Managing Your Practice

Insurance – so goes the hoary cliché – is the one product you buy hoping never to use. While no one enjoys foreseeing unforeseeable calamities, regular meetings with your insurance broker are important. Overinsuring is a waste of money, but underinsuring can prove even more costly, should the unforeseeable happen.

Malpractice premiums continue to rise. If yours are getting out of hand, ask your broker about alternatives.

"Occurrence" policies remain the coverage of choice where they are available and affordable, but they are becoming an endangered species as fewer insurers are willing to write them. "Claims-made" policies are usually cheaper, and provide the same coverage as long as you remain in practice. You will need "tail" coverage against belated claims after you retire, but many companies provide free tail coverage after you’ve been insured for a minimum period (usually 5 years).

Other alternatives are gaining popularity as the demand for more reasonably priced insurance increases. The most common, known as reciprocal exchanges, are very similar to traditional insurers, but differ in certain aspects of funding and operations. For example, most exchanges require policyholders to make capital contributions in addition to payment of premiums, at least in their early stages. You get your investment back, with interest, when (if) the exchange becomes solvent.

Another option, called a captive, is an insurance company formed by several noninsurance entities (such as medical practices) to write their own insurance policies. All participants are shareholders, and all premiums (less administrative expenses) go toward building the security of the captive. Most captives purchase reinsurance to protect against catastrophic losses. If all goes well, individual owners sell their shares at retirement for a nice profit, which has grown tax free in the interim.

Risk Retention Groups (RRGs) are a combination of exchanges and captives, in that capital investments are usually required, and the owners are the insureds themselves; but all responsibility for management and adequate funding falls on the insureds’ shoulders, and reinsurance is rarely an option. Most medical malpractice RRGs are licensed in Vermont or South Carolina, because of favorable laws in those states, but they can be based in any state that allows them.

Exchanges, captives, and RRGs all carry risk: A few large claims can eat up all the profits, and may even put you in a financial hole. But of course, traditional malpractice policies offer zero profit opportunity.

If your financial situation has changed since your last insurance review, your life insurance needs have probably changed, too. As your retirement savings accumulate, less insurance is necessary. And if you own any expensive whole life policies, you can probably convert them to much cheaper term insurance.

Disability insurance is not something to skimp on, but if you are approaching retirement age, you may be able to decrease your coverage, or even eliminate it entirely, if your retirement plan is far enough along.

Liability insurance is likewise no place to pinch pennies, but you might be able to add an umbrella policy providing comprehensive catastrophic coverage, which may allow you to decrease your regular coverage, or raise your deductible limits.

One additional policy to consider is Employment Practices Liability Insurance, which protects you from lawsuits brought by militant or disgruntled employees. More on that next month.

Health insurance premiums continue to soar; Obamacare might offer a favorable alternative for your office policy. Open enrollment began Oct. 1, with coverage scheduled to begin Jan. 1, 2014. If you are considering such an option, go to the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight and pick a plan for your employees to enroll in.

Workers’ compensation insurance is mandatory in most states, and heavily regulated, so there is little room for cutting expenses. However, some states do not require you, as the employer, to cover yourself, and eliminating that coverage could save you a substantial amount. This is only worth considering, of course, if you have adequate health and disability policies in place.

If you’re over 50 years old, look into long-term care insurance as well. It’s relatively inexpensive if you buy it while you’re still healthy, and it could save you and your heirs a load of money on the other end. If you have shouldered the expense of a chronically ill parent or grandparent, you know what I’m talking about.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J., and has been a long-time monthly columnist for Dermatology News.

Insurance – so goes the hoary cliché – is the one product you buy hoping never to use. While no one enjoys foreseeing unforeseeable calamities, regular meetings with your insurance broker are important. Overinsuring is a waste of money, but underinsuring can prove even more costly, should the unforeseeable happen.

Malpractice premiums continue to rise. If yours are getting out of hand, ask your broker about alternatives.

"Occurrence" policies remain the coverage of choice where they are available and affordable, but they are becoming an endangered species as fewer insurers are willing to write them. "Claims-made" policies are usually cheaper, and provide the same coverage as long as you remain in practice. You will need "tail" coverage against belated claims after you retire, but many companies provide free tail coverage after you’ve been insured for a minimum period (usually 5 years).

Other alternatives are gaining popularity as the demand for more reasonably priced insurance increases. The most common, known as reciprocal exchanges, are very similar to traditional insurers, but differ in certain aspects of funding and operations. For example, most exchanges require policyholders to make capital contributions in addition to payment of premiums, at least in their early stages. You get your investment back, with interest, when (if) the exchange becomes solvent.

Another option, called a captive, is an insurance company formed by several noninsurance entities (such as medical practices) to write their own insurance policies. All participants are shareholders, and all premiums (less administrative expenses) go toward building the security of the captive. Most captives purchase reinsurance to protect against catastrophic losses. If all goes well, individual owners sell their shares at retirement for a nice profit, which has grown tax free in the interim.

Risk Retention Groups (RRGs) are a combination of exchanges and captives, in that capital investments are usually required, and the owners are the insureds themselves; but all responsibility for management and adequate funding falls on the insureds’ shoulders, and reinsurance is rarely an option. Most medical malpractice RRGs are licensed in Vermont or South Carolina, because of favorable laws in those states, but they can be based in any state that allows them.

Exchanges, captives, and RRGs all carry risk: A few large claims can eat up all the profits, and may even put you in a financial hole. But of course, traditional malpractice policies offer zero profit opportunity.

If your financial situation has changed since your last insurance review, your life insurance needs have probably changed, too. As your retirement savings accumulate, less insurance is necessary. And if you own any expensive whole life policies, you can probably convert them to much cheaper term insurance.

Disability insurance is not something to skimp on, but if you are approaching retirement age, you may be able to decrease your coverage, or even eliminate it entirely, if your retirement plan is far enough along.

Liability insurance is likewise no place to pinch pennies, but you might be able to add an umbrella policy providing comprehensive catastrophic coverage, which may allow you to decrease your regular coverage, or raise your deductible limits.

One additional policy to consider is Employment Practices Liability Insurance, which protects you from lawsuits brought by militant or disgruntled employees. More on that next month.

Health insurance premiums continue to soar; Obamacare might offer a favorable alternative for your office policy. Open enrollment began Oct. 1, with coverage scheduled to begin Jan. 1, 2014. If you are considering such an option, go to the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight and pick a plan for your employees to enroll in.

Workers’ compensation insurance is mandatory in most states, and heavily regulated, so there is little room for cutting expenses. However, some states do not require you, as the employer, to cover yourself, and eliminating that coverage could save you a substantial amount. This is only worth considering, of course, if you have adequate health and disability policies in place.

If you’re over 50 years old, look into long-term care insurance as well. It’s relatively inexpensive if you buy it while you’re still healthy, and it could save you and your heirs a load of money on the other end. If you have shouldered the expense of a chronically ill parent or grandparent, you know what I’m talking about.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J., and has been a long-time monthly columnist for Dermatology News.

Insurance – so goes the hoary cliché – is the one product you buy hoping never to use. While no one enjoys foreseeing unforeseeable calamities, regular meetings with your insurance broker are important. Overinsuring is a waste of money, but underinsuring can prove even more costly, should the unforeseeable happen.

Malpractice premiums continue to rise. If yours are getting out of hand, ask your broker about alternatives.

"Occurrence" policies remain the coverage of choice where they are available and affordable, but they are becoming an endangered species as fewer insurers are willing to write them. "Claims-made" policies are usually cheaper, and provide the same coverage as long as you remain in practice. You will need "tail" coverage against belated claims after you retire, but many companies provide free tail coverage after you’ve been insured for a minimum period (usually 5 years).

Other alternatives are gaining popularity as the demand for more reasonably priced insurance increases. The most common, known as reciprocal exchanges, are very similar to traditional insurers, but differ in certain aspects of funding and operations. For example, most exchanges require policyholders to make capital contributions in addition to payment of premiums, at least in their early stages. You get your investment back, with interest, when (if) the exchange becomes solvent.

Another option, called a captive, is an insurance company formed by several noninsurance entities (such as medical practices) to write their own insurance policies. All participants are shareholders, and all premiums (less administrative expenses) go toward building the security of the captive. Most captives purchase reinsurance to protect against catastrophic losses. If all goes well, individual owners sell their shares at retirement for a nice profit, which has grown tax free in the interim.

Risk Retention Groups (RRGs) are a combination of exchanges and captives, in that capital investments are usually required, and the owners are the insureds themselves; but all responsibility for management and adequate funding falls on the insureds’ shoulders, and reinsurance is rarely an option. Most medical malpractice RRGs are licensed in Vermont or South Carolina, because of favorable laws in those states, but they can be based in any state that allows them.

