliminate almost all outpatient hospitalizations >48 hours. Although no official data are yet available from CMS, our early experience under the 2‐midnight rule has suggested that long observation stays have declined in frequency, a favorable outcome of the new policy. However, as designed, the new 2‐midnight IPPS rule most predominately affects 1‐day stays, or more accurately, 1‐midnight stays. This is because many hospitalizations that previously met inpatient criteria (as defined by commercially available products such as MCG or InterQual), but spanned <2 midnights would have been classified as inpatient prior to October 1, 2013. However, since October 1, 2013, these same hospitalizations are now classified as outpatient. An example of such a case is a patient who presents to an emergency department with symptoms of a transient ischemic attack and has a high ABCD (age 60 years, blood pressure 140/90 mm Hg at initial evaluation, clinical features, duration of symptoms, diabetes score).[40] Prior to the 2‐midnight rule, this patient, based on the severity of the signs and symptoms upon presentation, could have been appropriately hospitalized as an inpatient.

Now, under the current IPPS and the ability of many hospitals to efficiently evaluate and treat such patient in <2 midnights, the patient should be categorized as an outpatient, at least initially, despite the severity and high risk of his/her presentation. In fiscal year 2013, The Johns Hopkins Hospital had 1791, 1‐day inpatient stays for Medicare beneficiaries, representing 15.2% of all Medicare admissions. Similarly, in the 12 months just prior to the 2‐midnight rule (October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013), 10.4% (1280) of all Medicare encounters at the University of Wisconsin were 1‐day inpatient stays under previous criteria. Because of implementation of the 2‐midnight rule in October 2013, Medicare outpatient hospitalization for 1‐day stays at The Johns Hopkins Hospital increased by 49%, from an average of 117 patients/month to 174 patients/month. Nationally, it is possible that a reduction in long observation stays could be offset by an increase in 1‐day‐stay outpatient hospitalization encounters.

A second key expectation and goal of IPPS‐2014 was, by shifting to a more concrete, time‐based definition of inpatient, to decrease the disagreement between hospitals and auditors regarding patient status (inpatient vs outpatient). As noted earlier, many disputes with auditors for hospitalizations prior to October 2013 did not involve the need or type of hospital services provided, but rather the status under which the care was provided. However, the new time‐based criterion hinges not on actual length of hospitalization, but the expected length of hospitalization as determined by a practitioner with admitting privileges and knowledge of the patient. Accurately and consistently predicting the length of hospitalization has proven to be challenging, even for the most experienced practitioners. Since October 2013, for patients hospitalized at The Johns Hopkins Hospital through its emergency department, the admitting physicians' expectation of whether a patient would require 1 versus 2 or more midnights of necessary hospitalization was correct only half of the time. Given past experience, the RACs may challenge the medical judgment that lead practitioners to expect a hospitalization of 2 or more midnights without having to challenge whether the care provided was medically necessary.

Further, the IPPS‐2014 has not been accompanied by any significant changes to the payment scheme for auditors. RACs continue to be paid a percentage of any monies they determine to have been improperly paid by CMS, but with no penalty for cases that are overturned on appeal. Historically, the vast majority of RAC recovery fees have been due to determination of overpayments by CMS.[41, 42] Despite the 2‐midnight rule, RACs will continue to have a financial incentive to allege overpayment. In the initial probe and educate audits by MACs under the new 2014‐IPPS, despite inpatient admission orders being authenticated and certified by an attending physician, claims are being denied because the documentation does not support an expectation for a 2‐midnight hospitalization. Namely, auditors are continuing to challenge not the medical necessity of the services that hospitals provide, but rather the status in which those services were provided. Thus far, the IPPS‐2014 does not appear to fully remedy the auditing conflict that existed prior to October 2013.

As noted above, the IPPS‐2014 also requires, as of October 1, 2013, as a condition of payment for hospital services under Part A, that the inpatient admission order must be either entered by a practitioner with admitting privileges or authenticated prior to discharge by an attending physician involved in the care of the patient in cases in which the inpatient admission order was entered by a practitioner without admitting privileges (eg, resident, physician assistant, or fellow).[43] The requirement of an attending physician's cosignature has involved major changes to physician workflow and the electronic heath record (EHR) framework at The Johns Hopkins and the University of Wisconsin Hospitals, and does not keep up with modern healthcare systems in which patients are admitted 24 hours a day by a variety of providers (eg, residents, nurse practitioners) who otherwise may write stand‐alone orders. These changes have proven to be time‐consuming, costly, and have not, to our knowledge, improved patient care or utilization of resources.

The new visit status rules have also led to confusion among clinicians. A recent large survey of hospitalists conducted by the Society of Hospital Medicine demonstrated that more than half of respondents disagreed that the 2‐midnight rule improved hospitalist workflow compared to prior observation policy.[44] In addition, only 40% of hospitalists reported confidence in how to apply the rule.[44] Thus, the intent to clarify visit status policy with the IPPS‐2014 has not translated to clear and useful rules for frontline clinicians.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

After over a year under the 2‐midnight rule, although long observation stays may be reduced, it seems unlikely these new regulations will achieve 2 of CMS' stated goals: (1) decreasing the use of outpatient status for hospitalizations and (2) resolving status disputes between auditors and hospitals. In addition, attempts at compliance with the new rules and regulations have diverted large amounts of physician time and hospital resources away from patient care. There is a clear need to reform both the hospitalization status policy and the RAC programs that enforce these rules.

One path Congress and CMS could consider is to reform the current Medicare reimbursement paradigm for hospital services to eliminate the need to distinguish inpatient from outpatient status. For example, H.R. 1179Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act of 2013,[45] of the 113th Congress, if reintroduced, would decouple the link between the qualification for skilled nursing facility benefits from visit status by allowing time spent hospitalized as an outpatient to count toward the 3‐day benchmark. The overarching goals of any visit status policy reform should be to: (1) simplify or eliminate the 2‐track status process for hospitalized patients, (2) stop or minimize the threat of audits based on status, and (3) maintain budget neutrality. Two additional options for consideration would be to: (1) create a low‐acuity modifier for use with patients anticipated to have short stays and low resource use and (2) preselect specific Diagnosis Related Groups based on historical data and create designations for those diagnoses of lesser intensity. Accountable care organizations contracts, a new model for healthcare payment, could potentially be structured to eliminate or simplify payment based on visit status for hospitalized patients. With bundled payments on the horizon and the possible phase‐out of fee‐for‐service reimbursement, the issue may become less paramount in the coming years. No solution will be perfect and must balance costs, ease of administration, and beneficiary protection.

There are reasons to be optimistic that change may soon be realized. CMS is currently considering significant hospitalization status policy reform. In the proposed IPPS‐2015, CMS asked for input on payment for short‐stay hospitalizations and, in the final IPPS‐2015 released August 4, 2014, CMS indicated its willingness to continue to work with stakeholders in revising these policies.[46] Additionally, CMS has responded to hospitals on 3 separate occasions by delaying RAC audits pertaining to the 2‐midnight rule. Further, the current MAC probe and educate audits focus on education with respect to 2‐midnight rule implementation rather than threatening hospitals with major financial penalties.[47] Congress has also been responsive in this area. In addition to the 3 delays announced by CMS, Congress passed legislation that mandated an additional delay to RAC audits that pertain to the 2‐midnight rule. Moreover, the Subcommittee on Health of the House Ways and Means Committee held hearings that included the 2‐midnight rule and RAC reform in May 2014, and the Senate Special Committee on Aging held hearings on the impact of visit status on Medicare beneficiaries in July 2014.[48, 49] Additionally, the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee recently issued a draft bill to address Medicare hospital issues.[50] The OIG has also been responsive to hospital concerns regarding the current RAC program with a recent report recommending that CMS develop additional performance evaluation metrics to improve RAC performance and ensure that RACs are evaluated on all contract requirements.[51] Additionally, MedPAC has been considering several short‐stay payment reform options, modifying the need for a 3‐day inpatient hospitalization to qualify for postdischarge skilled nursing facility benefits and adjusting RAC contingency fees based on overturn rates.[52, 53] These actions by CMS, Congress, and the OIG, as well as the options under consideration by MedPAC, demonstrate a degree of regulatory and legislative responsiveness to hospital and provider concerns in the area of visit status determination.

The Medicare program is vital to tens of millions of disabled and elderly Americans. Fraud and abuse of the Medicare program should not be tolerated. Yet, the current system of assigning, monitoring, and auditing outpatient versus inpatient hospital care is in need of reform. It will be up to CMS and Congress to continue to work with hospitals and physicians to find an improved way to appropriately and fairly compensate hospitals for hospital services in a way that that does not depend on a poorly defined and contentious status of a patient. Such reform must include the RAC program. It is our hope that both CMS and Congress will prioritize status determination and payment reform so that Medicare beneficiaries, physicians, and hospitals all have a sustainable, fair, and transparent process.

References
  1. Testimony of Jodi D Nudelman, Regional Inspector General for the Office of Evaluation and Inspections, Office of the Inspector General, US Department of Health and Human Services, Hearing: Current Hospital Issues in the Medicare Program, House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Health, May 20, 2014. Available at: https://oig.hhs.gov/newsroom/testimony‐and‐speeches/index.asp. Accessed November 24, 2014.
  2. Centers for Medicare 173:19992000.
  3. US Department of Health 49:893909.
  4. US Department of Health 28:95111.
  5. Carlson J. The price of admission: increasing use of decision‐support technology draws criticism for changing roles in hospital‐admissions process. Modern Healthcare website. Available at: http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20121117/MAGAZINE/311179951. Published November 17, 2012. Accessed November 9, 2014.
  6. Wang H, Robinson R, Coppola M, et al. The accuracy of interqual criteria in determining the need for observation versus hospitalization in emergency department patients with chronic heart failure. Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2013;12:192196.
  7. US Department of Health 31:12511259.
  8. MedPAC March 2104 Report to the Congress, Medicare Payment Policy. Available at: http://www.medpac.gov/documents/reports/mar14_entirereport.pdf?sfvrsn=0. Accessed on December 22, 2014.
  9. Sheehy A, Graf B, Gangireddy S, et al, Hospitalized but not admitted: characteristics of patients with “observation status” at an academic medical center. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:19911998.
  10. Sheehy A. The recovery audit contractor program and observation status for hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA Internal Medicine blog. Available at: http://internalmedicineblog.jamainternalmed.com/2014/02/04/the‐recovery‐audit‐contractor‐program‐and‐observation‐status‐for‐hospitalized‐medicare‐beneficiaries. Published February 4, 2014. Accessed June 15, 2014.
  11. Caponi B. Broken RAC system continues to hurt patients, providers. The Hospital Leader blog. Available at: http://blogs.hospitalmedicine.org/Blog/broken‐rac‐system‐continues‐to‐hurt‐patients‐providers. Published April 22, 2014. Accessed June 15, 2014.
  12. US Department of Health 78(160). Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐2013‐08‐19/pdf/2013‐18956.pdf. Accessed August 4, 2014.
  13. US Department of Health use of observation and inpatient stays for Medicare beneficiaries, OEI‐02‐12‐00040. Available at: http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei‐02‐12‐00040.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2014.
  14. US Department of Health
References
  1. Testimony of Jodi D Nudelman, Regional Inspector General for the Office of Evaluation and Inspections, Office of the Inspector General, US Department of Health and Human Services, Hearing: Current Hospital Issues in the Medicare Program, House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Health, May 20, 2014. Available at: https://oig.hhs.gov/newsroom/testimony‐and‐speeches/index.asp. Accessed November 24, 2014.
  2. Centers for Medicare 173:19992000.
  3. US Department of Health 49:893909.
  4. US Department of Health 28:95111.
  5. Carlson J. The price of admission: increasing use of decision‐support technology draws criticism for changing roles in hospital‐admissions process. Modern Healthcare website. Available at: http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20121117/MAGAZINE/311179951. Published November 17, 2012. Accessed November 9, 2014.
  6. Wang H, Robinson R, Coppola M, et al. The accuracy of interqual criteria in determining the need for observation versus hospitalization in emergency department patients with chronic heart failure. Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2013;12:192196.
  7. US Department of Health 31:12511259.
  8. MedPAC March 2104 Report to the Congress, Medicare Payment Policy. Available at: http://www.medpac.gov/documents/reports/mar14_entirereport.pdf?sfvrsn=0. Accessed on December 22, 2014.
  9. Sheehy A, Graf B, Gangireddy S, et al, Hospitalized but not admitted: characteristics of patients with “observation status” at an academic medical center. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:19911998.
  10. Sheehy A. The recovery audit contractor program and observation status for hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA Internal Medicine blog. Available at: http://internalmedicineblog.jamainternalmed.com/2014/02/04/the‐recovery‐audit‐contractor‐program‐and‐observation‐status‐for‐hospitalized‐medicare‐beneficiaries. Published February 4, 2014. Accessed June 15, 2014.
  11. Caponi B. Broken RAC system continues to hurt patients, providers. The Hospital Leader blog. Available at: http://blogs.hospitalmedicine.org/Blog/broken‐rac‐system‐continues‐to‐hurt‐patients‐providers. Published April 22, 2014. Accessed June 15, 2014.
  12. US Department of Health 78(160). Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐2013‐08‐19/pdf/2013‐18956.pdf. Accessed August 4, 2014.
  13. US Department of Health use of observation and inpatient stays for Medicare beneficiaries, OEI‐02‐12‐00040. Available at: http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei‐02‐12‐00040.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2014.
  14. US Department of Health
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 10(3)
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 10(3)
Page Number
194-201
Page Number
194-201
Article Type
Display Headline
Changes to inpatient versus outpatient hospitalization: Medicare's 2‐midnight rule
Display Headline
Changes to inpatient versus outpatient hospitalization: Medicare's 2‐midnight rule
Sections
Article Source
© 2014 Society of Hospital Medicine
Disallow All Ads
Correspondence Location
Address for correspondence and reprint requests: Charles Locke, MD, Utilization/Clinical Resource Management, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 600 North Wolfe Street, Brady 426, Baltimore, MD 21287; Telephone: 443‐287‐4953; Fax (410) 614‐7742; E‐mail: [email protected]
Content Gating
Gated (full article locked unless allowed per User)
Gating Strategy
First Peek Free
Article PDF Media
Media Files

A disease that strikes close to home

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/14/2019 - 13:55
Display Headline
A disease that strikes close to home

Dementia is a condition that strikes close to home for all of us.