Exchanges, captives, and RRGs all carry risk: A few large claims can eat up all the profits, and may even put you in a financial hole. But of course, traditional malpractice policies offer zero profit opportunity.

If your financial situation has changed since your last insurance review, your life insurance needs have probably changed, too. As your retirement savings accumulate, less insurance is necessary. And if you own any expensive whole life policies, you can probably convert them to much cheaper term insurance.

Disability insurance is not something to skimp on, but if you are approaching retirement age, you may be able to decrease your coverage, or even eliminate it entirely, if your retirement plan is far enough along.

Liability insurance is likewise no place to pinch pennies, but you might be able to add an umbrella policy providing comprehensive catastrophic coverage, which may allow you to decrease your regular coverage, or raise your deductible limits.

One additional policy to consider is Employment Practices Liability Insurance, which protects you from lawsuits brought by militant or disgruntled employees. More on that next month.

Health insurance premiums continue to soar; Obamacare might offer a favorable alternative for your office policy. Open enrollment began Oct. 1, with coverage scheduled to begin Jan. 1, 2014. If you are considering such an option, go to the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight and pick a plan for your employees to enroll in.

Workers’ compensation insurance is mandatory in most states, and heavily regulated, so there is little room for cutting expenses. However, some states do not require you, as the employer, to cover yourself, and eliminating that coverage could save you a substantial amount. This is only worth considering, of course, if you have adequate health and disability policies in place.

If you’re over 50 years old, look into long-term care insurance as well. It’s relatively inexpensive if you buy it while you’re still healthy, and it could save you and your heirs a load of money on the other end. If you have shouldered the expense of a chronically ill parent or grandparent, you know what I’m talking about.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J., and has been a long-time monthly columnist for Dermatology News.

Click here to listen to excerpts of our interview with Dr. Deitelzweig, chair of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

Click here to listen to excerpts of our interview with Dr. Deitelzweig, chair of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

Click here to listen to excerpts of our interview with Dr. Deitelzweig, chair of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) surveys regard both a doctor who works the standard number of annual shifts their practice defines as full time, and a doctor who works many extra shifts, as one full-time equivalent (FTE). This can cause confusion when assessing productivity per FTE (see “SHM and MGMA Survey History,” right).

For example, consider a hospitalist who generated 4,000 wRVUs while working 182 shifts—the standard number of shifts to be full time in that doctor’s practice—during the survey year. In the same practice, another hospitalist worked 39 extra shifts over the same year for a total of 220 shifts, generating 4,860 wRVUs. If the survey contained only these two doctors, it would show them both as full time, with an average productivity per FTE of 4,430 wRVUs. But that would be misleading because 1.0 FTE worth of work as defined by their practice for both doctors would have come to 4,000 wRVUs generated while working 182 shifts.

In prior columns, I’ve highlighted some other numbers in hospitalist productivity and compensation surveys that can lead to confusion. But the MGMA survey methodology, which assigns a particular FTE to a single doctor, may be the most confusing issue, potentially leading to meaningful misunderstandings.

More Details on FTE Definition

MGMA has been conducting physician compensation and productivity surveys across essentially all medical specialties for decades. Competing organizations conduct similar surveys, but most regard the MGMA survey as the most relevant and valuable.

For a long time, MGMA has regarded as “full time” any doctor working 0.75 FTE or greater, using the respondent practice’s definition of an FTE. No single doctor can ever be counted as more than 1.0 FTE, regardless of how much extra the doctor may have worked. Any doctor working 0.35-0.75 FTE is regarded as part time, and those working less than 0.35 FTE are excluded from the survey report. The fact that each practice might have a different definition of what constitutes an FTE is addressed by having a large number of respondents in most medical specialties.

I’m uncertain how MGMA ended up not counting any single doctor as more than 1.0 FTE, even when they work a lot of extra shifts. But my guess is that for the first years, or even decades, that MGMA conducted its survey, few, if any, medical practices even had a strict definition of what constituted 1.0 FTE and simply didn’t keep track of which doctors worked extra shifts or days. So even if MGMA had wanted to know, for example, when a doctor worked extra shifts and should be counted as more than 1.0 FTE, few if any practices even thought about the precise number of shifts or days worked constituting full time versus what was an “extra” shift. So it probably made sense to simply have two categories: full time and part time.

As more practices began assigning FTE with greater precision, like nearly all hospitalist practices do, then using 0.75 FTE to separate full time and part time seemed practical, though imprecise. But keep in mind it also means that all of the doctors who work from 0.75 to 0.99 FTE (that is, something less than 1.0) offset, at least partially, those who work lots of extra shifts (i.e., above 1.0 FTE).

Data Application

My anecdotal experience is that a large portion of hospitalists, probably around half, work more shifts than what their practice regards as full time. I don’t know of any survey database that quantifies this, but my guess is that 25% to 35% of full-time hospitalists work extra shifts at their own practice, and maybe another 15% to 20% moonlight at a different practice. Let’s consider only those in the first category.

Chronic staffing shortages is one of the reasons hospitalists so commonly work extra shifts at their own practice. Extra shifts are sometimes even required by the practice to make up for open positions. And in some places, the hospitalists choose not to fill positions to preserve their ability to continue working more than the number of shifts required to be full time.

It would be great if we had a precise way to adjust the MGMA survey data for hospitalists who work above 1.0 FTE. For example, let’s make three assumptions so that we can then adjust the reported compensation and productivity data to remove the effect of the many doctors working extra shifts, thereby more clearly matching 1.0 FTE. These numbers are my guesses based on lots of anecdotal experience. But they are only guesses. Don’t make too much of them.

Assume 25% of hospitalists nationally work an average of 20% more than the full-time number of shifts for their practice. That is my best guess and intentionally leaves out those who moonlight for a practice other than their own.

Some portion of those working extra shifts (above 1.0 FTE) is offset by survey respondents working between 0.75 and 1.0 FTE, resulting in a wild guess of a net 20% of hospitalists working extra shifts.

Last, let’s assume that their productivity and compensation on extra shifts is identical to their “normal” shifts. This is not true for many practices, but when aggregating the data, it is probably reasonably close.

Using these assumptions (guesses, really), we can decrease both the reported survey mean and median productivity and compensation by about 5% to more accurately reflect results for hospitalists doing only the number of shifts required by the practice to be full time—no extra shifts. I’ll spare you the simple math showing how I arrived at the approximately 5%, but basically it is removing the 20% additional compensation and productivity generated by the net 20% of hospitalists who work extra shifts above 1.0 FTE.

Does It Really Matter?

The whole issue of hospitalists working many extra shifts yet only counting as 1.0 FTE in the MGMA survey might matter a lot for some, and others might see it as useless hand-wringing. As long as a meaningful number of hospitalists work extra shifts, then survey values for productivity and compensation will always be a little higher than the “average” 1.0 FTE hospitalists working no extra shifts. But it may still be well within the range of error of the survey anyway. And the compensation per unit of work (wRVUs or encounters) probably isn’t much affected by this FTE issue.

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988. He is co-founder and past president of SHM, and principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants. He is co-director for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. Write to him at [email protected].

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) surveys regard both a doctor who works the standard number of annual shifts their practice defines as full time, and a doctor who works many extra shifts, as one full-time equivalent (FTE). This can cause confusion when assessing productivity per FTE (see “SHM and MGMA Survey History,” right).

For example, consider a hospitalist who generated 4,000 wRVUs while working 182 shifts—the standard number of shifts to be full time in that doctor’s practice—during the survey year. In the same practice, another hospitalist worked 39 extra shifts over the same year for a total of 220 shifts, generating 4,860 wRVUs. If the survey contained only these two doctors, it would show them both as full time, with an average productivity per FTE of 4,430 wRVUs. But that would be misleading because 1.0 FTE worth of work as defined by their practice for both doctors would have come to 4,000 wRVUs generated while working 182 shifts.

In prior columns, I’ve highlighted some other numbers in hospitalist productivity and compensation surveys that can lead to confusion. But the MGMA survey methodology, which assigns a particular FTE to a single doctor, may be the most confusing issue, potentially leading to meaningful misunderstandings.

More Details on FTE Definition

MGMA has been conducting physician compensation and productivity surveys across essentially all medical specialties for decades. Competing organizations conduct similar surveys, but most regard the MGMA survey as the most relevant and valuable.