Besides caring for these patients, many of us also have a parent, spouse, or a close relative with dementia. My 90-year-old mother has multi-infarct dementia from her diabetes and vascular disease, but is still able to live in an apartment with my 91-year-old father, with assistance from wonderful home aides. Despite her profound dementia, she can still play the piano and read music.

Menchola and Weiss are to be congratulated for their excellent, evidence-based review of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). (See "Addressing Alzheimer’s: A pragmatic approach.") They do not get caught up in unjustified enthusiasm for screening and drug treatment. Some of their important recommendations bear repeating here:

A look at the evidence on Alzheimer's disease should prompt us to use drugs sparingly and avoid treatments that do more harm than good. Do not routinely screen for AD. This may seem like heresy in these days of early detection and prevention. But for screening to be useful, there must be effective early interventions, and so far, early treatments for AD have been disappointing. Cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate glutamate receptor blockers provide very small improvements in cognitive function and have significant adverse effects. Some behavioral interventions to delay onset of cognitive decline show promise—but are unproven.

Although routine screening is not recommended, “case finding” remains important. We need to be alert to signs and symptoms that suggest early dementia in our patients, and we need to evaluate these patients carefully or refer them for neurologic testing if the diagnosis is in doubt.

Use drugs sparingly, especially when treating behavioral problems. They have serious adverse effects, and behavioral interventions should always be used first. Encourage caregivers to seek out social support. My father attends an Alzheimer’s support group each month, and this has lifted some of the burden.

Address prognosis and end-of-life care, and avoid unnecessary and aggressive treatments that are likely to cause more harm than benefit. Hospice care is suitable and beneficial for those with late-stage Alzheimer’s, but feeding tubes are not.

With many new advances in research techniques, it is likely that investigators will develop better methods of diagnosis and treatment of AD. In the meantime, there is already much we can do to alleviate the suffering of these patients and support their caregivers. This knowledge will likely serve us at home, as well.

References

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

John Hickner, MD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 64(1)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
8
Legacy Keywords
dementia; Alzheimer's disease; screening; John Hickner, MD, MSc
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

John Hickner, MD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief

Author and Disclosure Information

John Hickner, MD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

Dementia is a condition that strikes close to home for all of us.

Besides caring for these patients, many of us also have a parent, spouse, or a close relative with dementia. My 90-year-old mother has multi-infarct dementia from her diabetes and vascular disease, but is still able to live in an apartment with my 91-year-old father, with assistance from wonderful home aides. Despite her profound dementia, she can still play the piano and read music.

Menchola and Weiss are to be congratulated for their excellent, evidence-based review of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). (See "Addressing Alzheimer’s: A pragmatic approach.") They do not get caught up in unjustified enthusiasm for screening and drug treatment. Some of their important recommendations bear repeating here:

A look at the evidence on Alzheimer's disease should prompt us to use drugs sparingly and avoid treatments that do more harm than good. Do not routinely screen for AD. This may seem like heresy in these days of early detection and prevention. But for screening to be useful, there must be effective early interventions, and so far, early treatments for AD have been disappointing. Cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate glutamate receptor blockers provide very small improvements in cognitive function and have significant adverse effects. Some behavioral interventions to delay onset of cognitive decline show promise—but are unproven.

Although routine screening is not recommended, “case finding” remains important. We need to be alert to signs and symptoms that suggest early dementia in our patients, and we need to evaluate these patients carefully or refer them for neurologic testing if the diagnosis is in doubt.

Use drugs sparingly, especially when treating behavioral problems. They have serious adverse effects, and behavioral interventions should always be used first. Encourage caregivers to seek out social support. My father attends an Alzheimer’s support group each month, and this has lifted some of the burden.

Address prognosis and end-of-life care, and avoid unnecessary and aggressive treatments that are likely to cause more harm than benefit. Hospice care is suitable and beneficial for those with late-stage Alzheimer’s, but feeding tubes are not.

With many new advances in research techniques, it is likely that investigators will develop better methods of diagnosis and treatment of AD. In the meantime, there is already much we can do to alleviate the suffering of these patients and support their caregivers. This knowledge will likely serve us at home, as well.

Dementia is a condition that strikes close to home for all of us.

Besides caring for these patients, many of us also have a parent, spouse, or a close relative with dementia. My 90-year-old mother has multi-infarct dementia from her diabetes and vascular disease, but is still able to live in an apartment with my 91-year-old father, with assistance from wonderful home aides. Despite her profound dementia, she can still play the piano and read music.

Menchola and Weiss are to be congratulated for their excellent, evidence-based review of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). (See "Addressing Alzheimer’s: A pragmatic approach.") They do not get caught up in unjustified enthusiasm for screening and drug treatment. Some of their important recommendations bear repeating here:

A look at the evidence on Alzheimer's disease should prompt us to use drugs sparingly and avoid treatments that do more harm than good. Do not routinely screen for AD. This may seem like heresy in these days of early detection and prevention. But for screening to be useful, there must be effective early interventions, and so far, early treatments for AD have been disappointing. Cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate glutamate receptor blockers provide very small improvements in cognitive function and have significant adverse effects. Some behavioral interventions to delay onset of cognitive decline show promise—but are unproven.

Although routine screening is not recommended, “case finding” remains important. We need to be alert to signs and symptoms that suggest early dementia in our patients, and we need to evaluate these patients carefully or refer them for neurologic testing if the diagnosis is in doubt.

Use drugs sparingly, especially when treating behavioral problems. They have serious adverse effects, and behavioral interventions should always be used first. Encourage caregivers to seek out social support. My father attends an Alzheimer’s support group each month, and this has lifted some of the burden.

Address prognosis and end-of-life care, and avoid unnecessary and aggressive treatments that are likely to cause more harm than benefit. Hospice care is suitable and beneficial for those with late-stage Alzheimer’s, but feeding tubes are not.

With many new advances in research techniques, it is likely that investigators will develop better methods of diagnosis and treatment of AD. In the meantime, there is already much we can do to alleviate the suffering of these patients and support their caregivers. This knowledge will likely serve us at home, as well.

References

References

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 64(1)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 64(1)
Page Number
8
Page Number
8
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
A disease that strikes close to home
Display Headline
A disease that strikes close to home
Legacy Keywords
dementia; Alzheimer's disease; screening; John Hickner, MD, MSc
Legacy Keywords
dementia; Alzheimer's disease; screening; John Hickner, MD, MSc
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

ObGyn Medicare and CPT coding changes that could affect your income in 2015

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 03/28/2019 - 15:33
Display Headline
ObGyn Medicare and CPT coding changes that could affect your income in 2015

At least one, if not many, of the coding changes highlighted below is likely to modify the incomes of ObGyns in the upcoming year. Here, I outline the 2015 changes that are most likely to affect your practice to some degree.

Medicare changes kick off a melancholy 2015
Surgical global periods: A move to eliminate them is underway

I begin this article not with a new or revised code, but with an active proposal, which, if implemented, could adversely affect your surgical income in a few short years.

Starting in 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has indicated that it will change all surgical codes to 0-day global periods. They plan on starting by converting 10-day global codes to 0-day codes in 2017, and then move on to the conversion of 90-day global codes in 2018. This is being proposed because of an Office of Inspector General (OIG) finding that many surgeons are not providing the evaluation and management (E/M) services included in the surgical code; therefore, Medicare is reimbursing for surgical procedures at a higher rate than warranted. In addition, the number of assigned visits may no longer reflect current care protocols, which again may mean that Medicare is not paying appropriately.

The immediate effect of this proposal—which has been adopted in the final rule published in the November 13, 2014, Federal Register—would be a reduction in payment for the converted codes due to a decrease in the assigned relative value units (RVUs). In addition, surgeons would need to document and provide the level of service for all preoperative and postoperative care, which may lead some payers to begin scrutinizing both levels of service billed and frequency of visits before and after surgical procedures.

CMS is still looking for any additional comments from physicians on this conversion process and such comments can be submitted electronically through a link at www.regulations.gov. Reference the final rule as CMS-1612-FC in your reply.

Medicare reimbursements poised to decrease in April
The calendar year 2015 conversion factor will remain at $35.80 from January 1 through March 31, 2015, as mandated by section 101 of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014. This represents the amount that will be multiplied by the geographically adjusted RVU for a code to determine the final Medicare allowable per procedure or service billed. Effective April 1, 2015, the conversion factor based on the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula will be only $28.22—representing a 21.2% decrease—unless Congress acts to override this mandate.

Code bundling leads to lost Medicare compensation
Hysterectomy bundling. Effective October 1, 2014, CMS began permanently bundling anterior/posterior colporrhaphy and colpopexy procedures into all vaginal and laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy codes. By permanently, CMS means that no modifier can be used to report Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 57260 (anterior and posterior [A&P] repair) or codes 57280, 57282, 57283 (abdominal, and vaginal approach colpopexy procedures) separately when performed with a vaginal or laparoscopic-­assisted hysterectomy.

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) wrote to CMS in May with regard to these edits and objected to them strongly. These organizations will continue to work with CMS to get them removed. Until then, physicians who perform anterior/posterior colporrhaphy and colpopexy procedures with a vaginal or laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy will need to clearly make a case in the operative report for the need to perform the additional procedures in order to add a modifier -22 (Increased procedural services) to the hysterectomy code for consideration of additional payment. If an A&P repair is performed, it would not be appropriate to bill only an anterior repair (CPT code 57240) or a posterior repair (CPT code 57250) to obtain some separate reimbursement as this would represent inaccurate coding.

Hysteroscopy bundling. Another edit that will affect ObGyns is the bundling of CPT code 58558 (Hysteroscopy, surgical; with sampling [biopsy] of endometrium and/or poly-pectomy, with or without D&C) into codes for hysteroscopic removal of a fibroid (58561) and the removal of an impacted foreign body (58562).

Previously, these codes could have been billed together, but now only the addition of a modifier -22 to the primary procedure (myomectomy or foreign body removal) presents any chance for additional reimbursement. In order to report the modifier, Medicare has indicated that the documentation must clearly support the additional work in accomplishing the primary procedure, including a statement of how much time it added to the normal procedure.

Awareness of new or revised CPT codes could benefit your earnings
The 2015 CPT code set includes several changes, including laboratory and vaccination codes, which may be of interest to your practice. Because of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) requirements, insurers were required to accept new codes on January 1, 2015.

 

 

Added: Fetal chromosomal aneuploidy code for genomic sequencing
On January 1, 2014, CPT added a new code to report cell-free DNA to screen for fetal aneuploidy. This new code is 81507 (Fetal aneuploidy [trisomy 21, 18, and 13] DNA sequence analysis of selected regions using maternal plasma, algorithm reported as a risk score for each trisomy), and it was added to report the Harmony™ Prenatal Test.

For 2015, another new code, 81420 (­Fetal chromosomal aneuploidy [eg, trisomy 21, monosomy X] genomic sequence analysis panel, circulating cell-free fetal DNA in maternal blood, must include analysis of chromosomes 13, 18, and 21), was added. This code represents a more comprehensive analysis and would therefore not be reported or ordered with code 81507. This new code requires a genomic sequence analysis panel.

HPV revisions extend beyond new codes
The codes for HPV testing have been redefined. These codes have been deleted: 87620-87622 (Infectious agent detection by nucleic acid [DNA or RNA]; papillomavirus, human, direct probe technique/amplified probe technique/quantification). In their place are three new codes to choose from:

  • 87623, Human papillomavirus (HPV), low-risk types (eg, 6, 11, 42, 43, 44)
  • 87624, Human papillomavirus (HPV), high-risk types (eg, 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 68)
  • 87625, Human papillomavirus (HPV), types 16 and 18 only, includes type 45, if performed.

This coding change may be significant for payment as some payers will cover testing for high-risk HPV types only, so be sure your practice management team is aware of the latest rules for ordering HPV testing for your patients. Otherwise, patients could be faced with unexpected out-of-pocket expenses.

Egg freezing recognized as mainstream

  • Infertility laboratories will be pleased to learn that CPT has changed the status of the code for cryopreservation of oocytes from a Category III to a Category I code. This means that this technology has now proven itself as a mainstream procedure, warranting a Category I CPT code. The new code is 89337 (Cryopreservation, mature oocyte[s]), which replaces the deleted code 0059T (Cryopreservation; oocyte[s]).

Vaccination codes for 2015
Almost every year new codes are added, and 2015 is no different. This year, you will see codes for:

  • 90651, Human papillomavirus vaccine types 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, 58, nonavalent (HPV), 3 dose schedule, for intramuscular use
  • 90630, Influenza virus vaccine, quadrivalent (IIV4), split virus, preservative free, for intradermal use.

There is also a revision to the flu virus vaccine code 90654 to indicate that it represents a trivalent preservative-free vaccine. See the TABLE below for a complete list of all the vaccines by trade name and CPT/Medicare Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes for the 2014−2015 flu season.

Keep in mind that reporting administration of the flu vaccine is different for Medicare than for private payers. Administration code G0008 and diagnosis code V04.81 (Need for prophylactic vaccination and inoculation against influenza) would be reported in conjunction with the appropriate vaccine code for Medicare, while CPT instructs you to report 90471 instead for the administration. When we switch to ICD-10 diagnostic coding on October 1, 2015, the code V04.81 becomes Z23 (Encounter for immunization).

Three new codes for anoscopy
The first two codes were formerly Category III codes representing new technology, but now have proven to be more mainstream.

  • 46601, Anoscopy; diagnostic, with high-resolution magnification (HRA) (eg, colposcope, operating microscope) and chemical agent enhancement, including collection of specimen(s) by brushing or washing, when performed
  • 46607, Anoscopy; diagnostic, with high-resolution magnification (HRA) (eg, colposcope, operating microscope) and chemical agent enhancement, with biopsy, single or multiple
  • 0377T, Anoscopy with directed submucosal injection of bulking agent for fecal incontinence.