For a long time, MGMA has regarded as “full time” any doctor working 0.75 FTE or greater, using the respondent practice’s definition of an FTE. No single doctor can ever be counted as more than 1.0 FTE, regardless of how much extra the doctor may have worked. Any doctor working 0.35-0.75 FTE is regarded as part time, and those working less than 0.35 FTE are excluded from the survey report. The fact that each practice might have a different definition of what constitutes an FTE is addressed by having a large number of respondents in most medical specialties.

I’m uncertain how MGMA ended up not counting any single doctor as more than 1.0 FTE, even when they work a lot of extra shifts. But my guess is that for the first years, or even decades, that MGMA conducted its survey, few, if any, medical practices even had a strict definition of what constituted 1.0 FTE and simply didn’t keep track of which doctors worked extra shifts or days. So even if MGMA had wanted to know, for example, when a doctor worked extra shifts and should be counted as more than 1.0 FTE, few if any practices even thought about the precise number of shifts or days worked constituting full time versus what was an “extra” shift. So it probably made sense to simply have two categories: full time and part time.

As more practices began assigning FTE with greater precision, like nearly all hospitalist practices do, then using 0.75 FTE to separate full time and part time seemed practical, though imprecise. But keep in mind it also means that all of the doctors who work from 0.75 to 0.99 FTE (that is, something less than 1.0) offset, at least partially, those who work lots of extra shifts (i.e., above 1.0 FTE).

Data Application

My anecdotal experience is that a large portion of hospitalists, probably around half, work more shifts than what their practice regards as full time. I don’t know of any survey database that quantifies this, but my guess is that 25% to 35% of full-time hospitalists work extra shifts at their own practice, and maybe another 15% to 20% moonlight at a different practice. Let’s consider only those in the first category.

Chronic staffing shortages is one of the reasons hospitalists so commonly work extra shifts at their own practice. Extra shifts are sometimes even required by the practice to make up for open positions. And in some places, the hospitalists choose not to fill positions to preserve their ability to continue working more than the number of shifts required to be full time.

It would be great if we had a precise way to adjust the MGMA survey data for hospitalists who work above 1.0 FTE. For example, let’s make three assumptions so that we can then adjust the reported compensation and productivity data to remove the effect of the many doctors working extra shifts, thereby more clearly matching 1.0 FTE. These numbers are my guesses based on lots of anecdotal experience. But they are only guesses. Don’t make too much of them.

Assume 25% of hospitalists nationally work an average of 20% more than the full-time number of shifts for their practice. That is my best guess and intentionally leaves out those who moonlight for a practice other than their own.

Some portion of those working extra shifts (above 1.0 FTE) is offset by survey respondents working between 0.75 and 1.0 FTE, resulting in a wild guess of a net 20% of hospitalists working extra shifts.

Last, let’s assume that their productivity and compensation on extra shifts is identical to their “normal” shifts. This is not true for many practices, but when aggregating the data, it is probably reasonably close.

Using these assumptions (guesses, really), we can decrease both the reported survey mean and median productivity and compensation by about 5% to more accurately reflect results for hospitalists doing only the number of shifts required by the practice to be full time—no extra shifts. I’ll spare you the simple math showing how I arrived at the approximately 5%, but basically it is removing the 20% additional compensation and productivity generated by the net 20% of hospitalists who work extra shifts above 1.0 FTE.

Does It Really Matter?

The whole issue of hospitalists working many extra shifts yet only counting as 1.0 FTE in the MGMA survey might matter a lot for some, and others might see it as useless hand-wringing. As long as a meaningful number of hospitalists work extra shifts, then survey values for productivity and compensation will always be a little higher than the “average” 1.0 FTE hospitalists working no extra shifts. But it may still be well within the range of error of the survey anyway. And the compensation per unit of work (wRVUs or encounters) probably isn’t much affected by this FTE issue.

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988. He is co-founder and past president of SHM, and principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants. He is co-director for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. Write to him at [email protected].

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) surveys regard both a doctor who works the standard number of annual shifts their practice defines as full time, and a doctor who works many extra shifts, as one full-time equivalent (FTE). This can cause confusion when assessing productivity per FTE (see “SHM and MGMA Survey History,” right).

For example, consider a hospitalist who generated 4,000 wRVUs while working 182 shifts—the standard number of shifts to be full time in that doctor’s practice—during the survey year. In the same practice, another hospitalist worked 39 extra shifts over the same year for a total of 220 shifts, generating 4,860 wRVUs. If the survey contained only these two doctors, it would show them both as full time, with an average productivity per FTE of 4,430 wRVUs. But that would be misleading because 1.0 FTE worth of work as defined by their practice for both doctors would have come to 4,000 wRVUs generated while working 182 shifts.

In prior columns, I’ve highlighted some other numbers in hospitalist productivity and compensation surveys that can lead to confusion. But the MGMA survey methodology, which assigns a particular FTE to a single doctor, may be the most confusing issue, potentially leading to meaningful misunderstandings.

More Details on FTE Definition

MGMA has been conducting physician compensation and productivity surveys across essentially all medical specialties for decades. Competing organizations conduct similar surveys, but most regard the MGMA survey as the most relevant and valuable.

For a long time, MGMA has regarded as “full time” any doctor working 0.75 FTE or greater, using the respondent practice’s definition of an FTE. No single doctor can ever be counted as more than 1.0 FTE, regardless of how much extra the doctor may have worked. Any doctor working 0.35-0.75 FTE is regarded as part time, and those working less than 0.35 FTE are excluded from the survey report. The fact that each practice might have a different definition of what constitutes an FTE is addressed by having a large number of respondents in most medical specialties.

I’m uncertain how MGMA ended up not counting any single doctor as more than 1.0 FTE, even when they work a lot of extra shifts. But my guess is that for the first years, or even decades, that MGMA conducted its survey, few, if any, medical practices even had a strict definition of what constituted 1.0 FTE and simply didn’t keep track of which doctors worked extra shifts or days. So even if MGMA had wanted to know, for example, when a doctor worked extra shifts and should be counted as more than 1.0 FTE, few if any practices even thought about the precise number of shifts or days worked constituting full time versus what was an “extra” shift. So it probably made sense to simply have two categories: full time and part time.

As more practices began assigning FTE with greater precision, like nearly all hospitalist practices do, then using 0.75 FTE to separate full time and part time seemed practical, though imprecise. But keep in mind it also means that all of the doctors who work from 0.75 to 0.99 FTE (that is, something less than 1.0) offset, at least partially, those who work lots of extra shifts (i.e., above 1.0 FTE).

Data Application

My anecdotal experience is that a large portion of hospitalists, probably around half, work more shifts than what their practice regards as full time. I don’t know of any survey database that quantifies this, but my guess is that 25% to 35% of full-time hospitalists work extra shifts at their own practice, and maybe another 15% to 20% moonlight at a different practice. Let’s consider only those in the first category.

Chronic staffing shortages is one of the reasons hospitalists so commonly work extra shifts at their own practice. Extra shifts are sometimes even required by the practice to make up for open positions. And in some places, the hospitalists choose not to fill positions to preserve their ability to continue working more than the number of shifts required to be full time.

It would be great if we had a precise way to adjust the MGMA survey data for hospitalists who work above 1.0 FTE. For example, let’s make three assumptions so that we can then adjust the reported compensation and productivity data to remove the effect of the many doctors working extra shifts, thereby more clearly matching 1.0 FTE. These numbers are my guesses based on lots of anecdotal experience. But they are only guesses. Don’t make too much of them.

Assume 25% of hospitalists nationally work an average of 20% more than the full-time number of shifts for their practice. That is my best guess and intentionally leaves out those who moonlight for a practice other than their own.

Some portion of those working extra shifts (above 1.0 FTE) is offset by survey respondents working between 0.75 and 1.0 FTE, resulting in a wild guess of a net 20% of hospitalists working extra shifts.

Last, let’s assume that their productivity and compensation on extra shifts is identical to their “normal” shifts. This is not true for many practices, but when aggregating the data, it is probably reasonably close.

Using these assumptions (guesses, really), we can decrease both the reported survey mean and median productivity and compensation by about 5% to more accurately reflect results for hospitalists doing only the number of shifts required by the practice to be full time—no extra shifts. I’ll spare you the simple math showing how I arrived at the approximately 5%, but basically it is removing the 20% additional compensation and productivity generated by the net 20% of hospitalists who work extra shifts above 1.0 FTE.

Does It Really Matter?

The whole issue of hospitalists working many extra shifts yet only counting as 1.0 FTE in the MGMA survey might matter a lot for some, and others might see it as useless hand-wringing. As long as a meaningful number of hospitalists work extra shifts, then survey values for productivity and compensation will always be a little higher than the “average” 1.0 FTE hospitalists working no extra shifts. But it may still be well within the range of error of the survey anyway. And the compensation per unit of work (wRVUs or encounters) probably isn’t much affected by this FTE issue.

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988. He is co-founder and past president of SHM, and principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants. He is co-director for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. Write to him at [email protected].

The View from

Looking for more information to formulate a plan of attack? SHM offers a variety of HVBP resources to orient hospitalists and hospital leaders. The “What Every Hospitalist Should Know About Hospital Value-Based Purchasing” webinar and SHM’s free resource library (www.hospitalmedicine.org/hvbp) offer basic orientation on what to expect on pay-for-performance-related issues. The HVBP resource center also provides multiple case studies from various hospitals across the country, with success stories related to reducing readmissions, increasing evidence-based care focus, and enhancing performance on core measures.

In order to proactively address CMS’ new 30-day readmissions criteria for COPD, SHM’s COPD Resource Center (www.hospitalmedicine.org/copd) provides hospitalists with the most up-to-date guidelines, reviews, and peer-reviewed clinical trials that define evidence-based practice for the care of the COPD patient.

Hospitalists not only are under pressure to help improve hospital-level performance, but also will need to begin reporting physician-level measures. Beginning in 2015, CMS’s Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) will apply a penalty to all physicians who do not satisfactorily report data on quality measures for covered professional services.

The time to act is now. Reporting during the 2013 PQRS program year will be used to determine whether a 1.5% penalty applies in 2015. SHM has partnered with CECity to offer discounted access to PQRIwizard, a tool that facilitates PQRS reporting through SHM’s Learning Portal (www.shmlearningportal.org).

October is the beginning of a new year—in this case, fiscal-year 2014 for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). It’s a time when the new rules kick in. This month, we’ll look at some highlights, focusing on the new developments affecting your practice. Because you are held accountable for hospital-side performance on programs such as hospital value-based purchasing (HVBP) and the Readmissions Reduction Program, a working knowledge of the 2014 edition of the programs is crucial.

Close the Loop on HVBP

How will your hospital get paid under the 2014 version of HVBP? This past July, your hospital received a report outlining how its Medicare payments will be affected based on your hospital’s performance on process of care (heart failure, pneumonia, myocardial infarction, and surgery), patient experience (HCAHPS), and outcomes (30-day mortality for heart failure, pneumonia, and myocardial infarction).

Here are two hypothetical hospitals and how their performance in the program affects their 2014 payment. As background, in 2014, all hospitals have their base diagnosis related group (DRG) payments reduced by 1.25% for HVBP. They can earn back some, all, or an amount in excess of the 1.25% based on their performance. Payment is based on performance during the April 1 to Dec. 31, 2012, period. Under HVBP, CMS incentive payments occur at the level of individual patients, each of which is assigned a DRG.

Let’s look at two examples:

Hospital 1

• Base DRG payment reduction: 1.25% (all hospitals).
• Portion of base DRG earned back based on performance (process/patient experience/outcome metrics): 1.48%.
• Net change in base DRG payment: +0.23%.

Hospital 2

• Base DRG payment reduction: 1.25% (all hospitals).
• Portion of base DRG earned back based on performance (process/patient experience/outcome metrics): 1.08%.
• Net change in base DRG payment: -0.17%.

Hospital 1 performed relatively well, getting a bump of 0.23% in its base DRG rate. Hospital 2 did not perform so well, so it took a 0.17% hit on its base DRG rate.

In order to determine total dollars made or lost for your hospital, one multiplies the total number of eligible Medicare inpatients for 2014 times the base DRG payment times the percent change in base DRG payment. If Hospital 1 has 10,000 eligible patients in 2014 and a base DRG payment of $5,000, the value is 10,000 x $5,000 x 0.0023 (0.23%) = $115,000 gained. Hospital 2, with the same number of patients and base DRG payment, loses (10,000 x $5,000 x 0.0017 = $85,000).

Readmissions and Penalties

For 2014, CMS is adding 30-day readmissions for COPD to readmissions for heart failure, pneumonia, and myocardial infarction for its penalty program. CMS added COPD because it is the fourth-leading cause of readmissions, according to a recent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission report, and because there is wide variation in the rates (from 18% to 25%) of COPD hospital readmissions.

For 2014, CMS raises the ceiling on readmission penalties to a maximum of 2% of reimbursement for all of a hospital’s Medicare inpatients. (The maximum hit during the first round of readmission penalties, which began in October 2012, was 1%.) More than 2,200 U.S. hospitals will face some financial penalty for excess 30-day readmissions.

Disappointingly, CMS did not add a risk adjustment for socioeconomic status despite being under pressure to do so. There is growing evidence that these factors have a major impact on readmission rates.^1,2

New Definition of an Admission

Amidst confusion from many and major blowback from beneficiaries saddled with large out-of-pocket expenses for observation stays and subsequent skilled-nursing-facility stays, CMS is clarifying the definition of an inpatient admission. The agency will define an admission as a hospital stay that spans at least two midnights. If a patient is in the hospital for a shorter period of time, CMS will deem the patient to be on observation status, unless medical record documentation supports a physician’s expectation “that the beneficiary would need care spanning at least two midnights” but unanticipated events led to a shorter stay.

Plan of Attack

For HVBP, make contact with your director of quality to understand your hospital’s performance and payment for 2014. If you have incentive compensation riding on HVBP, make sure you understand how your employer or contracted hospital is calculating the payout (because, for example, the performance period was in 2012!) and that your hospitalist group understands the payout calculation.

For COPD readmissions prevention, ensure patients have a home management plan; appropriate specialist follow-up and that they understand medication use, including inhalers and supplemental oxygen; and that you consider early referral for pulmonary rehabilitation for eligible patients.

For the new definition of inpatient admission, work with your hospital’s physician advisor and case management to ensure your group is getting appropriate guidance on documentation requirements. You are probably being held accountable for your hospital’s total number of observation hours, so remember to track these metrics following implementation of the new rule, as they (hopefully) should decrease. If they do, take some of the credit!

References

1. Joynt KE, Orav EJ, Jha AK. Thirty-day readmission rates for Medicare beneficiaries by race and site of care. JAMA. 2011;305(7):675-681.
2. Lindenauer PK, Lagu T, Rothberg MB, et al. Income inequality and 30 day outcomes after acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia: retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2013;346:f521.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

The View from

Looking for more information to formulate a plan of attack? SHM offers a variety of HVBP resources to orient hospitalists and hospital leaders. The “What Every Hospitalist Should Know About Hospital Value-Based Purchasing” webinar and SHM’s free resource library (www.hospitalmedicine.org/hvbp) offer basic orientation on what to expect on pay-for-performance-related issues. The HVBP resource center also provides multiple case studies from various hospitals across the country, with success stories related to reducing readmissions, increasing evidence-based care focus, and enhancing performance on core measures.

In order to proactively address CMS’ new 30-day readmissions criteria for COPD, SHM’s COPD Resource Center (www.hospitalmedicine.org/copd) provides hospitalists with the most up-to-date guidelines, reviews, and peer-reviewed clinical trials that define evidence-based practice for the care of the COPD patient.

Hospitalists not only are under pressure to help improve hospital-level performance, but also will need to begin reporting physician-level measures. Beginning in 2015, CMS’s Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) will apply a penalty to all physicians who do not satisfactorily report data on quality measures for covered professional services.

The time to act is now. Reporting during the 2013 PQRS program year will be used to determine whether a 1.5% penalty applies in 2015. SHM has partnered with CECity to offer discounted access to PQRIwizard, a tool that facilitates PQRS reporting through SHM’s Learning Portal (www.shmlearningportal.org).

October is the beginning of a new year—in this case, fiscal-year 2014 for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). It’s a time when the new rules kick in. This month, we’ll look at some highlights, focusing on the new developments affecting your practice. Because you are held accountable for hospital-side performance on programs such as hospital value-based purchasing (HVBP) and the Readmissions Reduction Program, a working knowledge of the 2014 edition of the programs is crucial.

Close the Loop on HVBP

How will your hospital get paid under the 2014 version of HVBP? This past July, your hospital received a report outlining how its Medicare payments will be affected based on your hospital’s performance on process of care (heart failure, pneumonia, myocardial infarction, and surgery), patient experience (HCAHPS), and outcomes (30-day mortality for heart failure, pneumonia, and myocardial infarction).