Replacement codes for vertebral fracture assessments
If your practice is performing or ordering vertebral assessments for patients, there are two new codes to report. The old code, 77082 (­Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry [DXA], bone density study, 1 or more sites; vertebral fracture assessment) for vertebral fracture assessment has been deleted and replaced with:

  • 77085, Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), bone density study, 1 or more sites; axial skeleton (eg, hips, pelvis, spine), including vertebral fracture assessment
  • 77086, Vertebral fracture assessment via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).

Coding for breast ultrasound and tomosynthesis get more descriptive—at least for private insurance
The CPT Editorial Panel created three codes to describe digital breast tomosynthesis services and two new codes for a breast ultrasound.

  • 77061, Digital breast tomosynthesis; unilateral
  • 77062, Digital breast tomosynthesis; bilateral
  • 77063, Screening digital breast tomosynthesis, bilateral (List separately in addition to the code for the primary procedure.)
  • 76641, Ultrasound, breast, unilateral, real time with image documentation, including axilla when performed; complete
  • 76642, Ultrasound, breast, unilateral, … ; limited.
 

 

Medicare, on the other hand, has decided to create a G code for tomosynthesis, which is the only code that will be accepted for payment if the patient meets her high-risk criteria for performance of this test.

Under Medicare rules you would report/order the following codes for mammographic services:

  • Film (use CPT codes)

- 77055, Mammography; unilateral

- 77056, Mammography; bilateral

- 77057, Screening mammography, bilateral (2-view film study of each breast)

  • 2D digital (use G0202, G0204, and G0206)

- G0202, Screening mammography, producing direct digital image, bilateral, all views

- G0204, Diagnostic mammography, producing direct digital image, bilateral, all views

- G0206, Diagnostic mammography, producing direct digital image, unilateral, all views

  • 3D screening (use G0202 for 2D digital plus the new CPT code 77063 for 3D)

- 77063, Screening digital breast tomosynthesis, bilateral (List separately in addition to the code for the primary
procedure.)

  • 3D diagnostic (use G0204 or G0206 for the 2D digital plus the new G code G0279 for 3D)

- G0279, Diagnostic digital breast tomosynthesis, unilateral or bilateral.

Modifier 59 becomes more specific
Another Medicare coding change that may affect ObGyns is the addition of new Medicare modifiers that are intended to eventually replace the modifier -59. This new list of modifiers will need to be appended to bundled procedures to more clearly explain why the secondary procedures should be paid separately. At the most recent American Medical Association (AMA) CPT symposium in Chicago, Illinois, CMS medical directors indicated that the new modifiers should be used only when the clinician is given instructions to do so by the carrier. Until then, the modifier -59 should continue to be used by most clinicians.

Here are the new modifiers, with an example of their use with currently bundled procedures that allow a modifier -59 to be used under certain circumstances:

  • -XE: Separate encounter (A service that is distinct because it occurred during a separate encounter.) For instance, a patient presents to the office in the morning to have an abscess on her labia near her urethra incised and drained (56405). She returns in the afternoon to have a temporary catheter inserted because she states she cannot urinate and you decide to put in a temporary Foley catheter (51702) until the swelling has gone down. Add the modifier XE to 51702 to indicate it was performed at a different patient encounter.
  • -XP: Separate practitioner (A service that is distinct because it was performed by a different practitioner.) Normally, Medicare will reimburse an unaffiliated clinician for performing a procedure that is bundled, since the bundling edits apply to the billing surgeon. But when two physicians from the same practice each are performing a different procedure at the same operative session that would otherwise be bundled, this new modifier will make that clear.

For example, Dr. Bates is performing a laparoscopic paravaginal defect repair (57423) and calls Dr. Clark, a urogynecologist in his practice, to remove severe adhesions from the ureters. The claim should go in under the same tax ID number, with the code 50715 listed first (as it has greater RVUs) and code 57423 reported with the -XP modifier.

  • -XS: Separate structure (A service that is distinct because it was performed on a separate organ/structure.) Dr. Scott is performing the removal of endometrial implants around the left fallopian tube and in the cul-de-sac and notices that the right fallopian tube appears closed. He performs chromotubation on the right fallopian tube and notes that the right tube is blocked. Billing in this case would be 58662, 58350-XS.
  • -XU: Unusual non-overlapping service (The use of a service that is distinct because it does not overlap usual components of the main service.) Mary has Medicare coverage and presents at 20 weeks 4 days gestation with bleeding and labor pains. Her examination shows bulging membranes that rupture when you attempt to remove the cerclage suture. You note a large rent in the cervix, but cannot get to the cerclage sutures as the patient is in active labor and beginning to bear down. The fetus and placenta are delivered a short time later through the rent in the cervix. You repair the rent in the cervix following delivery.

In this case, code 59400-52 (reduced services since the patient delivered at 20 weeks and there were reduced antepartum services), and 57720-XU because the repair of the cervix is not part of the usual services for a vaginal delivery.

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.

References

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Melanie Witt, RN, CPC, COBGC, MA

Ms. Witt is an independent coding and documentation consultant and former program manager, department of coding and nomenclature, American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. She is affiliated with Nielyn Consulting, Guadalupita, New Mexico.

Ms. Witt reports that she is a coding consultant to American Medical Systems, Bladder Health Network, Boston Scientific, and CerviLenz.

Issue
OBG Management - 27(1)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
18–23
Legacy Keywords
Melanie Witt, Medicare, CPT codes,Current Procedural Terminology,evaluation and management,E/M,RVUs, relative value units,reimbursement adviser, gynecologic surgeons,ObGyns,global periods,CMS,Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,code bundling,hysteroscopy,genomic sequencing,cell-free DNA,fetal aneuploidy,anoscopy,prenatal testing,HPV,human papillomavirus,egg freezing,vaccination,influenza,vertebral fracture assessments, breast ultrasound, tomosynthesis,private insurance,mammography,Medicare modifiers,bundled procedures,
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Melanie Witt, RN, CPC, COBGC, MA

Ms. Witt is an independent coding and documentation consultant and former program manager, department of coding and nomenclature, American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. She is affiliated with Nielyn Consulting, Guadalupita, New Mexico.

Ms. Witt reports that she is a coding consultant to American Medical Systems, Bladder Health Network, Boston Scientific, and CerviLenz.

Author and Disclosure Information

Melanie Witt, RN, CPC, COBGC, MA

Ms. Witt is an independent coding and documentation consultant and former program manager, department of coding and nomenclature, American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. She is affiliated with Nielyn Consulting, Guadalupita, New Mexico.

Ms. Witt reports that she is a coding consultant to American Medical Systems, Bladder Health Network, Boston Scientific, and CerviLenz.

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

At least one, if not many, of the coding changes highlighted below is likely to modify the incomes of ObGyns in the upcoming year. Here, I outline the 2015 changes that are most likely to affect your practice to some degree.

Medicare changes kick off a melancholy 2015
Surgical global periods: A move to eliminate them is underway

I begin this article not with a new or revised code, but with an active proposal, which, if implemented, could adversely affect your surgical income in a few short years.

Starting in 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has indicated that it will change all surgical codes to 0-day global periods. They plan on starting by converting 10-day global codes to 0-day codes in 2017, and then move on to the conversion of 90-day global codes in 2018. This is being proposed because of an Office of Inspector General (OIG) finding that many surgeons are not providing the evaluation and management (E/M) services included in the surgical code; therefore, Medicare is reimbursing for surgical procedures at a higher rate than warranted. In addition, the number of assigned visits may no longer reflect current care protocols, which again may mean that Medicare is not paying appropriately.

The immediate effect of this proposal—which has been adopted in the final rule published in the November 13, 2014, Federal Register—would be a reduction in payment for the converted codes due to a decrease in the assigned relative value units (RVUs). In addition, surgeons would need to document and provide the level of service for all preoperative and postoperative care, which may lead some payers to begin scrutinizing both levels of service billed and frequency of visits before and after surgical procedures.

CMS is still looking for any additional comments from physicians on this conversion process and such comments can be submitted electronically through a link at www.regulations.gov. Reference the final rule as CMS-1612-FC in your reply.

Medicare reimbursements poised to decrease in April
The calendar year 2015 conversion factor will remain at $35.80 from January 1 through March 31, 2015, as mandated by section 101 of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014. This represents the amount that will be multiplied by the geographically adjusted RVU for a code to determine the final Medicare allowable per procedure or service billed. Effective April 1, 2015, the conversion factor based on the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula will be only $28.22—representing a 21.2% decrease—unless Congress acts to override this mandate.

Code bundling leads to lost Medicare compensation
Hysterectomy bundling. Effective October 1, 2014, CMS began permanently bundling anterior/posterior colporrhaphy and colpopexy procedures into all vaginal and laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy codes. By permanently, CMS means that no modifier can be used to report Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 57260 (anterior and posterior [A&P] repair) or codes 57280, 57282, 57283 (abdominal, and vaginal approach colpopexy procedures) separately when performed with a vaginal or laparoscopic-­assisted hysterectomy.

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) wrote to CMS in May with regard to these edits and objected to them strongly. These organizations will continue to work with CMS to get them removed. Until then, physicians who perform anterior/posterior colporrhaphy and colpopexy procedures with a vaginal or laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy will need to clearly make a case in the operative report for the need to perform the additional procedures in order to add a modifier -22 (Increased procedural services) to the hysterectomy code for consideration of additional payment. If an A&P repair is performed, it would not be appropriate to bill only an anterior repair (CPT code 57240) or a posterior repair (CPT code 57250) to obtain some separate reimbursement as this would represent inaccurate coding.

Hysteroscopy bundling. Another edit that will affect ObGyns is the bundling of CPT code 58558 (Hysteroscopy, surgical; with sampling [biopsy] of endometrium and/or poly-pectomy, with or without D&C) into codes for hysteroscopic removal of a fibroid (58561) and the removal of an impacted foreign body (58562).

Previously, these codes could have been billed together, but now only the addition of a modifier -22 to the primary procedure (myomectomy or foreign body removal) presents any chance for additional reimbursement. In order to report the modifier, Medicare has indicated that the documentation must clearly support the additional work in accomplishing the primary procedure, including a statement of how much time it added to the normal procedure.

Awareness of new or revised CPT codes could benefit your earnings
The 2015 CPT code set includes several changes, including laboratory and vaccination codes, which may be of interest to your practice. Because of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) requirements, insurers were required to accept new codes on January 1, 2015.

 

 

Added: Fetal chromosomal aneuploidy code for genomic sequencing
On January 1, 2014, CPT added a new code to report cell-free DNA to screen for fetal aneuploidy. This new code is 81507 (Fetal aneuploidy [trisomy 21, 18, and 13] DNA sequence analysis of selected regions using maternal plasma, algorithm reported as a risk score for each trisomy), and it was added to report the Harmony™ Prenatal Test.

For 2015, another new code, 81420 (­Fetal chromosomal aneuploidy [eg, trisomy 21, monosomy X] genomic sequence analysis panel, circulating cell-free fetal DNA in maternal blood, must include analysis of chromosomes 13, 18, and 21), was added. This code represents a more comprehensive analysis and would therefore not be reported or ordered with code 81507. This new code requires a genomic sequence analysis panel.

HPV revisions extend beyond new codes
The codes for HPV testing have been redefined. These codes have been deleted: 87620-87622 (Infectious agent detection by nucleic acid [DNA or RNA]; papillomavirus, human, direct probe technique/amplified probe technique/quantification). In their place are three new codes to choose from:

  • 87623, Human papillomavirus (HPV), low-risk types (eg, 6, 11, 42, 43, 44)
  • 87624, Human papillomavirus (HPV), high-risk types (eg, 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 68)
  • 87625, Human papillomavirus (HPV), types 16 and 18 only, includes type 45, if performed.

This coding change may be significant for payment as some payers will cover testing for high-risk HPV types only, so be sure your practice management team is aware of the latest rules for ordering HPV testing for your patients. Otherwise, patients could be faced with unexpected out-of-pocket expenses.

Egg freezing recognized as mainstream

  • Infertility laboratories will be pleased to learn that CPT has changed the status of the code for cryopreservation of oocytes from a Category III to a Category I code. This means that this technology has now proven itself as a mainstream procedure, warranting a Category I CPT code. The new code is 89337 (Cryopreservation, mature oocyte[s]), which replaces the deleted code 0059T (Cryopreservation; oocyte[s]).

Vaccination codes for 2015
Almost every year new codes are added, and 2015 is no different. This year, you will see codes for:

  • 90651, Human papillomavirus vaccine types 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, 58, nonavalent (HPV), 3 dose schedule, for intramuscular use
  • 90630, Influenza virus vaccine, quadrivalent (IIV4), split virus, preservative free, for intradermal use.

There is also a revision to the flu virus vaccine code 90654 to indicate that it represents a trivalent preservative-free vaccine. See the TABLE below for a complete list of all the vaccines by trade name and CPT/Medicare Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes for the 2014−2015 flu season.

Keep in mind that reporting administration of the flu vaccine is different for Medicare than for private payers. Administration code G0008 and diagnosis code V04.81 (Need for prophylactic vaccination and inoculation against influenza) would be reported in conjunction with the appropriate vaccine code for Medicare, while CPT instructs you to report 90471 instead for the administration. When we switch to ICD-10 diagnostic coding on October 1, 2015, the code V04.81 becomes Z23 (Encounter for immunization).

Three new codes for anoscopy
The first two codes were formerly Category III codes representing new technology, but now have proven to be more mainstream.

  • 46601, Anoscopy; diagnostic, with high-resolution magnification (HRA) (eg, colposcope, operating microscope) and chemical agent enhancement, including collection of specimen(s) by brushing or washing, when performed
  • 46607, Anoscopy; diagnostic, with high-resolution magnification (HRA) (eg, colposcope, operating microscope) and chemical agent enhancement, with biopsy, single or multiple
  • 0377T, Anoscopy with directed submucosal injection of bulking agent for fecal incontinence.

Replacement codes for vertebral fracture assessments
If your practice is performing or ordering vertebral assessments for patients, there are two new codes to report. The old code, 77082 (­Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry [DXA], bone density study, 1 or more sites; vertebral fracture assessment) for vertebral fracture assessment has been deleted and replaced with:

  • 77085, Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), bone density study, 1 or more sites; axial skeleton (eg, hips, pelvis, spine), including vertebral fracture assessment
  • 77086, Vertebral fracture assessment via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).