Here are two hypothetical hospitals and how their performance in the program affects their 2014 payment. As background, in 2014, all hospitals have their base diagnosis related group (DRG) payments reduced by 1.25% for HVBP. They can earn back some, all, or an amount in excess of the 1.25% based on their performance. Payment is based on performance during the April 1 to Dec. 31, 2012, period. Under HVBP, CMS incentive payments occur at the level of individual patients, each of which is assigned a DRG.

Let’s look at two examples:

Hospital 1

• Base DRG payment reduction: 1.25% (all hospitals).
• Portion of base DRG earned back based on performance (process/patient experience/outcome metrics): 1.48%.
• Net change in base DRG payment: +0.23%.

Hospital 2

• Base DRG payment reduction: 1.25% (all hospitals).
• Portion of base DRG earned back based on performance (process/patient experience/outcome metrics): 1.08%.
• Net change in base DRG payment: -0.17%.

Hospital 1 performed relatively well, getting a bump of 0.23% in its base DRG rate. Hospital 2 did not perform so well, so it took a 0.17% hit on its base DRG rate.

In order to determine total dollars made or lost for your hospital, one multiplies the total number of eligible Medicare inpatients for 2014 times the base DRG payment times the percent change in base DRG payment. If Hospital 1 has 10,000 eligible patients in 2014 and a base DRG payment of $5,000, the value is 10,000 x $5,000 x 0.0023 (0.23%) = $115,000 gained. Hospital 2, with the same number of patients and base DRG payment, loses (10,000 x $5,000 x 0.0017 = $85,000).

Readmissions and Penalties

For 2014, CMS is adding 30-day readmissions for COPD to readmissions for heart failure, pneumonia, and myocardial infarction for its penalty program. CMS added COPD because it is the fourth-leading cause of readmissions, according to a recent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission report, and because there is wide variation in the rates (from 18% to 25%) of COPD hospital readmissions.

For 2014, CMS raises the ceiling on readmission penalties to a maximum of 2% of reimbursement for all of a hospital’s Medicare inpatients. (The maximum hit during the first round of readmission penalties, which began in October 2012, was 1%.) More than 2,200 U.S. hospitals will face some financial penalty for excess 30-day readmissions.

Disappointingly, CMS did not add a risk adjustment for socioeconomic status despite being under pressure to do so. There is growing evidence that these factors have a major impact on readmission rates.^1,2

New Definition of an Admission

Amidst confusion from many and major blowback from beneficiaries saddled with large out-of-pocket expenses for observation stays and subsequent skilled-nursing-facility stays, CMS is clarifying the definition of an inpatient admission. The agency will define an admission as a hospital stay that spans at least two midnights. If a patient is in the hospital for a shorter period of time, CMS will deem the patient to be on observation status, unless medical record documentation supports a physician’s expectation “that the beneficiary would need care spanning at least two midnights” but unanticipated events led to a shorter stay.

Plan of Attack

For HVBP, make contact with your director of quality to understand your hospital’s performance and payment for 2014. If you have incentive compensation riding on HVBP, make sure you understand how your employer or contracted hospital is calculating the payout (because, for example, the performance period was in 2012!) and that your hospitalist group understands the payout calculation.

For COPD readmissions prevention, ensure patients have a home management plan; appropriate specialist follow-up and that they understand medication use, including inhalers and supplemental oxygen; and that you consider early referral for pulmonary rehabilitation for eligible patients.

For the new definition of inpatient admission, work with your hospital’s physician advisor and case management to ensure your group is getting appropriate guidance on documentation requirements. You are probably being held accountable for your hospital’s total number of observation hours, so remember to track these metrics following implementation of the new rule, as they (hopefully) should decrease. If they do, take some of the credit!

References

1. Joynt KE, Orav EJ, Jha AK. Thirty-day readmission rates for Medicare beneficiaries by race and site of care. JAMA. 2011;305(7):675-681.
2. Lindenauer PK, Lagu T, Rothberg MB, et al. Income inequality and 30 day outcomes after acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia: retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2013;346:f521.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

The View from

Looking for more information to formulate a plan of attack? SHM offers a variety of HVBP resources to orient hospitalists and hospital leaders. The “What Every Hospitalist Should Know About Hospital Value-Based Purchasing” webinar and SHM’s free resource library (www.hospitalmedicine.org/hvbp) offer basic orientation on what to expect on pay-for-performance-related issues. The HVBP resource center also provides multiple case studies from various hospitals across the country, with success stories related to reducing readmissions, increasing evidence-based care focus, and enhancing performance on core measures.

In order to proactively address CMS’ new 30-day readmissions criteria for COPD, SHM’s COPD Resource Center (www.hospitalmedicine.org/copd) provides hospitalists with the most up-to-date guidelines, reviews, and peer-reviewed clinical trials that define evidence-based practice for the care of the COPD patient.

Hospitalists not only are under pressure to help improve hospital-level performance, but also will need to begin reporting physician-level measures. Beginning in 2015, CMS’s Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) will apply a penalty to all physicians who do not satisfactorily report data on quality measures for covered professional services.

The time to act is now. Reporting during the 2013 PQRS program year will be used to determine whether a 1.5% penalty applies in 2015. SHM has partnered with CECity to offer discounted access to PQRIwizard, a tool that facilitates PQRS reporting through SHM’s Learning Portal (www.shmlearningportal.org).

October is the beginning of a new year—in this case, fiscal-year 2014 for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). It’s a time when the new rules kick in. This month, we’ll look at some highlights, focusing on the new developments affecting your practice. Because you are held accountable for hospital-side performance on programs such as hospital value-based purchasing (HVBP) and the Readmissions Reduction Program, a working knowledge of the 2014 edition of the programs is crucial.

Close the Loop on HVBP

How will your hospital get paid under the 2014 version of HVBP? This past July, your hospital received a report outlining how its Medicare payments will be affected based on your hospital’s performance on process of care (heart failure, pneumonia, myocardial infarction, and surgery), patient experience (HCAHPS), and outcomes (30-day mortality for heart failure, pneumonia, and myocardial infarction).

Here are two hypothetical hospitals and how their performance in the program affects their 2014 payment. As background, in 2014, all hospitals have their base diagnosis related group (DRG) payments reduced by 1.25% for HVBP. They can earn back some, all, or an amount in excess of the 1.25% based on their performance. Payment is based on performance during the April 1 to Dec. 31, 2012, period. Under HVBP, CMS incentive payments occur at the level of individual patients, each of which is assigned a DRG.

Let’s look at two examples:

Hospital 1

• Base DRG payment reduction: 1.25% (all hospitals).
• Portion of base DRG earned back based on performance (process/patient experience/outcome metrics): 1.48%.
• Net change in base DRG payment: +0.23%.

Hospital 2

• Base DRG payment reduction: 1.25% (all hospitals).
• Portion of base DRG earned back based on performance (process/patient experience/outcome metrics): 1.08%.
• Net change in base DRG payment: -0.17%.

Hospital 1 performed relatively well, getting a bump of 0.23% in its base DRG rate. Hospital 2 did not perform so well, so it took a 0.17% hit on its base DRG rate.

In order to determine total dollars made or lost for your hospital, one multiplies the total number of eligible Medicare inpatients for 2014 times the base DRG payment times the percent change in base DRG payment. If Hospital 1 has 10,000 eligible patients in 2014 and a base DRG payment of $5,000, the value is 10,000 x $5,000 x 0.0023 (0.23%) = $115,000 gained. Hospital 2, with the same number of patients and base DRG payment, loses (10,000 x $5,000 x 0.0017 = $85,000).

Readmissions and Penalties

For 2014, CMS is adding 30-day readmissions for COPD to readmissions for heart failure, pneumonia, and myocardial infarction for its penalty program. CMS added COPD because it is the fourth-leading cause of readmissions, according to a recent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission report, and because there is wide variation in the rates (from 18% to 25%) of COPD hospital readmissions.

For 2014, CMS raises the ceiling on readmission penalties to a maximum of 2% of reimbursement for all of a hospital’s Medicare inpatients. (The maximum hit during the first round of readmission penalties, which began in October 2012, was 1%.) More than 2,200 U.S. hospitals will face some financial penalty for excess 30-day readmissions.

Disappointingly, CMS did not add a risk adjustment for socioeconomic status despite being under pressure to do so. There is growing evidence that these factors have a major impact on readmission rates.^1,2

New Definition of an Admission

Amidst confusion from many and major blowback from beneficiaries saddled with large out-of-pocket expenses for observation stays and subsequent skilled-nursing-facility stays, CMS is clarifying the definition of an inpatient admission. The agency will define an admission as a hospital stay that spans at least two midnights. If a patient is in the hospital for a shorter period of time, CMS will deem the patient to be on observation status, unless medical record documentation supports a physician’s expectation “that the beneficiary would need care spanning at least two midnights” but unanticipated events led to a shorter stay.

Plan of Attack

For HVBP, make contact with your director of quality to understand your hospital’s performance and payment for 2014. If you have incentive compensation riding on HVBP, make sure you understand how your employer or contracted hospital is calculating the payout (because, for example, the performance period was in 2012!) and that your hospitalist group understands the payout calculation.

For COPD readmissions prevention, ensure patients have a home management plan; appropriate specialist follow-up and that they understand medication use, including inhalers and supplemental oxygen; and that you consider early referral for pulmonary rehabilitation for eligible patients.

For the new definition of inpatient admission, work with your hospital’s physician advisor and case management to ensure your group is getting appropriate guidance on documentation requirements. You are probably being held accountable for your hospital’s total number of observation hours, so remember to track these metrics following implementation of the new rule, as they (hopefully) should decrease. If they do, take some of the credit!

References

1. Joynt KE, Orav EJ, Jha AK. Thirty-day readmission rates for Medicare beneficiaries by race and site of care. JAMA. 2011;305(7):675-681.
2. Lindenauer PK, Lagu T, Rothberg MB, et al. Income inequality and 30 day outcomes after acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia: retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2013;346:f521.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

click for large version

Are your critical-care claims at risk for denial or repayment upon review? Several payors have identified increased potential for critical-care reporting discrepancies, which has resulted in targeted prepayment reviews of this code.¹ Some payors have implemented 100% review when critical care is reported in settings other than inpatient hospitals, outpatient hospitals, or emergency departments.² To ensure a successful outcome, make sure the documentation meets the basic principles of the critical-care guidelines.

Defining Critical Illness/Injury

CPT and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) define “critical illness or injury” as a condition that acutely impairs one or more vital organ systems such that there is a high probability of imminent or life-threatening deterioration in the patient’s condition (e.g. central-nervous-system failure; circulatory failure; shock; renal, hepatic, metabolic, and/or respiratory failure).³ The provider’s time must be solely directed toward the critically ill patient. Highly complex decision-making and interventions of high intensity are required to prevent the patient’s inevitable decline if left untreated. Payment may be made for critical-care services provided in any reasonable location, as long as the care provided meets the definition of critical care. Critical-care services cannot be reported for a patient who is not critically ill but happens to be in a critical-care unit, or when a particular physician is only treating one of the patient’s conditions that is not considered the critical illness.⁴

Examples of patients who may not satisfy Medicare medical-necessity criteria, do not meet critical-care criteria, or who do not have a critical-care illness or injury and therefore are not eligible for critical-care payment:

• Patients admitted to a critical-care unit because no other hospital beds were available;
• Patients admitted to a critical-care unit for close nursing observation and/or frequent monitoring of vital signs (e.g. drug toxicity or overdose);
• Patients admitted to a critical-care unit because hospital rules require certain treatments (e.g. insulin infusions) to be administered in the critical-care unit; and
• Care of only a chronic illness in the absence of caring for a critical illness (e.g. daily management of a chronic ventilator patient; management of or care related to dialysis for an ESRD).

These circumstances would require using subsequent hospital care codes (99231-99233), initial hospital care codes (99221-99223), or hospital consultation codes (99251-99255) when applicable.^3,5

Because critical-care time is a cumulative service, providers keep track of their total time throughout a single calendar day. For each date and encounter entry, the physician’s progress notes shall document the total time that critical-care services were provided (e.g. 45 minutes).⁴ Some payors impose the notation of “start-and-stop time” per encounter (e.g. 10 to 10:45 a.m.).

Code This Case

Consider the following scenario: A hospitalist admits a 75-year-old patient to the ICU with acute respiratory failure. He spends 45 minutes in critical-care time. The patient’s family arrives soon thereafter to discuss the patient’s condition with a second hospitalist. The discussion lasts an additional 20 minutes, and the decision regarding the patient’s DNR status is made.

Family meetings must take place at the bedside or on the patient’s unit/floor. The patient must participate, unless they are medically unable or clinically incompetent to participate. A notation in the chart should indicate the patient’s inability to participate and the reason. Meeting time can only involve obtaining a medical history and/or discussing treatment options or the limitations of treatment. The conversation must bear directly on patient management.^5,6 Meetings that take place for family grief counseling (90846, 90847, 90849) are not included in critical-care time and cannot be billed separately.

Do not count time associated with periodic condition updates to the family or answering questions about the patient’s condition that are unrelated to decision-making.

Family discussions can take place via phone as long as the physician is calling from the patient’s unit/floor and the conversation involves the same criterion identified for face-to-face family meetings.⁶

Critically ill patients often require the care of multiple providers.³ Payors implement code logic in their systems that allow reimbursement for 99291 once per day when reported by physicians of the same group and specialty.⁸ Physicians of different specialties can separately report critical-care hours. Documentation must demonstrate that care is not duplicative of other specialists and does not overlap the same time period of any other physician reporting critical-care services.

Same-specialty physicians (two hospitalists from the same group practice) bill and are paid as one physician. The initial critical-care hour (99291) must be met by a single physician. Medically necessary critical-care time beyond the first hour (99292) may be met individually by the same physician or collectively with another physician from the same group. Cumulative physician time should be reported under one provider number on a single invoice in order to prevent denials from billing 99292 independently (see “Critical-Care Services: Time Reminders,”).

When a physician and a nurse practitioner (NP) see a patient on the same calendar day, critical-care reporting is handled differently. A single unit of critical-care time cannot be split or shared between a physician and a qualified NP. One individual must meet the entire time requirement of the reported service code.

More specifically, the hospitalist must individually meet the criteria for the first critical-care hour before reporting 99291, and the NP must individually meet the criteria for an additional 30 minutes of critical care before reporting 99292. The same is true if the NP provided the initial hour while the hospitalist provided the additional critical-care time.

Payors who recognize NPs as independent billing providers (e.g. Medicare and Aetna) require a “split” invoice: an invoice for 99291 with the hospitalist NPI and an invoice for 99292 with the NP’s NPI.9 This ensures reimbursement-rate accuracy, as the physician receives 100% of the allowable rate while the NP receives 85%. If the 99292 invoice is denied due to the payor’s system edits disallowing separate invoicing of add-on codes, appeal with documentation by both the hospitalist and NP to identify the circumstances and reclaim payment.

Critical-Care Services: Time Reminders

click for large version

Two available codes:

99291: Critical care, evaluation and management of the critically ill or critically injured patient: first 30-74 minutes. It is reported only once per day, per physician or group member of the same specialty.

+99292: Critical care, evaluation and management of the critically ill or critically injured patient: each additional 30 minutes (list separately in addition to code for primary service). Categorized as an “add on” code, it must be reported on the same invoice as its “primary” code, 99291. Multiple units of code 99292 can be reported per day per physician/group (see Table 1).

Critical-care time constitutes bedside time and time spent on the patient’s unit/floor where the physician is immediately available to the patient. Also count physician time associated with the performance and/or interpretation of labs, diagnostic studies, and procedures inherent to the provision of critical care:

• Cardiac output measurements (93561, 93562);
• Chest X-rays (71010, 71015, 71020);
• Pulse oximetry (94760, 94761, 94762);
• Blood gases and interpretation of data stored in computers (e.g. ECGs, blood pressures, hematologic data [99090]);
• Gastric intubation (43752, 91105);
• Temporary transcutaneous pacing (92953);
• Ventilation management (94002-94004, 94660, 94662); and
• Vascular access procedures (36000, 36410, 36415, 36591, 36600).⁵

Other separately billable services or procedures cannot be added to critical-care time. A notation in the medical record is highly recommended (e.g. “central-line insertion is not included as critical-care time”) for validation to prevent payor inquiries.

Do not count time associated with indirect care provided outside of the patient’s unit/floor (e.g. reviewing data or calling the family from the office) toward critical-care time. Activities on the floor/unit that do not directly contribute to patient care or management (e.g. review of literature, teaching rounds) cannot be counted toward critical-care time.