Coding for breast ultrasound and tomosynthesis get more descriptive—at least for private insurance
The CPT Editorial Panel created three codes to describe digital breast tomosynthesis services and two new codes for a breast ultrasound.

  • 77061, Digital breast tomosynthesis; unilateral
  • 77062, Digital breast tomosynthesis; bilateral
  • 77063, Screening digital breast tomosynthesis, bilateral (List separately in addition to the code for the primary procedure.)
  • 76641, Ultrasound, breast, unilateral, real time with image documentation, including axilla when performed; complete
  • 76642, Ultrasound, breast, unilateral, … ; limited.
 

 

Medicare, on the other hand, has decided to create a G code for tomosynthesis, which is the only code that will be accepted for payment if the patient meets her high-risk criteria for performance of this test.

Under Medicare rules you would report/order the following codes for mammographic services:

  • Film (use CPT codes)

- 77055, Mammography; unilateral

- 77056, Mammography; bilateral

- 77057, Screening mammography, bilateral (2-view film study of each breast)

  • 2D digital (use G0202, G0204, and G0206)

- G0202, Screening mammography, producing direct digital image, bilateral, all views

- G0204, Diagnostic mammography, producing direct digital image, bilateral, all views

- G0206, Diagnostic mammography, producing direct digital image, unilateral, all views

  • 3D screening (use G0202 for 2D digital plus the new CPT code 77063 for 3D)

- 77063, Screening digital breast tomosynthesis, bilateral (List separately in addition to the code for the primary
procedure.)

  • 3D diagnostic (use G0204 or G0206 for the 2D digital plus the new G code G0279 for 3D)

- G0279, Diagnostic digital breast tomosynthesis, unilateral or bilateral.

Modifier 59 becomes more specific
Another Medicare coding change that may affect ObGyns is the addition of new Medicare modifiers that are intended to eventually replace the modifier -59. This new list of modifiers will need to be appended to bundled procedures to more clearly explain why the secondary procedures should be paid separately. At the most recent American Medical Association (AMA) CPT symposium in Chicago, Illinois, CMS medical directors indicated that the new modifiers should be used only when the clinician is given instructions to do so by the carrier. Until then, the modifier -59 should continue to be used by most clinicians.

Here are the new modifiers, with an example of their use with currently bundled procedures that allow a modifier -59 to be used under certain circumstances:

  • -XE: Separate encounter (A service that is distinct because it occurred during a separate encounter.) For instance, a patient presents to the office in the morning to have an abscess on her labia near her urethra incised and drained (56405). She returns in the afternoon to have a temporary catheter inserted because she states she cannot urinate and you decide to put in a temporary Foley catheter (51702) until the swelling has gone down. Add the modifier XE to 51702 to indicate it was performed at a different patient encounter.
  • -XP: Separate practitioner (A service that is distinct because it was performed by a different practitioner.) Normally, Medicare will reimburse an unaffiliated clinician for performing a procedure that is bundled, since the bundling edits apply to the billing surgeon. But when two physicians from the same practice each are performing a different procedure at the same operative session that would otherwise be bundled, this new modifier will make that clear.

For example, Dr. Bates is performing a laparoscopic paravaginal defect repair (57423) and calls Dr. Clark, a urogynecologist in his practice, to remove severe adhesions from the ureters. The claim should go in under the same tax ID number, with the code 50715 listed first (as it has greater RVUs) and code 57423 reported with the -XP modifier.

  • -XS: Separate structure (A service that is distinct because it was performed on a separate organ/structure.) Dr. Scott is performing the removal of endometrial implants around the left fallopian tube and in the cul-de-sac and notices that the right fallopian tube appears closed. He performs chromotubation on the right fallopian tube and notes that the right tube is blocked. Billing in this case would be 58662, 58350-XS.
  • -XU: Unusual non-overlapping service (The use of a service that is distinct because it does not overlap usual components of the main service.) Mary has Medicare coverage and presents at 20 weeks 4 days gestation with bleeding and labor pains. Her examination shows bulging membranes that rupture when you attempt to remove the cerclage suture. You note a large rent in the cervix, but cannot get to the cerclage sutures as the patient is in active labor and beginning to bear down. The fetus and placenta are delivered a short time later through the rent in the cervix. You repair the rent in the cervix following delivery.

In this case, code 59400-52 (reduced services since the patient delivered at 20 weeks and there were reduced antepartum services), and 57720-XU because the repair of the cervix is not part of the usual services for a vaginal delivery.

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.

At least one, if not many, of the coding changes highlighted below is likely to modify the incomes of ObGyns in the upcoming year. Here, I outline the 2015 changes that are most likely to affect your practice to some degree.

Medicare changes kick off a melancholy 2015
Surgical global periods: A move to eliminate them is underway

I begin this article not with a new or revised code, but with an active proposal, which, if implemented, could adversely affect your surgical income in a few short years.

Starting in 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has indicated that it will change all surgical codes to 0-day global periods. They plan on starting by converting 10-day global codes to 0-day codes in 2017, and then move on to the conversion of 90-day global codes in 2018. This is being proposed because of an Office of Inspector General (OIG) finding that many surgeons are not providing the evaluation and management (E/M) services included in the surgical code; therefore, Medicare is reimbursing for surgical procedures at a higher rate than warranted. In addition, the number of assigned visits may no longer reflect current care protocols, which again may mean that Medicare is not paying appropriately.

The immediate effect of this proposal—which has been adopted in the final rule published in the November 13, 2014, Federal Register—would be a reduction in payment for the converted codes due to a decrease in the assigned relative value units (RVUs). In addition, surgeons would need to document and provide the level of service for all preoperative and postoperative care, which may lead some payers to begin scrutinizing both levels of service billed and frequency of visits before and after surgical procedures.

CMS is still looking for any additional comments from physicians on this conversion process and such comments can be submitted electronically through a link at www.regulations.gov. Reference the final rule as CMS-1612-FC in your reply.

Medicare reimbursements poised to decrease in April
The calendar year 2015 conversion factor will remain at $35.80 from January 1 through March 31, 2015, as mandated by section 101 of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014. This represents the amount that will be multiplied by the geographically adjusted RVU for a code to determine the final Medicare allowable per procedure or service billed. Effective April 1, 2015, the conversion factor based on the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula will be only $28.22—representing a 21.2% decrease—unless Congress acts to override this mandate.

Code bundling leads to lost Medicare compensation
Hysterectomy bundling. Effective October 1, 2014, CMS began permanently bundling anterior/posterior colporrhaphy and colpopexy procedures into all vaginal and laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy codes. By permanently, CMS means that no modifier can be used to report Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 57260 (anterior and posterior [A&P] repair) or codes 57280, 57282, 57283 (abdominal, and vaginal approach colpopexy procedures) separately when performed with a vaginal or laparoscopic-­assisted hysterectomy.

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) wrote to CMS in May with regard to these edits and objected to them strongly. These organizations will continue to work with CMS to get them removed. Until then, physicians who perform anterior/posterior colporrhaphy and colpopexy procedures with a vaginal or laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy will need to clearly make a case in the operative report for the need to perform the additional procedures in order to add a modifier -22 (Increased procedural services) to the hysterectomy code for consideration of additional payment. If an A&P repair is performed, it would not be appropriate to bill only an anterior repair (CPT code 57240) or a posterior repair (CPT code 57250) to obtain some separate reimbursement as this would represent inaccurate coding.

Hysteroscopy bundling. Another edit that will affect ObGyns is the bundling of CPT code 58558 (Hysteroscopy, surgical; with sampling [biopsy] of endometrium and/or poly-pectomy, with or without D&C) into codes for hysteroscopic removal of a fibroid (58561) and the removal of an impacted foreign body (58562).

Previously, these codes could have been billed together, but now only the addition of a modifier -22 to the primary procedure (myomectomy or foreign body removal) presents any chance for additional reimbursement. In order to report the modifier, Medicare has indicated that the documentation must clearly support the additional work in accomplishing the primary procedure, including a statement of how much time it added to the normal procedure.

Awareness of new or revised CPT codes could benefit your earnings
The 2015 CPT code set includes several changes, including laboratory and vaccination codes, which may be of interest to your practice. Because of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) requirements, insurers were required to accept new codes on January 1, 2015.

 

 

Added: Fetal chromosomal aneuploidy code for genomic sequencing
On January 1, 2014, CPT added a new code to report cell-free DNA to screen for fetal aneuploidy. This new code is 81507 (Fetal aneuploidy [trisomy 21, 18, and 13] DNA sequence analysis of selected regions using maternal plasma, algorithm reported as a risk score for each trisomy), and it was added to report the Harmony™ Prenatal Test.

For 2015, another new code, 81420 (­Fetal chromosomal aneuploidy [eg, trisomy 21, monosomy X] genomic sequence analysis panel, circulating cell-free fetal DNA in maternal blood, must include analysis of chromosomes 13, 18, and 21), was added. This code represents a more comprehensive analysis and would therefore not be reported or ordered with code 81507. This new code requires a genomic sequence analysis panel.

HPV revisions extend beyond new codes
The codes for HPV testing have been redefined. These codes have been deleted: 87620-87622 (Infectious agent detection by nucleic acid [DNA or RNA]; papillomavirus, human, direct probe technique/amplified probe technique/quantification). In their place are three new codes to choose from:

  • 87623, Human papillomavirus (HPV), low-risk types (eg, 6, 11, 42, 43, 44)
  • 87624, Human papillomavirus (HPV), high-risk types (eg, 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 68)
  • 87625, Human papillomavirus (HPV), types 16 and 18 only, includes type 45, if performed.

This coding change may be significant for payment as some payers will cover testing for high-risk HPV types only, so be sure your practice management team is aware of the latest rules for ordering HPV testing for your patients. Otherwise, patients could be faced with unexpected out-of-pocket expenses.

Egg freezing recognized as mainstream

  • Infertility laboratories will be pleased to learn that CPT has changed the status of the code for cryopreservation of oocytes from a Category III to a Category I code. This means that this technology has now proven itself as a mainstream procedure, warranting a Category I CPT code. The new code is 89337 (Cryopreservation, mature oocyte[s]), which replaces the deleted code 0059T (Cryopreservation; oocyte[s]).

Vaccination codes for 2015
Almost every year new codes are added, and 2015 is no different. This year, you will see codes for:

  • 90651, Human papillomavirus vaccine types 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, 58, nonavalent (HPV), 3 dose schedule, for intramuscular use
  • 90630, Influenza virus vaccine, quadrivalent (IIV4), split virus, preservative free, for intradermal use.

There is also a revision to the flu virus vaccine code 90654 to indicate that it represents a trivalent preservative-free vaccine. See the TABLE below for a complete list of all the vaccines by trade name and CPT/Medicare Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes for the 2014−2015 flu season.

Keep in mind that reporting administration of the flu vaccine is different for Medicare than for private payers. Administration code G0008 and diagnosis code V04.81 (Need for prophylactic vaccination and inoculation against influenza) would be reported in conjunction with the appropriate vaccine code for Medicare, while CPT instructs you to report 90471 instead for the administration. When we switch to ICD-10 diagnostic coding on October 1, 2015, the code V04.81 becomes Z23 (Encounter for immunization).

Three new codes for anoscopy
The first two codes were formerly Category III codes representing new technology, but now have proven to be more mainstream.

  • 46601, Anoscopy; diagnostic, with high-resolution magnification (HRA) (eg, colposcope, operating microscope) and chemical agent enhancement, including collection of specimen(s) by brushing or washing, when performed
  • 46607, Anoscopy; diagnostic, with high-resolution magnification (HRA) (eg, colposcope, operating microscope) and chemical agent enhancement, with biopsy, single or multiple
  • 0377T, Anoscopy with directed submucosal injection of bulking agent for fecal incontinence.

Replacement codes for vertebral fracture assessments
If your practice is performing or ordering vertebral assessments for patients, there are two new codes to report. The old code, 77082 (­Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry [DXA], bone density study, 1 or more sites; vertebral fracture assessment) for vertebral fracture assessment has been deleted and replaced with:

  • 77085, Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), bone density study, 1 or more sites; axial skeleton (eg, hips, pelvis, spine), including vertebral fracture assessment
  • 77086, Vertebral fracture assessment via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).

Coding for breast ultrasound and tomosynthesis get more descriptive—at least for private insurance
The CPT Editorial Panel created three codes to describe digital breast tomosynthesis services and two new codes for a breast ultrasound.

  • 77061, Digital breast tomosynthesis; unilateral
  • 77062, Digital breast tomosynthesis; bilateral
  • 77063, Screening digital breast tomosynthesis, bilateral (List separately in addition to the code for the primary procedure.)
  • 76641, Ultrasound, breast, unilateral, real time with image documentation, including axilla when performed; complete
  • 76642, Ultrasound, breast, unilateral, … ; limited.
 

 

Medicare, on the other hand, has decided to create a G code for tomosynthesis, which is the only code that will be accepted for payment if the patient meets her high-risk criteria for performance of this test.

Under Medicare rules you would report/order the following codes for mammographic services:

  • Film (use CPT codes)

- 77055, Mammography; unilateral

- 77056, Mammography; bilateral

- 77057, Screening mammography, bilateral (2-view film study of each breast)

  • 2D digital (use G0202, G0204, and G0206)

- G0202, Screening mammography, producing direct digital image, bilateral, all views

- G0204, Diagnostic mammography, producing direct digital image, bilateral, all views

- G0206, Diagnostic mammography, producing direct digital image, unilateral, all views

  • 3D screening (use G0202 for 2D digital plus the new CPT code 77063 for 3D)

- 77063, Screening digital breast tomosynthesis, bilateral (List separately in addition to the code for the primary
procedure.)

  • 3D diagnostic (use G0204 or G0206 for the 2D digital plus the new G code G0279 for 3D)

- G0279, Diagnostic digital breast tomosynthesis, unilateral or bilateral.

Modifier 59 becomes more specific
Another Medicare coding change that may affect ObGyns is the addition of new Medicare modifiers that are intended to eventually replace the modifier -59. This new list of modifiers will need to be appended to bundled procedures to more clearly explain why the secondary procedures should be paid separately. At the most recent American Medical Association (AMA) CPT symposium in Chicago, Illinois, CMS medical directors indicated that the new modifiers should be used only when the clinician is given instructions to do so by the carrier. Until then, the modifier -59 should continue to be used by most clinicians.