—Carol Pohlig

References

1. Cahaba Government Benefit Administrators LLC. Widespread prepayment targeted review notification—CPT 99291. Cahaba Government Benefit Administrators LLC website. Available at: http://www.cahabagba.com/news/widespread-prepayment-targeted-review-notification-part-b/. Accessed May 4, 2013.
2. First Coast Service Options Inc. Prepayment edit of evaluation and management (E/M) code 99291. First Coast Service Options Inc. website. Available at: http://medicare.fcso.com/Medical_documentation/249650.asp. Accessed May 5, 2013.
3. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 12, Section 30.6.12A. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/manuals/downloads/clm104c12.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2013.
4. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 12, Section 30.6.12B. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/manuals/downloads/clm104c12.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2013.
5. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 12, Section 30.6.12E. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. Available at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/manuals/downloads/clm104c12.pdf. Accessed May 6, 2013.
6. Abraham M, Ahlman J, Boudreau A, Connelly J, Levreau-Davis L. Current Procedural Terminology 2013 Professional Edition. Chicago: American Medical Association Press; 2012.
7. Novitas Solutions Inc. Evaluation & management: service-specific coding instructions. Novitas Solutions Inc. website. Available at: http://www.novitas-solutions.com/em/coding.html. Accessed May 7, 2013.
8. United Healthcare. Same day same service policy—adding edits. United Healthcare website. Available at: http://www.unitedhealthcareonline.com/ccmcontent/ ProviderII/ UHC/en-US/Assets/ProviderStaticFiles/ProviderStaticFilesPdf/News/Network_Bulletin_November _2012_Volume_52.pdf. Accessed May 7, 2013.
9. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 12, Section 30.6.12I. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/manuals/downloads/clm104c12.pdf. Accessed May 10, 2013.
10. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 12, Section 30.6.12G. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/manuals/downloads/clm104c12.pdf. Accessed May 4, 2013.

click for large version

Are your critical-care claims at risk for denial or repayment upon review? Several payors have identified increased potential for critical-care reporting discrepancies, which has resulted in targeted prepayment reviews of this code.¹ Some payors have implemented 100% review when critical care is reported in settings other than inpatient hospitals, outpatient hospitals, or emergency departments.² To ensure a successful outcome, make sure the documentation meets the basic principles of the critical-care guidelines.

Defining Critical Illness/Injury

CPT and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) define “critical illness or injury” as a condition that acutely impairs one or more vital organ systems such that there is a high probability of imminent or life-threatening deterioration in the patient’s condition (e.g. central-nervous-system failure; circulatory failure; shock; renal, hepatic, metabolic, and/or respiratory failure).³ The provider’s time must be solely directed toward the critically ill patient. Highly complex decision-making and interventions of high intensity are required to prevent the patient’s inevitable decline if left untreated. Payment may be made for critical-care services provided in any reasonable location, as long as the care provided meets the definition of critical care. Critical-care services cannot be reported for a patient who is not critically ill but happens to be in a critical-care unit, or when a particular physician is only treating one of the patient’s conditions that is not considered the critical illness.⁴

Examples of patients who may not satisfy Medicare medical-necessity criteria, do not meet critical-care criteria, or who do not have a critical-care illness or injury and therefore are not eligible for critical-care payment:

• Patients admitted to a critical-care unit because no other hospital beds were available;
• Patients admitted to a critical-care unit for close nursing observation and/or frequent monitoring of vital signs (e.g. drug toxicity or overdose);
• Patients admitted to a critical-care unit because hospital rules require certain treatments (e.g. insulin infusions) to be administered in the critical-care unit; and
• Care of only a chronic illness in the absence of caring for a critical illness (e.g. daily management of a chronic ventilator patient; management of or care related to dialysis for an ESRD).

These circumstances would require using subsequent hospital care codes (99231-99233), initial hospital care codes (99221-99223), or hospital consultation codes (99251-99255) when applicable.^3,5

Because critical-care time is a cumulative service, providers keep track of their total time throughout a single calendar day. For each date and encounter entry, the physician’s progress notes shall document the total time that critical-care services were provided (e.g. 45 minutes).⁴ Some payors impose the notation of “start-and-stop time” per encounter (e.g. 10 to 10:45 a.m.).

Code This Case

Consider the following scenario: A hospitalist admits a 75-year-old patient to the ICU with acute respiratory failure. He spends 45 minutes in critical-care time. The patient’s family arrives soon thereafter to discuss the patient’s condition with a second hospitalist. The discussion lasts an additional 20 minutes, and the decision regarding the patient’s DNR status is made.

Family meetings must take place at the bedside or on the patient’s unit/floor. The patient must participate, unless they are medically unable or clinically incompetent to participate. A notation in the chart should indicate the patient’s inability to participate and the reason. Meeting time can only involve obtaining a medical history and/or discussing treatment options or the limitations of treatment. The conversation must bear directly on patient management.^5,6 Meetings that take place for family grief counseling (90846, 90847, 90849) are not included in critical-care time and cannot be billed separately.

Do not count time associated with periodic condition updates to the family or answering questions about the patient’s condition that are unrelated to decision-making.

Family discussions can take place via phone as long as the physician is calling from the patient’s unit/floor and the conversation involves the same criterion identified for face-to-face family meetings.⁶

Critically ill patients often require the care of multiple providers.³ Payors implement code logic in their systems that allow reimbursement for 99291 once per day when reported by physicians of the same group and specialty.⁸ Physicians of different specialties can separately report critical-care hours. Documentation must demonstrate that care is not duplicative of other specialists and does not overlap the same time period of any other physician reporting critical-care services.

Same-specialty physicians (two hospitalists from the same group practice) bill and are paid as one physician. The initial critical-care hour (99291) must be met by a single physician. Medically necessary critical-care time beyond the first hour (99292) may be met individually by the same physician or collectively with another physician from the same group. Cumulative physician time should be reported under one provider number on a single invoice in order to prevent denials from billing 99292 independently (see “Critical-Care Services: Time Reminders,”).

When a physician and a nurse practitioner (NP) see a patient on the same calendar day, critical-care reporting is handled differently. A single unit of critical-care time cannot be split or shared between a physician and a qualified NP. One individual must meet the entire time requirement of the reported service code.

More specifically, the hospitalist must individually meet the criteria for the first critical-care hour before reporting 99291, and the NP must individually meet the criteria for an additional 30 minutes of critical care before reporting 99292. The same is true if the NP provided the initial hour while the hospitalist provided the additional critical-care time.

Payors who recognize NPs as independent billing providers (e.g. Medicare and Aetna) require a “split” invoice: an invoice for 99291 with the hospitalist NPI and an invoice for 99292 with the NP’s NPI.9 This ensures reimbursement-rate accuracy, as the physician receives 100% of the allowable rate while the NP receives 85%. If the 99292 invoice is denied due to the payor’s system edits disallowing separate invoicing of add-on codes, appeal with documentation by both the hospitalist and NP to identify the circumstances and reclaim payment.

Critical-Care Services: Time Reminders

click for large version

Two available codes:

99291: Critical care, evaluation and management of the critically ill or critically injured patient: first 30-74 minutes. It is reported only once per day, per physician or group member of the same specialty.

+99292: Critical care, evaluation and management of the critically ill or critically injured patient: each additional 30 minutes (list separately in addition to code for primary service). Categorized as an “add on” code, it must be reported on the same invoice as its “primary” code, 99291. Multiple units of code 99292 can be reported per day per physician/group (see Table 1).

Critical-care time constitutes bedside time and time spent on the patient’s unit/floor where the physician is immediately available to the patient. Also count physician time associated with the performance and/or interpretation of labs, diagnostic studies, and procedures inherent to the provision of critical care:

• Cardiac output measurements (93561, 93562);
• Chest X-rays (71010, 71015, 71020);
• Pulse oximetry (94760, 94761, 94762);
• Blood gases and interpretation of data stored in computers (e.g. ECGs, blood pressures, hematologic data [99090]);
• Gastric intubation (43752, 91105);
• Temporary transcutaneous pacing (92953);
• Ventilation management (94002-94004, 94660, 94662); and
• Vascular access procedures (36000, 36410, 36415, 36591, 36600).⁵

Other separately billable services or procedures cannot be added to critical-care time. A notation in the medical record is highly recommended (e.g. “central-line insertion is not included as critical-care time”) for validation to prevent payor inquiries.

Do not count time associated with indirect care provided outside of the patient’s unit/floor (e.g. reviewing data or calling the family from the office) toward critical-care time. Activities on the floor/unit that do not directly contribute to patient care or management (e.g. review of literature, teaching rounds) cannot be counted toward critical-care time.

—Carol Pohlig

References

1. Cahaba Government Benefit Administrators LLC. Widespread prepayment targeted review notification—CPT 99291. Cahaba Government Benefit Administrators LLC website. Available at: http://www.cahabagba.com/news/widespread-prepayment-targeted-review-notification-part-b/. Accessed May 4, 2013.
2. First Coast Service Options Inc. Prepayment edit of evaluation and management (E/M) code 99291. First Coast Service Options Inc. website. Available at: http://medicare.fcso.com/Medical_documentation/249650.asp. Accessed May 5, 2013.
3. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 12, Section 30.6.12A. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/manuals/downloads/clm104c12.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2013.
4. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 12, Section 30.6.12B. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/manuals/downloads/clm104c12.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2013.
5. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 12, Section 30.6.12E. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. Available at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/manuals/downloads/clm104c12.pdf. Accessed May 6, 2013.
6. Abraham M, Ahlman J, Boudreau A, Connelly J, Levreau-Davis L. Current Procedural Terminology 2013 Professional Edition. Chicago: American Medical Association Press; 2012.
7. Novitas Solutions Inc. Evaluation & management: service-specific coding instructions. Novitas Solutions Inc. website. Available at: http://www.novitas-solutions.com/em/coding.html. Accessed May 7, 2013.
8. United Healthcare. Same day same service policy—adding edits. United Healthcare website. Available at: http://www.unitedhealthcareonline.com/ccmcontent/ ProviderII/ UHC/en-US/Assets/ProviderStaticFiles/ProviderStaticFilesPdf/News/Network_Bulletin_November _2012_Volume_52.pdf. Accessed May 7, 2013.
9. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 12, Section 30.6.12I. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/manuals/downloads/clm104c12.pdf. Accessed May 10, 2013.
10. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 12, Section 30.6.12G. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/manuals/downloads/clm104c12.pdf. Accessed May 4, 2013.

click for large version

Are your critical-care claims at risk for denial or repayment upon review? Several payors have identified increased potential for critical-care reporting discrepancies, which has resulted in targeted prepayment reviews of this code.¹ Some payors have implemented 100% review when critical care is reported in settings other than inpatient hospitals, outpatient hospitals, or emergency departments.² To ensure a successful outcome, make sure the documentation meets the basic principles of the critical-care guidelines.

Defining Critical Illness/Injury

CPT and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) define “critical illness or injury” as a condition that acutely impairs one or more vital organ systems such that there is a high probability of imminent or life-threatening deterioration in the patient’s condition (e.g. central-nervous-system failure; circulatory failure; shock; renal, hepatic, metabolic, and/or respiratory failure).³ The provider’s time must be solely directed toward the critically ill patient. Highly complex decision-making and interventions of high intensity are required to prevent the patient’s inevitable decline if left untreated. Payment may be made for critical-care services provided in any reasonable location, as long as the care provided meets the definition of critical care. Critical-care services cannot be reported for a patient who is not critically ill but happens to be in a critical-care unit, or when a particular physician is only treating one of the patient’s conditions that is not considered the critical illness.⁴

Examples of patients who may not satisfy Medicare medical-necessity criteria, do not meet critical-care criteria, or who do not have a critical-care illness or injury and therefore are not eligible for critical-care payment:

• Patients admitted to a critical-care unit because no other hospital beds were available;
• Patients admitted to a critical-care unit for close nursing observation and/or frequent monitoring of vital signs (e.g. drug toxicity or overdose);
• Patients admitted to a critical-care unit because hospital rules require certain treatments (e.g. insulin infusions) to be administered in the critical-care unit; and
• Care of only a chronic illness in the absence of caring for a critical illness (e.g. daily management of a chronic ventilator patient; management of or care related to dialysis for an ESRD).

These circumstances would require using subsequent hospital care codes (99231-99233), initial hospital care codes (99221-99223), or hospital consultation codes (99251-99255) when applicable.^3,5

Because critical-care time is a cumulative service, providers keep track of their total time throughout a single calendar day. For each date and encounter entry, the physician’s progress notes shall document the total time that critical-care services were provided (e.g. 45 minutes).⁴ Some payors impose the notation of “start-and-stop time” per encounter (e.g. 10 to 10:45 a.m.).

Code This Case

Consider the following scenario: A hospitalist admits a 75-year-old patient to the ICU with acute respiratory failure. He spends 45 minutes in critical-care time. The patient’s family arrives soon thereafter to discuss the patient’s condition with a second hospitalist. The discussion lasts an additional 20 minutes, and the decision regarding the patient’s DNR status is made.

Family meetings must take place at the bedside or on the patient’s unit/floor. The patient must participate, unless they are medically unable or clinically incompetent to participate. A notation in the chart should indicate the patient’s inability to participate and the reason. Meeting time can only involve obtaining a medical history and/or discussing treatment options or the limitations of treatment. The conversation must bear directly on patient management.^5,6 Meetings that take place for family grief counseling (90846, 90847, 90849) are not included in critical-care time and cannot be billed separately.

Do not count time associated with periodic condition updates to the family or answering questions about the patient’s condition that are unrelated to decision-making.

Family discussions can take place via phone as long as the physician is calling from the patient’s unit/floor and the conversation involves the same criterion identified for face-to-face family meetings.⁶

Critically ill patients often require the care of multiple providers.³ Payors implement code logic in their systems that allow reimbursement for 99291 once per day when reported by physicians of the same group and specialty.⁸ Physicians of different specialties can separately report critical-care hours. Documentation must demonstrate that care is not duplicative of other specialists and does not overlap the same time period of any other physician reporting critical-care services.

Same-specialty physicians (two hospitalists from the same group practice) bill and are paid as one physician. The initial critical-care hour (99291) must be met by a single physician. Medically necessary critical-care time beyond the first hour (99292) may be met individually by the same physician or collectively with another physician from the same group. Cumulative physician time should be reported under one provider number on a single invoice in order to prevent denials from billing 99292 independently (see “Critical-Care Services: Time Reminders,”).

When a physician and a nurse practitioner (NP) see a patient on the same calendar day, critical-care reporting is handled differently. A single unit of critical-care time cannot be split or shared between a physician and a qualified NP. One individual must meet the entire time requirement of the reported service code.

More specifically, the hospitalist must individually meet the criteria for the first critical-care hour before reporting 99291, and the NP must individually meet the criteria for an additional 30 minutes of critical care before reporting 99292. The same is true if the NP provided the initial hour while the hospitalist provided the additional critical-care time.

Payors who recognize NPs as independent billing providers (e.g. Medicare and Aetna) require a “split” invoice: an invoice for 99291 with the hospitalist NPI and an invoice for 99292 with the NP’s NPI.9 This ensures reimbursement-rate accuracy, as the physician receives 100% of the allowable rate while the NP receives 85%. If the 99292 invoice is denied due to the payor’s system edits disallowing separate invoicing of add-on codes, appeal with documentation by both the hospitalist and NP to identify the circumstances and reclaim payment.

Critical-Care Services: Time Reminders

click for large version

Two available codes:

99291: Critical care, evaluation and management of the critically ill or critically injured patient: first 30-74 minutes. It is reported only once per day, per physician or group member of the same specialty.

+99292: Critical care, evaluation and management of the critically ill or critically injured patient: each additional 30 minutes (list separately in addition to code for primary service). Categorized as an “add on” code, it must be reported on the same invoice as its “primary” code, 99291. Multiple units of code 99292 can be reported per day per physician/group (see Table 1).

Critical-care time constitutes bedside time and time spent on the patient’s unit/floor where the physician is immediately available to the patient. Also count physician time associated with the performance and/or interpretation of labs, diagnostic studies, and procedures inherent to the provision of critical care:

• Cardiac output measurements (93561, 93562);
• Chest X-rays (71010, 71015, 71020);
• Pulse oximetry (94760, 94761, 94762);
• Blood gases and interpretation of data stored in computers (e.g. ECGs, blood pressures, hematologic data [99090]);
• Gastric intubation (43752, 91105);
• Temporary transcutaneous pacing (92953);
• Ventilation management (94002-94004, 94660, 94662); and
• Vascular access procedures (36000, 36410, 36415, 36591, 36600).⁵

Other separately billable services or procedures cannot be added to critical-care time. A notation in the medical record is highly recommended (e.g. “central-line insertion is not included as critical-care time”) for validation to prevent payor inquiries.

Do not count time associated with indirect care provided outside of the patient’s unit/floor (e.g. reviewing data or calling the family from the office) toward critical-care time. Activities on the floor/unit that do not directly contribute to patient care or management (e.g. review of literature, teaching rounds) cannot be counted toward critical-care time.

—Carol Pohlig

References

1. Cahaba Government Benefit Administrators LLC. Widespread prepayment targeted review notification—CPT 99291. Cahaba Government Benefit Administrators LLC website. Available at: http://www.cahabagba.com/news/widespread-prepayment-targeted-review-notification-part-b/. Accessed May 4, 2013.
2. First Coast Service Options Inc. Prepayment edit of