Here are the new modifiers, with an example of their use with currently bundled procedures that allow a modifier -59 to be used under certain circumstances:

  • -XE: Separate encounter (A service that is distinct because it occurred during a separate encounter.) For instance, a patient presents to the office in the morning to have an abscess on her labia near her urethra incised and drained (56405). She returns in the afternoon to have a temporary catheter inserted because she states she cannot urinate and you decide to put in a temporary Foley catheter (51702) until the swelling has gone down. Add the modifier XE to 51702 to indicate it was performed at a different patient encounter.
  • -XP: Separate practitioner (A service that is distinct because it was performed by a different practitioner.) Normally, Medicare will reimburse an unaffiliated clinician for performing a procedure that is bundled, since the bundling edits apply to the billing surgeon. But when two physicians from the same practice each are performing a different procedure at the same operative session that would otherwise be bundled, this new modifier will make that clear.

For example, Dr. Bates is performing a laparoscopic paravaginal defect repair (57423) and calls Dr. Clark, a urogynecologist in his practice, to remove severe adhesions from the ureters. The claim should go in under the same tax ID number, with the code 50715 listed first (as it has greater RVUs) and code 57423 reported with the -XP modifier.

  • -XS: Separate structure (A service that is distinct because it was performed on a separate organ/structure.) Dr. Scott is performing the removal of endometrial implants around the left fallopian tube and in the cul-de-sac and notices that the right fallopian tube appears closed. He performs chromotubation on the right fallopian tube and notes that the right tube is blocked. Billing in this case would be 58662, 58350-XS.
  • -XU: Unusual non-overlapping service (The use of a service that is distinct because it does not overlap usual components of the main service.) Mary has Medicare coverage and presents at 20 weeks 4 days gestation with bleeding and labor pains. Her examination shows bulging membranes that rupture when you attempt to remove the cerclage suture. You note a large rent in the cervix, but cannot get to the cerclage sutures as the patient is in active labor and beginning to bear down. The fetus and placenta are delivered a short time later through the rent in the cervix. You repair the rent in the cervix following delivery.

In this case, code 59400-52 (reduced services since the patient delivered at 20 weeks and there were reduced antepartum services), and 57720-XU because the repair of the cervix is not part of the usual services for a vaginal delivery.

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.

References

References

Issue
OBG Management - 27(1)
Issue
OBG Management - 27(1)
Page Number
18–23
Page Number
18–23
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
ObGyn Medicare and CPT coding changes that could affect your income in 2015
Display Headline
ObGyn Medicare and CPT coding changes that could affect your income in 2015
Legacy Keywords
Melanie Witt, Medicare, CPT codes,Current Procedural Terminology,evaluation and management,E/M,RVUs, relative value units,reimbursement adviser, gynecologic surgeons,ObGyns,global periods,CMS,Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,code bundling,hysteroscopy,genomic sequencing,cell-free DNA,fetal aneuploidy,anoscopy,prenatal testing,HPV,human papillomavirus,egg freezing,vaccination,influenza,vertebral fracture assessments, breast ultrasound, tomosynthesis,private insurance,mammography,Medicare modifiers,bundled procedures,
Legacy Keywords
Melanie Witt, Medicare, CPT codes,Current Procedural Terminology,evaluation and management,E/M,RVUs, relative value units,reimbursement adviser, gynecologic surgeons,ObGyns,global periods,CMS,Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,code bundling,hysteroscopy,genomic sequencing,cell-free DNA,fetal aneuploidy,anoscopy,prenatal testing,HPV,human papillomavirus,egg freezing,vaccination,influenza,vertebral fracture assessments, breast ultrasound, tomosynthesis,private insurance,mammography,Medicare modifiers,bundled procedures,
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

Product Update

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 08/28/2018 - 11:05
Display Headline
Product Update

PLASMA ELECTROSURGERY DEVICE
Bovie Medical Corporation's new J-Plasma® hand piece has a retractable cutting feature for use in soft-tissue coagulation and cutting during surgery. The J-Plasma stream is formed by passing inert helium over the retractable blade. The blade can be extended and used with or without energy or plasma, similar to a scalpel, for incisions and other cutting procedures. The hand piece is available in open and a new laparoscopic Pistol Grip configuration, with an accompanying Bovie Ultimate generator.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.boviemedical.com

EMBRYO VIABILITY TEST FOR IVF
The Eeva Test™ from Auxogyn is an automated, noninvasive test that uses time-lapse imaging to determine which embryos will have the highest developmental potential during in vitro fertilization. The Eeva Test uses proprietary software to analyze embryo development against scientific and clinical cell-division timing parameters.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.eevaivf.com

NATURAL REMEDIES FOR POSTPARTUM PAIN
Fairhaven Health says its Sitting Pretty products offer pain relief and help to increase the healing process for perineal tears, vaginal swelling and bruising, and hemorrhoids following delivery. A 2-oz Soothing Spray bottle contains witch hazel, peppermint, lavender, and tea tree oils with grapefruit seed and other herbal extracts. A 4-oz jar of Soothing Balm has shea butter, coconut oil, and other organic ingredients.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.fairhavenhealth.com

TREATMENT FOR LARGE AND SMALL SCARS
ScarAway Daily Discs are small, round discs (1.375” in diameter) used to treat small scars that result from biopsies, mole removal, or acne blemishes. ScarAway Flex Long Sheets are for treating longer scars that may result from cesarean deliveries and other operations, injuries, and burns. The Flex Long Sheets measure 1.5”x7”. ScarAway Scar Gel is a colorless, odorless, self-drying silicon gel that forms a flexible, breathable, waterproof cover over the affected area. Once dry, makeup and sunscreen can be applied.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.MyScarAway.com

PORTABLE COLPOSCOPE
The Gynocular™ is a lightweight, portable colposcope with smart-phone adapter. Gynius says the battery-operated handheld device can be used with a tripod and allows physicians to capture, store, and send high-quality digital images and videos via phone or Skype. Gynius is collaborating with Woman Care Global, a nonprofit health-care company, to market and distri­bute The Gynocular worldwide.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.gynocular.com

SUTURING IN ROBOT-ASSISTED SURGERY
StitchKit® Robotic-Assisted Surgery Suturing Technology, from Origami Surgical, is a sterile, single-use plastic canister preloaded with six ePTFE sutures (8” each), with a secure, see-through disposal compartment permitting needle counting during surgery. Origami Surgical says that each canister is intended to complete one sacrocolpopexy surgery.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.origamisurgical.com

COLLAGEN DRESSING FOR CHRONIC WOUNDS
Gentell has introduced four new collagen products designed to treat chronic nonhealing wounds. Gentell Collagen, derived from bovine collagen, is available in a powdery particle (1-g bottle), or as dressing sheets in 2”x2”, 4”x5.25”, and 8”x12” sizes. Gentell Collagen products can be used to treat aggressive wounds with minimal to heavy exudate, and partial- or full-thickness, granulating or necrotic, or second-degree burns.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.gentell.com

INTRAOPERATIVE RADIATION THERAPY
The Xoft® Axxent® Electronic Brachytherapy System (eBx®) delivers intraoperative brachytherapy to treat breast cancer. Intraoperative radiation therapy is delivered as a single radiation dose using a balloon and a miniature x-ray source within the surgical cavity at the time of breast-conserving surgery (lumpectomy). Axxent eBx is designed to minimize radiation exposure to surrounding healthy tissue.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.xoftinc.com

KEGEL EXERCISE SYSTEM
Juve is a biofeedback Kegel exercise system that helps women develop pelvic-floor muscle strength. A device inserted into the vagina has sensors that work with a Bluetooth smartphone app to monitor pelvic-floor muscle strength and provide instant feedback to the user. Six training programs are offered.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.thejuve.com

WEARABLE BIOSENSOR FOR CORE METRICS
Vital Connect announced FDA clearance of its HealthPatch™ MD Biosensor. The device can capture clinical-grade biometric measurements of core-health metrics: single-lead ECG; heart rate; heart-rate variability; respiratory rate; skin temperature; posture including fall detection and severity; and steps.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.vitalconnect.com

HORMONE-FREE CONTRACEPTION
FemCap is a reusable, hormone-free, latex-free cervical cap for birth control. Made of surgical-grade silicone in three sizes, it covers the cervix, preventing sperm from moving into the uterus. Used in conjunction with spermicide, it is more than 92% effective in the prevention of pregnancy, says FemCap, Inc.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.femcap.com

Article PDF
Issue
OBG Management - 27(1)
Publications
Page Number
45
Legacy Keywords
Bovie Medical Corporation,J-Plasma,Eeva Test,Auxogyn, Fairhaven Health, Sitting Pretty Soothing Spray, Soothing Balm, ScarAway Daily Discs, ScarAway Flex Long Sheets, ScarAway Scar Gel, Gynocular,Gynius, StitchKit Robotic-Assisted Surgery Suturing Technology,Origami Surgical, Gentell Collagen, Xoft Axxent Electronic Brachytherapy System, eBx, Juve, Vital Connect, HealthPatch MD Biosensor, FemCap,
Sections
Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

PLASMA ELECTROSURGERY DEVICE
Bovie Medical Corporation's new J-Plasma® hand piece has a retractable cutting feature for use in soft-tissue coagulation and cutting during surgery. The J-Plasma stream is formed by passing inert helium over the retractable blade. The blade can be extended and used with or without energy or plasma, similar to a scalpel, for incisions and other cutting procedures. The hand piece is available in open and a new laparoscopic Pistol Grip configuration, with an accompanying Bovie Ultimate generator.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.boviemedical.com

EMBRYO VIABILITY TEST FOR IVF
The Eeva Test™ from Auxogyn is an automated, noninvasive test that uses time-lapse imaging to determine which embryos will have the highest developmental potential during in vitro fertilization. The Eeva Test uses proprietary software to analyze embryo development against scientific and clinical cell-division timing parameters.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.eevaivf.com

NATURAL REMEDIES FOR POSTPARTUM PAIN
Fairhaven Health says its Sitting Pretty products offer pain relief and help to increase the healing process for perineal tears, vaginal swelling and bruising, and hemorrhoids following delivery. A 2-oz Soothing Spray bottle contains witch hazel, peppermint, lavender, and tea tree oils with grapefruit seed and other herbal extracts. A 4-oz jar of Soothing Balm has shea butter, coconut oil, and other organic ingredients.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.fairhavenhealth.com

TREATMENT FOR LARGE AND SMALL SCARS
ScarAway Daily Discs are small, round discs (1.375” in diameter) used to treat small scars that result from biopsies, mole removal, or acne blemishes. ScarAway Flex Long Sheets are for treating longer scars that may result from cesarean deliveries and other operations, injuries, and burns. The Flex Long Sheets measure 1.5”x7”. ScarAway Scar Gel is a colorless, odorless, self-drying silicon gel that forms a flexible, breathable, waterproof cover over the affected area. Once dry, makeup and sunscreen can be applied.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.MyScarAway.com

PORTABLE COLPOSCOPE
The Gynocular™ is a lightweight, portable colposcope with smart-phone adapter. Gynius says the battery-operated handheld device can be used with a tripod and allows physicians to capture, store, and send high-quality digital images and videos via phone or Skype. Gynius is collaborating with Woman Care Global, a nonprofit health-care company, to market and distri­bute The Gynocular worldwide.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.gynocular.com

SUTURING IN ROBOT-ASSISTED SURGERY
StitchKit® Robotic-Assisted Surgery Suturing Technology, from Origami Surgical, is a sterile, single-use plastic canister preloaded with six ePTFE sutures (8” each), with a secure, see-through disposal compartment permitting needle counting during surgery. Origami Surgical says that each canister is intended to complete one sacrocolpopexy surgery.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.origamisurgical.com

COLLAGEN DRESSING FOR CHRONIC WOUNDS
Gentell has introduced four new collagen products designed to treat chronic nonhealing wounds. Gentell Collagen, derived from bovine collagen, is available in a powdery particle (1-g bottle), or as dressing sheets in 2”x2”, 4”x5.25”, and 8”x12” sizes. Gentell Collagen products can be used to treat aggressive wounds with minimal to heavy exudate, and partial- or full-thickness, granulating or necrotic, or second-degree burns.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.gentell.com

INTRAOPERATIVE RADIATION THERAPY
The Xoft® Axxent® Electronic Brachytherapy System (eBx®) delivers intraoperative brachytherapy to treat breast cancer. Intraoperative radiation therapy is delivered as a single radiation dose using a balloon and a miniature x-ray source within the surgical cavity at the time of breast-conserving surgery (lumpectomy). Axxent eBx is designed to minimize radiation exposure to surrounding healthy tissue.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.xoftinc.com

KEGEL EXERCISE SYSTEM
Juve is a biofeedback Kegel exercise system that helps women develop pelvic-floor muscle strength. A device inserted into the vagina has sensors that work with a Bluetooth smartphone app to monitor pelvic-floor muscle strength and provide instant feedback to the user. Six training programs are offered.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.thejuve.com

WEARABLE BIOSENSOR FOR CORE METRICS
Vital Connect announced FDA clearance of its HealthPatch™ MD Biosensor. The device can capture clinical-grade biometric measurements of core-health metrics: single-lead ECG; heart rate; heart-rate variability; respiratory rate; skin temperature; posture including fall detection and severity; and steps.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.vitalconnect.com

HORMONE-FREE CONTRACEPTION
FemCap is a reusable, hormone-free, latex-free cervical cap for birth control. Made of surgical-grade silicone in three sizes, it covers the cervix, preventing sperm from moving into the uterus. Used in conjunction with spermicide, it is more than 92% effective in the prevention of pregnancy, says FemCap, Inc.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.femcap.com

PLASMA ELECTROSURGERY DEVICE
Bovie Medical Corporation's new J-Plasma® hand piece has a retractable cutting feature for use in soft-tissue coagulation and cutting during surgery. The J-Plasma stream is formed by passing inert helium over the retractable blade. The blade can be extended and used with or without energy or plasma, similar to a scalpel, for incisions and other cutting procedures. The hand piece is available in open and a new laparoscopic Pistol Grip configuration, with an accompanying Bovie Ultimate generator.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.boviemedical.com

EMBRYO VIABILITY TEST FOR IVF
The Eeva Test™ from Auxogyn is an automated, noninvasive test that uses time-lapse imaging to determine which embryos will have the highest developmental potential during in vitro fertilization. The Eeva Test uses proprietary software to analyze embryo development against scientific and clinical cell-division timing parameters.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.eevaivf.com

NATURAL REMEDIES FOR POSTPARTUM PAIN
Fairhaven Health says its Sitting Pretty products offer pain relief and help to increase the healing process for perineal tears, vaginal swelling and bruising, and hemorrhoids following delivery. A 2-oz Soothing Spray bottle contains witch hazel, peppermint, lavender, and tea tree oils with grapefruit seed and other herbal extracts. A 4-oz jar of Soothing Balm has shea butter, coconut oil, and other organic ingredients.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.fairhavenhealth.com

TREATMENT FOR LARGE AND SMALL SCARS
ScarAway Daily Discs are small, round discs (1.375” in diameter) used to treat small scars that result from biopsies, mole removal, or acne blemishes. ScarAway Flex Long Sheets are for treating longer scars that may result from cesarean deliveries and other operations, injuries, and burns. The Flex Long Sheets measure 1.5”x7”. ScarAway Scar Gel is a colorless, odorless, self-drying silicon gel that forms a flexible, breathable, waterproof cover over the affected area. Once dry, makeup and sunscreen can be applied.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.MyScarAway.com

PORTABLE COLPOSCOPE
The Gynocular™ is a lightweight, portable colposcope with smart-phone adapter. Gynius says the battery-operated handheld device can be used with a tripod and allows physicians to capture, store, and send high-quality digital images and videos via phone or Skype. Gynius is collaborating with Woman Care Global, a nonprofit health-care company, to market and distri­bute The Gynocular worldwide.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.gynocular.com

SUTURING IN ROBOT-ASSISTED SURGERY
StitchKit® Robotic-Assisted Surgery Suturing Technology, from Origami Surgical, is a sterile, single-use plastic canister preloaded with six ePTFE sutures (8” each), with a secure, see-through disposal compartment permitting needle counting during surgery. Origami Surgical says that each canister is intended to complete one sacrocolpopexy surgery.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.origamisurgical.com

COLLAGEN DRESSING FOR CHRONIC WOUNDS
Gentell has introduced four new collagen products designed to treat chronic nonhealing wounds. Gentell Collagen, derived from bovine collagen, is available in a powdery particle (1-g bottle), or as dressing sheets in 2”x2”, 4”x5.25”, and 8”x12” sizes. Gentell Collagen products can be used to treat aggressive wounds with minimal to heavy exudate, and partial- or full-thickness, granulating or necrotic, or second-degree burns.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.gentell.com

INTRAOPERATIVE RADIATION THERAPY
The Xoft® Axxent® Electronic Brachytherapy System (eBx®) delivers intraoperative brachytherapy to treat breast cancer. Intraoperative radiation therapy is delivered as a single radiation dose using a balloon and a miniature x-ray source within the surgical cavity at the time of breast-conserving surgery (lumpectomy). Axxent eBx is designed to minimize radiation exposure to surrounding healthy tissue.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.xoftinc.com

KEGEL EXERCISE SYSTEM
Juve is a biofeedback Kegel exercise system that helps women develop pelvic-floor muscle strength. A device inserted into the vagina has sensors that work with a Bluetooth smartphone app to monitor pelvic-floor muscle strength and provide instant feedback to the user. Six training programs are offered.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.thejuve.com

WEARABLE BIOSENSOR FOR CORE METRICS
Vital Connect announced FDA clearance of its HealthPatch™ MD Biosensor. The device can capture clinical-grade biometric measurements of core-health metrics: single-lead ECG; heart rate; heart-rate variability; respiratory rate; skin temperature; posture including fall detection and severity; and steps.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.vitalconnect.com

HORMONE-FREE CONTRACEPTION
FemCap is a reusable, hormone-free, latex-free cervical cap for birth control. Made of surgical-grade silicone in three sizes, it covers the cervix, preventing sperm from moving into the uterus. Used in conjunction with spermicide, it is more than 92% effective in the prevention of pregnancy, says FemCap, Inc.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT www.femcap.com

Issue
OBG Management - 27(1)
Issue
OBG Management - 27(1)
Page Number
45
Page Number
45
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Product Update
Display Headline
Product Update
Legacy Keywords
Bovie Medical Corporation,J-Plasma,Eeva Test,Auxogyn, Fairhaven Health, Sitting Pretty Soothing Spray, Soothing Balm, ScarAway Daily Discs, ScarAway Flex Long Sheets, ScarAway Scar Gel, Gynocular,Gynius, StitchKit Robotic-Assisted Surgery Suturing Technology,Origami Surgical, Gentell Collagen, Xoft Axxent Electronic Brachytherapy System, eBx, Juve, Vital Connect, HealthPatch MD Biosensor, FemCap,
Legacy Keywords
Bovie Medical Corporation,J-Plasma,Eeva Test,Auxogyn, Fairhaven Health, Sitting Pretty Soothing Spray, Soothing Balm, ScarAway Daily Discs, ScarAway Flex Long Sheets, ScarAway Scar Gel, Gynocular,Gynius, StitchKit Robotic-Assisted Surgery Suturing Technology,Origami Surgical, Gentell Collagen, Xoft Axxent Electronic Brachytherapy System, eBx, Juve, Vital Connect, HealthPatch MD Biosensor, FemCap,
Sections
Article PDF Media

Shrink Rap News: Writing about involuntary treatment is harder than you might think

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 04/16/2018 - 13:37
Display Headline
Shrink Rap News: Writing about involuntary treatment is harder than you might think

There are many controversies in psychiatry, but the most controversial issue continues to be that of involuntary treatment. Over the past year, I have been working on a book on forced care, along with Dr. Annette Hanson, the forensic psychiatrist who also writes this Shrink Rap News column. The work I’ve been doing for the manuscript – identifying and interviewing the people with a stake in the issue – has placed me in a funny role of being more journalist than physician. It’s a role I mostly love, and if you’ve hit the midpoint of your career and have an opportunity to dedicate some of your time to doing something completely different, I highly recommend shifting gears for a little while.

One of the things I have found most surprising is the reactions of people when I ask to include them. While most people are willing, almost all hesitate a little. Some are quite eager to participate, and one group in Richmond who uses involuntary electroconvulsive therapy heard of my project and extended an invitation for me to come visit, interview them, watch the procedure, and speak with one of their patients. Many people are proud of the work they do and eager to showcase it; they want to have their viewpoint included. With others, I have needed to ask repeatedly, listen to their concerns, and offer reassurances. I’ve taken to telling people they can read a draft of what I write about them – I learned early in the process that without this offer, few people would be willing to speak to me.

I wish I could say that I’ve noticed a pattern to who is comfortable speaking and who is not. Many of the psychiatrists and researchers I’ve approached have given their time willingly without hesitation ( or at least without that much hesitation), including Dr. E. Fuller Torrey; Dr. Paul Appelbaum; Jeffrey Swanson, Ph.D.; Dr. Steven Sharfstein; Dr. Daniel Fisher; Vermont Psychiatric Society President Margaret Bolton; Dr. Bruce Hershfield; and American Psychiatric Association President Paul Summergrad, to name just a few of the many people who have shared their time, experiences, and wisdom with me. It was not as easy for me to find a psychiatrist I could observe working on an inpatient unit, and the project might have been halted in its tracks if not for the enthusiasm of Johns Hopkins psychiatry chair Raymond DePaulo, who allowed me to shadow his team while they tended to inpatients. It was surprisingly easy to find a Crisis Intervention Team police officer to ride with, a little more effort to engage a mental health court judge.

Those who oppose forced treatment initially were more difficult to engage, but with perseverance, I was able to persuade the leadership of MindFreedom International to speak with me, and well, I ambushed a barely willing Scientologist while I was in New York for APA last May. In terms of patient participation, this hesitation did not hold true – many people volunteered to speak with me about how involuntary treatment harmed them, and it was much more difficult to find patients who felt helped by the treatment that was thrust upon them. Two absolutely wonderful women gave generously of themselves so that this project would have real voices to it: both “Lily” and “Eleanor” relived difficult experiences for me and allowed me to obtain their medical records and to speak with their families and their doctors. None of this was easy for them, but it did provide me with an education I would have gotten no other way as they reflected back on the meaning it had to them to have been committed to psychiatric units.

The subject of involuntary outpatient commitment has been particularly difficult to research, in part because I live in Maryland, a state which has no provision for this. I spoke with one family member in Arizona who initially was eager to be interviewed, along with her adult child who has come to feel that involuntary care has been very helpful. When I called back, the mom had changed her mind about participating: “You’re writing a book with a balanced view. There no balance or controversy here for me; it’s a medical problem that needs treatment. ” Unless I could promise to support, unequivocally, the views she held without qualification, she was not interested in participating in our book, even if it would provide an avenue to express her beliefs about the value of outpatient commitment. For similar reasons, I had to approach Ron Honberg, J.D., at the national office of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI); the Maryland NAMI members did not want me to speak with me after two articles I wrote for this Clinical Psychiatry News column suggested that I was not wholeheartedly in favor of outpatient commitment. I was told the topic was “too sensitive” for their members to discuss with me. So while I’ve learned that the topic inspires a great deal of emotion, there are still surprises with every step.

 

 

With all that as a prelude, I am continuing to look for people to interview who are the subjects of mandated civil outpatient treatment orders, as well as their family members. I thought perhaps readers might be able to help me, and I am interested in hearing both the good and the bad. If you, your patients, or their families would like to participate, by all means contact me at [email protected].

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of Shrink Rap: Three Psychiatrists Explain Their Work (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011).

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Legacy Keywords
involuntary commitment, involuntary treatment
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

There are many controversies in psychiatry, but the most controversial issue continues to be that of involuntary treatment. Over the past year, I have been working on a book on forced care, along with Dr. Annette Hanson, the forensic psychiatrist who also writes this Shrink Rap News column. The work I’ve been doing for the manuscript – identifying and interviewing the people with a stake in the issue – has placed me in a funny role of being more journalist than physician. It’s a role I mostly love, and if you’ve hit the midpoint of your career and have an opportunity to dedicate some of your time to doing something completely different, I highly recommend shifting gears for a little while.

One of the things I have found most surprising is the reactions of people when I ask to include them. While most people are willing, almost all hesitate a little. Some are quite eager to participate, and one group in Richmond who uses involuntary electroconvulsive therapy heard of my project and extended an invitation for me to come visit, interview them, watch the procedure, and speak with one of their patients. Many people are proud of the work they do and eager to showcase it; they want to have their viewpoint included. With others, I have needed to ask repeatedly, listen to their concerns, and offer reassurances. I’ve taken to telling people they can read a draft of what I write about them – I learned early in the process that without this offer, few people would be willing to speak to me.

I wish I could say that I’ve noticed a pattern to who is comfortable speaking and who is not. Many of the psychiatrists and researchers I’ve approached have given their time willingly without hesitation ( or at least without that much hesitation), including Dr. E. Fuller Torrey; Dr. Paul Appelbaum; Jeffrey Swanson, Ph.D.; Dr. Steven Sharfstein; Dr. Daniel Fisher; Vermont Psychiatric Society President Margaret Bolton; Dr. Bruce Hershfield; and American Psychiatric Association President Paul Summergrad, to name just a few of the many people who have shared their time, experiences, and wisdom with me. It was not as easy for me to find a psychiatrist I could observe working on an inpatient unit, and the project might have been halted in its tracks if not for the enthusiasm of Johns Hopkins psychiatry chair Raymond DePaulo, who allowed me to shadow his team while they tended to inpatients. It was surprisingly easy to find a Crisis Intervention Team police officer to ride with, a little more effort to engage a mental health court judge.

Those who oppose forced treatment initially were more difficult to engage, but with perseverance, I was able to persuade the leadership of MindFreedom International to speak with me, and well, I ambushed a barely willing Scientologist while I was in New York for APA last May. In terms of patient participation, this hesitation did not hold true – many people volunteered to speak with me about how involuntary treatment harmed them, and it was much more difficult to find patients who felt helped by the treatment that was thrust upon them. Two absolutely wonderful women gave generously of themselves so that this project would have real voices to it: both “Lily” and “Eleanor” relived difficult experiences for me and allowed me to obtain their medical records and to speak with their families and their doctors. None of this was easy for them, but it did provide me with an education I would have gotten no other way as they reflected back on the meaning it had to them to have been committed to psychiatric units.

The subject of involuntary outpatient commitment has been particularly difficult to research, in part because I live in Maryland, a state which has no provision for this. I spoke with one family member in Arizona who initially was eager to be interviewed, along with her adult child who has come to feel that involuntary care has been very helpful. When I called back, the mom had changed her mind about participating: “You’re writing a book with a balanced view. There no balance or controversy here for me; it’s a medical problem that needs treatment. ” Unless I could promise to support, unequivocally, the views she held without qualification, she was not interested in participating in our book, even if it would provide an avenue to express her beliefs about the value of outpatient commitment. For similar reasons, I had to approach Ron Honberg, J.D., at the national office of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI); the Maryland NAMI members did not want me to speak with me after two articles I wrote for this Clinical Psychiatry News column suggested that I was not wholeheartedly in favor of outpatient commitment. I was told the topic was “too sensitive” for their members to discuss with me. So while I’ve learned that the topic inspires a great deal of emotion, there are still surprises with every step.

 

 

With all that as a prelude, I am continuing to look for people to interview who are the subjects of mandated civil outpatient treatment orders, as well as their family members. I thought perhaps readers might be able to help me, and I am interested in hearing both the good and the bad. If you, your patients, or their families would like to participate, by all means contact me at [email protected].

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of Shrink Rap: Three Psychiatrists Explain Their Work (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011).

There are many controversies in psychiatry, but the most controversial issue continues to be that of involuntary treatment. Over the past year, I have been working on a book on forced care, along with Dr. Annette Hanson, the forensic psychiatrist who also writes this Shrink Rap News column. The work I’ve been doing for the manuscript – identifying and interviewing the people with a stake in the issue – has placed me in a funny role of being more journalist than physician. It’s a role I mostly love, and if you’ve hit the midpoint of your career and have an opportunity to dedicate some of your time to doing something completely different, I highly recommend shifting gears for a little while.

One of the things I have found most surprising is the reactions of people when I ask to include them. While most people are willing, almost all hesitate a little. Some are quite eager to participate, and one group in Richmond who uses involuntary electroconvulsive therapy heard of my project and extended an invitation for me to come visit, interview them, watch the procedure, and speak with one of their patients. Many people are proud of the work they do and eager to showcase it; they want to have their viewpoint included. With others, I have needed to ask repeatedly, listen to their concerns, and offer reassurances. I’ve taken to telling people they can read a draft of what I write about them – I learned early in the process that without this offer, few people would be willing to speak to me.

I wish I could say that I’ve noticed a pattern to who is comfortable speaking and who is not. Many of the psychiatrists and researchers I’ve approached have given their time willingly without hesitation ( or at least without that much hesitation), including Dr. E. Fuller Torrey; Dr. Paul Appelbaum; Jeffrey Swanson, Ph.D.; Dr. Steven Sharfstein; Dr. Daniel Fisher; Vermont Psychiatric Society President Margaret Bolton; Dr. Bruce Hershfield; and American Psychiatric Association President Paul Summergrad, to name just a few of the many people who have shared their time, experiences, and wisdom with me. It was not as easy for me to find a psychiatrist I could observe working on an inpatient unit, and the project might have been halted in its tracks if not for the enthusiasm of Johns Hopkins psychiatry chair Raymond DePaulo, who allowed me to shadow his team while they tended to inpatients. It was surprisingly easy to find a Crisis Intervention Team police officer to ride with, a little more effort to engage a mental health court judge.

Those who oppose forced treatment initially were more difficult to engage, but with perseverance, I was able to persuade the leadership of MindFreedom International to speak with me, and well, I ambushed a barely willing Scientologist while I was in New York for APA last May. In terms of patient participation, this hesitation did not hold true – many people volunteered to speak with me about how involuntary treatment harmed them, and it was much more difficult to find patients who felt helped by the treatment that was thrust upon them. Two absolutely wonderful women gave generously of themselves so that this project would have real voices to it: both “Lily” and “Eleanor” relived difficult experiences for me and allowed me to obtain their medical records and to speak with their families and their doctors. None of this was easy for them, but it did provide me with an education I would have gotten no other way as they reflected back on the meaning it had to them to have been committed to psychiatric units.

The subject of involuntary outpatient commitment has been particularly difficult to research, in part because I live in Maryland, a state which has no provision for this. I spoke with one family member in Arizona who initially was eager to be interviewed, along with her adult child who has come to feel that involuntary care has been very helpful. When I called back, the mom had changed her mind about participating: “You’re writing a book with a balanced view. There no balance or controversy here for me; it’s a medical problem that needs treatment. ” Unless I could promise to support, unequivocally, the views she held without qualification, she was not interested in participating in our book, even if it would provide an avenue to express her beliefs about the value of outpatient commitment. For similar reasons, I had to approach Ron Honberg, J.D., at the national office of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI); the Maryland NAMI members did not want me to speak with me after two articles I wrote for this Clinical Psychiatry News column suggested that I was not wholeheartedly in favor of outpatient commitment. I was told the topic was “too sensitive” for their members to discuss with me. So while I’ve learned that the topic inspires a great deal of emotion, there are still surprises with every step.

 

 

With all that as a prelude, I am continuing to look for people to interview who are the subjects of mandated civil outpatient treatment orders, as well as their family members. I thought perhaps readers might be able to help me, and I am interested in hearing both the good and the bad. If you, your patients, or their families would like to participate, by all means contact me at [email protected].

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of Shrink Rap: Three Psychiatrists Explain Their Work (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011).

References

References

Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Shrink Rap News: Writing about involuntary treatment is harder than you might think
Display Headline
Shrink Rap News: Writing about involuntary treatment is harder than you might think
Legacy Keywords
involuntary commitment, involuntary treatment
Legacy Keywords
involuntary commitment, involuntary treatment
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Hot flashes linked to increased hip fracture risk

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 14:20
Display Headline
Hot flashes linked to increased hip fracture risk

Hot flashes are associated with a significant increase in the risk of hip fracture, regardless of age, body mass index, and other confounders such as smoking, according to analysis of data from the Women’s Health Study.

The prospective, observational study among 4,867 women aged 50-79 years found a 78% increase in the risk of hip fracture among women with moderate to severe menopausal vasomotor symptoms at baseline, compared with women with no symptoms.

Dr. Carolyn J. Crandall

Vasomotor symptom severity was also inversely associated with bone mineral density (BMD) at both the femoral neck and the spine. Compared with women who had no vasomotor symptoms, those with moderate or severe symptoms had 0.015 g/cm2 lower femoral neck BMD and 0.016 g/cm2 lower lumbar spine BMD, according to an analysis published on Dec. 18 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (2014 [doi:10.1210/jc.2014-3062]).

“Despite being younger and heavier than asymptomatic women, characteristics associated with higher BMD, women with moderate/severe [vasomotor symptoms] had a higher risk of hip fractures that was also independent of other established risk factors for fractures,” wrote Dr. Carolyn J. Crandall of the University of California, Los Angeles, and her colleagues.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Two of the study authors reported consulting and other financial relationships with drug and device companies.

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Legacy Keywords
menopause, hip fracture, hot flashes, bone density
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Hot flashes are associated with a significant increase in the risk of hip fracture, regardless of age, body mass index, and other confounders such as smoking, according to analysis of data from the Women’s Health Study.

The prospective, observational study among 4,867 women aged 50-79 years found a 78% increase in the risk of hip fracture among women with moderate to severe menopausal vasomotor symptoms at baseline, compared with women with no symptoms.

Dr. Carolyn J. Crandall

Vasomotor symptom severity was also inversely associated with bone mineral density (BMD) at both the femoral neck and the spine. Compared with women who had no vasomotor symptoms, those with moderate or severe symptoms had 0.015 g/cm2 lower femoral neck BMD and 0.016 g/cm2 lower lumbar spine BMD, according to an analysis published on Dec. 18 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (2014 [doi:10.1210/jc.2014-3062]).

“Despite being younger and heavier than asymptomatic women, characteristics associated with higher BMD, women with moderate/severe [vasomotor symptoms] had a higher risk of hip fractures that was also independent of other established risk factors for fractures,” wrote Dr. Carolyn J. Crandall of the University of California, Los Angeles, and her colleagues.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Two of the study authors reported consulting and other financial relationships with drug and device companies.

Hot flashes are associated with a significant increase in the risk of hip fracture, regardless of age, body mass index, and other confounders such as smoking, according to analysis of data from the Women’s Health Study.

The prospective, observational study among 4,867 women aged 50-79 years found a 78% increase in the risk of hip fracture among women with moderate to severe menopausal vasomotor symptoms at baseline, compared with women with no symptoms.

Dr. Carolyn J. Crandall

Vasomotor symptom severity was also inversely associated with bone mineral density (BMD) at both the femoral neck and the spine. Compared with women who had no vasomotor symptoms, those with moderate or severe symptoms had 0.015 g/cm2 lower femoral neck BMD and 0.016 g/cm2 lower lumbar spine BMD, according to an analysis published on Dec. 18 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (2014 [doi:10.1210/jc.2014-3062]).

“Despite being younger and heavier than asymptomatic women, characteristics associated with higher BMD, women with moderate/severe [vasomotor symptoms] had a higher risk of hip fractures that was also independent of other established risk factors for fractures,” wrote Dr. Carolyn J. Crandall of the University of California, Los Angeles, and her colleagues.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Two of the study authors reported consulting and other financial relationships with drug and device companies.

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Hot flashes linked to increased hip fracture risk
Display Headline
Hot flashes linked to increased hip fracture risk
Legacy Keywords
menopause, hip fracture, hot flashes, bone density
Legacy Keywords
menopause, hip fracture, hot flashes, bone density
Article Source

FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY AND METABOLISM

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Vitals

Key clinical point: The severity of vasomotor menopause symptoms is associated with risk of hip fracture.

Major finding: Women with moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms have a 78% increase in their risk of hip fracture.

Data source: A prospective, observational study among 4,867 women aged 50-79 years.

Disclosures: The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Two of the study authors reported consulting and other financial relationships with drug and device companies.

Teams map paths to drug resistance in cancers, MPNs

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 12/30/2014 - 06:00
Display Headline
Teams map paths to drug resistance in cancers, MPNs

Credit: Rhoda Baer
Researchers in the lab

Researchers say they’ve discovered key events that prompt drug resistance in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) and certain solid tumor malignancies.

By mapping the steps that myelofibrosis, melanoma, and breast cancer cells use to become resistant to drugs, the investigators believe they have identified better targets for blocking those pathways to ensure current therapies are effective.

The groups reported these findings in two papers published in Science Signaling.

“In our studies, we developed a screening technology that allows us to quickly identify the routes cells can use to become resistant, and, using that information, we were able to show that these mechanisms seen in the laboratory are actually also occurring in patients’ tumors,” said Kris Wood, PhD, an assistant professor at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and senior author of both studies.

In the first study, Dr Wood and his colleagues conducted a broad survey of the known cell-signaling pathways that, when activated, have the potential to trigger drug resistance.

Using this screening technology, the researchers were able to corroborate the results of earlier drug-resistance studies, while also finding pathways that had not previously been described.

The team identified the MAPK and PI3K pathways, which are known to mediate drug resistance. But they also found that activation of the Notch1 pathway caused drug resistance, and inhibiting Notch1 signaling restored drug efficacy.

“Interestingly, the mechanisms are quite similar among all 3 of the cancer types,” Dr Wood noted. “In breast cancer and melanoma, our findings suggest the same Notch1 pathway as a potential driver of resistance to a wide array of targeted therapies—a role that has not been widely acknowledged previously.”

The investigators found that Notch signaling mediated drug resistance to an estrogen receptor-targeted therapy used in breast cancer and to a kinase-targeted therapy used in melanoma. And tumors from some patients with relapsed breast cancer or melanoma had increased markers of Notch1 signaling.

In the second study, the researchers used the aforementioned pathway-centric screen to track a pair of separate signaling pathways downstream of RAS, a protein frequently activated in MPNs.

The team found the pathway mediated by RAS promoted drug resistance in hematopoietic cell lines containing an activating mutation in JAK2. And RAS signaling led to the phosphorylation-mediated inactivation of the pro-apoptotic protein BAD, which enabled cell survival.

Combining JAK inhibitors with inhibitors of kinases downstream of RAS signaling prompted apoptosis in cell lines that were resistant to JAK inhibitors. This suggests such combinations may be effective for treating drug-resistant MPNs.

“Together, these findings improve our ability to stratify patients into groups more and less likely to respond to therapy and design drug combinations that work together to block or delay resistance,” Dr Wood concluded.

Publications
Topics

Credit: Rhoda Baer
Researchers in the lab

Researchers say they’ve discovered key events that prompt drug resistance in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) and certain solid tumor malignancies.

By mapping the steps that myelofibrosis, melanoma, and breast cancer cells use to become resistant to drugs, the investigators believe they have identified better targets for blocking those pathways to ensure current therapies are effective.

The groups reported these findings in two papers published in Science Signaling.

“In our studies, we developed a screening technology that allows us to quickly identify the routes cells can use to become resistant, and, using that information, we were able to show that these mechanisms seen in the laboratory are actually also occurring in patients’ tumors,” said Kris Wood, PhD, an assistant professor at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and senior author of both studies.

In the first study, Dr Wood and his colleagues conducted a broad survey of the known cell-signaling pathways that, when activated, have the potential to trigger drug resistance.

Using this screening technology, the researchers were able to corroborate the results of earlier drug-resistance studies, while also finding pathways that had not previously been described.

The team identified the MAPK and PI3K pathways, which are known to mediate drug resistance. But they also found that activation of the Notch1 pathway caused drug resistance, and inhibiting Notch1 signaling restored drug efficacy.

“Interestingly, the mechanisms are quite similar among all 3 of the cancer types,” Dr Wood noted. “In breast cancer and melanoma, our findings suggest the same Notch1 pathway as a potential driver of resistance to a wide array of targeted therapies—a role that has not been widely acknowledged previously.”

The investigators found that Notch signaling mediated drug resistance to an estrogen receptor-targeted therapy used in breast cancer and to a kinase-targeted therapy used in melanoma. And tumors from some patients with relapsed breast cancer or melanoma had increased markers of Notch1 signaling.

In the second study, the researchers used the aforementioned pathway-centric screen to track a pair of separate signaling pathways downstream of RAS, a protein frequently activated in MPNs.

The team found the pathway mediated by RAS promoted drug resistance in hematopoietic cell lines containing an activating mutation in JAK2. And RAS signaling led to the phosphorylation-mediated inactivation of the pro-apoptotic protein BAD, which enabled cell survival.

Combining JAK inhibitors with inhibitors of kinases downstream of RAS signaling prompted apoptosis in cell lines that were resistant to JAK inhibitors. This suggests such combinations may be effective for treating drug-resistant MPNs.

“Together, these findings improve our ability to stratify patients into groups more and less likely to respond to therapy and design drug combinations that work together to block or delay resistance,” Dr Wood concluded.

Credit: Rhoda Baer
Researchers in the lab

Researchers say they’ve discovered key events that prompt drug resistance in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) and certain solid tumor malignancies.

By mapping the steps that myelofibrosis, melanoma, and breast cancer cells use to become resistant to drugs, the investigators believe they have identified better targets for blocking those pathways to ensure current therapies are effective.

The groups reported these findings in two papers published in Science Signaling.

“In our studies, we developed a screening technology that allows us to quickly identify the routes cells can use to become resistant, and, using that information, we were able to show that these mechanisms seen in the laboratory are actually also occurring in patients’ tumors,” said Kris Wood, PhD, an assistant professor at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and senior author of both studies.

In the first study, Dr Wood and his colleagues conducted a broad survey of the known cell-signaling pathways that, when activated, have the potential to trigger drug resistance.

Using this screening technology, the researchers were able to corroborate the results of earlier drug-resistance studies, while also finding pathways that had not previously been described.

The team identified the MAPK and PI3K pathways, which are known to mediate drug resistance. But they also found that activation of the Notch1 pathway caused drug resistance, and inhibiting Notch1 signaling restored drug efficacy.

“Interestingly, the mechanisms are quite similar among all 3 of the cancer types,” Dr Wood noted. “In breast cancer and melanoma, our findings suggest the same Notch1 pathway as a potential driver of resistance to a wide array of targeted therapies—a role that has not been widely acknowledged previously.”

The investigators found that Notch signaling mediated drug resistance to an estrogen receptor-targeted therapy used in breast cancer and to a kinase-targeted therapy used in melanoma. And tumors from some patients with relapsed breast cancer or melanoma had increased markers of Notch1 signaling.

In the second study, the researchers used the aforementioned pathway-centric screen to track a pair of separate signaling pathways downstream of RAS, a protein frequently activated in MPNs.

The team found the pathway mediated by RAS promoted drug resistance in hematopoietic cell lines containing an activating mutation in JAK2. And RAS signaling led to the phosphorylation-mediated inactivation of the pro-apoptotic protein BAD, which enabled cell survival.

Combining JAK inhibitors with inhibitors of kinases downstream of RAS signaling prompted apoptosis in cell lines that were resistant to JAK inhibitors. This suggests such combinations may be effective for treating drug-resistant MPNs.

“Together, these findings improve our ability to stratify patients into groups more and less likely to respond to therapy and design drug combinations that work together to block or delay resistance,” Dr Wood concluded.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Teams map paths to drug resistance in cancers, MPNs
Display Headline
Teams map paths to drug resistance in cancers, MPNs
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Drug combats complications of SCD

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 12/30/2014 - 06:00
Display Headline
Drug combats complications of SCD

Prescription medications Credit: CDC

SAN FRANCISCO—Pharmaceutical-grade L-glutamine can reduce the risk of complications in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD), according to new research.

In a phase 3 study of more than 200 patients, those who received L-glutamine saw a reduction in sickle cell crises, hospitalizations, and the incidence of acute chest syndrome (ACS) when compared to patients who received placebo.

In addition, L-glutamine appeared to have a synergistic effect with hydroxyurea.

Yutaka Niihara, MD, of Emmaus Medical, Inc., in Torrance, California, presented these results at the 2014 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 86*). Emmaus Medical produced the pharmaceutical-grade L-glutamine used in the study.

Dr Niihara noted that nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) is an important physiological antioxidant in red blood cells. But in sickled red blood cells, NAD redox potential is significantly compromised.

So he and his colleagues hypothesized that glutamine, a precursor for NAD, can improve NAD redox potential and modify the destructive effect of increased oxidation and the pathophysiology of SCD. They also theorized that glutamine will decrease the frequency of vaso-occlusive crises.

To test their theories, the researchers enrolled 230 patients from 31 different sites on a phase 3 trial. Patients had sickle cell anemia (SS) or sickle B0 thalassemia. They were 5 years of age or older, and some were receiving hydroxyurea.

Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive L-glutamine at 0.3 g/kg twice daily (maximum 30 g/day) or placebo (maltodextrin) at 0.3 g/kg twice daily for 48 weeks. The researchers had discovered high variation in the quality of over-the-counter L-glutamine, so they used pharmaceutical-grade L-glutamine only.

In all, 152 patients received L-glutamine, and 78 received placebo. Demographics and baseline characteristics were similar between the two treatment arms.

The median age was 19 (range, 5-57) in the L-glutamine arm and 17 (range, 5-58) in the placebo arm. There were more females than males in both arms—52% and 57.7%, respectively. And most patients in both arms had sickle cell anemia—89.5% and 91%, respectively.

Safety and efficacy

Dr Niihara said there were no serious adverse events attributable to L-glutamine and no dose modifications due to toxicity.

There were more gastrointestinal events (such as constipation and flatulence) in the L-glutamine arm (8.6%) than in the placebo arm (5.2%). But there was no difference in other adverse events between the two arms.

The study’s primary endpoint was the frequency of painful sickle cell crises. Patients in the L-glutamine arm had 25% fewer crises than patients in the placebo arm (P=0.008).

In patients aged 18 and younger, the median number of sickle cell crises was 3 in the L-glutamine arm and 4 in the placebo arm (P<0.001). The numbers were the same in patients older than 18 (P<0.001) and among patients receiving hydroxyurea (P<0.001).

“Those patients, even though they were on hydroxyurea, they have shown improvements [with L-glutamine],” Dr Niihara said. “And it appears there is some synergistic effect . . ., certainly more than just an additive effect.”

Dr Niihara also noted that patients who received placebo took less than 2 months to experience a first sickle cell crisis, but, for patients on L-glutamine, it took almost 3 months before they had a first crisis. The time to a first crisis was a median of 87 days in the L-glutamine arm and 54 days in the placebo arm (P=0.010).

The study’s secondary endpoint was the frequency of hospitalizations. Compared to patients in the placebo arm, those in the L-glutamine arm had a 33% reduction in hospitalizations (P=0.005) and a 41% reduction in the length of hospital stay (P=0.022).

 

 

The researchers also looked at the incidence of ACS and found that L-glutamine was associated with a 58% reduction in ACS. The incidence was 26.9% in the placebo arm and 11.9% in the L-glutamine arm (P=0.006).

“We observed this cascade improvement [with L-glutamine],” Dr Niihara noted. “And what we mean [by that] is that, with glutamine, there is less chance of having painful crises, but if patients have to have crises, they have less chance of being hospitalized. And if they have to be hospitalized, their stays in the hospital are shorter. And, again, if they have to be hospitalized, there’s less chance of them going to the ICU with acute chest syndrome.”

Dr Niihara said the researchers’ next steps are to investigate L-glutamine in a clinical setting, in patients younger than 5 years old, in pregnant women, and as part of combination therapy.

*Information in the abstract differs from that presented at the meeting.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

Prescription medications Credit: CDC

SAN FRANCISCO—Pharmaceutical-grade L-glutamine can reduce the risk of complications in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD), according to new research.

In a phase 3 study of more than 200 patients, those who received L-glutamine saw a reduction in sickle cell crises, hospitalizations, and the incidence of acute chest syndrome (ACS) when compared to patients who received placebo.

In addition, L-glutamine appeared to have a synergistic effect with hydroxyurea.

Yutaka Niihara, MD, of Emmaus Medical, Inc., in Torrance, California, presented these results at the 2014 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 86*). Emmaus Medical produced the pharmaceutical-grade L-glutamine used in the study.

Dr Niihara noted that nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) is an important physiological antioxidant in red blood cells. But in sickled red blood cells, NAD redox potential is significantly compromised.

So he and his colleagues hypothesized that glutamine, a precursor for NAD, can improve NAD redox potential and modify the destructive effect of increased oxidation and the pathophysiology of SCD. They also theorized that glutamine will decrease the frequency of vaso-occlusive crises.

To test their theories, the researchers enrolled 230 patients from 31 different sites on a phase 3 trial. Patients had sickle cell anemia (SS) or sickle B0 thalassemia. They were 5 years of age or older, and some were receiving hydroxyurea.

Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive L-glutamine at 0.3 g/kg twice daily (maximum 30 g/day) or placebo (maltodextrin) at 0.3 g/kg twice daily for 48 weeks. The researchers had discovered high variation in the quality of over-the-counter L-glutamine, so they used pharmaceutical-grade L-glutamine only.

In all, 152 patients received L-glutamine, and 78 received placebo. Demographics and baseline characteristics were similar between the two treatment arms.

The median age was 19 (range, 5-57) in the L-glutamine arm and 17 (range, 5-58) in the placebo arm. There were more females than males in both arms—52% and 57.7%, respectively. And most patients in both arms had sickle cell anemia—89.5% and 91%, respectively.

Safety and efficacy

Dr Niihara said there were no serious adverse events attributable to L-glutamine and no dose modifications due to toxicity.

There were more gastrointestinal events (such as constipation and flatulence) in the L-glutamine arm (8.6%) than in the placebo arm (5.2%). But there was no difference in other adverse events between the two arms.

The study’s primary endpoint was the frequency of painful sickle cell crises. Patients in the L-glutamine arm had 25% fewer crises than patients in the placebo arm (P=0.008).

In patients aged 18 and younger, the median number of sickle cell crises was 3 in the L-glutamine arm and 4 in the placebo arm (P<0.001). The numbers were the same in patients older than 18 (P<0.001) and among patients receiving hydroxyurea (P<0.001).

“Those patients, even though they were on hydroxyurea, they have shown improvements [with L-glutamine],” Dr Niihara said. “And it appears there is some synergistic effect . . ., certainly more than just an additive effect.”

Dr Niihara also noted that patients who received placebo took less than 2 months to experience a first sickle cell crisis, but, for patients on L-glutamine, it took almost 3 months before they had a first crisis. The time to a first crisis was a median of 87 days in the L-glutamine arm and 54 days in the placebo arm (P=0.010).

The study’s secondary endpoint was the frequency of hospitalizations. Compared to patients in the placebo arm, those in the L-glutamine arm had a 33% reduction in hospitalizations (P=0.005) and a 41% reduction in the length of hospital stay (P=0.022).

 

 

The researchers also looked at the incidence of ACS and found that L-glutamine was associated with a 58% reduction in ACS. The incidence was 26.9% in the placebo arm and 11.9% in the L-glutamine arm (P=0.006).

“We observed this cascade improvement [with L-glutamine],” Dr Niihara noted. “And what we mean [by that] is that, with glutamine, there is less chance of having painful crises, but if patients have to have crises, they have less chance of being hospitalized. And if they have to be hospitalized, their stays in the hospital are shorter. And, again, if they have to be hospitalized, there’s less chance of them going to the ICU with acute chest syndrome.”

Dr Niihara said the researchers’ next steps are to investigate L-glutamine in a clinical setting, in patients younger than 5 years old, in pregnant women, and as part of combination therapy.

*Information in the abstract differs from that presented at the meeting.

Prescription medications Credit: CDC

SAN FRANCISCO—Pharmaceutical-grade L-glutamine can reduce the risk of complications in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD), according to new research.

In a phase 3 study of more than 200 patients, those who received L-glutamine saw a reduction in sickle cell crises, hospitalizations, and the incidence of acute chest syndrome (ACS) when compared to patients who received placebo.

In addition, L-glutamine appeared to have a synergistic effect with hydroxyurea.

Yutaka Niihara, MD, of Emmaus Medical, Inc., in Torrance, California, presented these results at the 2014 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 86*). Emmaus Medical produced the pharmaceutical-grade L-glutamine used in the study.

Dr Niihara noted that nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) is an important physiological antioxidant in red blood cells. But in sickled red blood cells, NAD redox potential is significantly compromised.

So he and his colleagues hypothesized that glutamine, a precursor for NAD, can improve NAD redox potential and modify the destructive effect of increased oxidation and the pathophysiology of SCD. They also theorized that glutamine will decrease the frequency of vaso-occlusive crises.

To test their theories, the researchers enrolled 230 patients from 31 different sites on a phase 3 trial. Patients had sickle cell anemia (SS) or sickle B0 thalassemia. They were 5 years of age or older, and some were receiving hydroxyurea.

Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive L-glutamine at 0.3 g/kg twice daily (maximum 30 g/day) or placebo (maltodextrin) at 0.3 g/kg twice daily for 48 weeks. The researchers had discovered high variation in the quality of over-the-counter L-glutamine, so they used pharmaceutical-grade L-glutamine only.

In all, 152 patients received L-glutamine, and 78 received placebo. Demographics and baseline characteristics were similar between the two treatment arms.

The median age was 19 (range, 5-57) in the L-glutamine arm and 17 (range, 5-58) in the placebo arm. There were more females than males in both arms—52% and 57.7%, respectively. And most patients in both arms had sickle cell anemia—89.5% and 91%, respectively.

Safety and efficacy

Dr Niihara said there were no serious adverse events attributable to L-glutamine and no dose modifications due to toxicity.

There were more gastrointestinal events (such as constipation and flatulence) in the L-glutamine arm (8.6%) than in the placebo arm (5.2%). But there was no difference in other adverse events between the two arms.

The study’s primary endpoint was the frequency of painful sickle cell crises. Patients in the L-glutamine arm had 25% fewer crises than patients in the placebo arm (P=0.008).

In patients aged 18 and younger, the median number of sickle cell crises was 3 in the L-glutamine arm and 4 in the placebo arm (P<0.001). The numbers were the same in patients older than 18 (P<0.001) and among patients receiving hydroxyurea (P<0.001).

“Those patients, even though they were on hydroxyurea, they have shown improvements [with L-glutamine],” Dr Niihara said. “And it appears there is some synergistic effect . . ., certainly more than just an additive effect.”

Dr Niihara also noted that patients who received placebo took less than 2 months to experience a first sickle cell crisis, but, for patients on L-glutamine, it took almost 3 months before they had a first crisis. The time to a first crisis was a median of 87 days in the L-glutamine arm and 54 days in the placebo arm (P=0.010).

The study’s secondary endpoint was the frequency of hospitalizations. Compared to patients in the placebo arm, those in the L-glutamine arm had a 33% reduction in hospitalizations (P=0.005) and a 41% reduction in the length of hospital stay (P=0.022).

 

 

The researchers also looked at the incidence of ACS and found that L-glutamine was associated with a 58% reduction in ACS. The incidence was 26.9% in the placebo arm and 11.9% in the L-glutamine arm (P=0.006).

“We observed this cascade improvement [with L-glutamine],” Dr Niihara noted. “And what we mean [by that] is that, with glutamine, there is less chance of having painful crises, but if patients have to have crises, they have less chance of being hospitalized. And if they have to be hospitalized, their stays in the hospital are shorter. And, again, if they have to be hospitalized, there’s less chance of them going to the ICU with acute chest syndrome.”

Dr Niihara said the researchers’ next steps are to investigate L-glutamine in a clinical setting, in patients younger than 5 years old, in pregnant women, and as part of combination therapy.

*Information in the abstract differs from that presented at the meeting.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Drug combats complications of SCD
Display Headline
Drug combats complications of SCD
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica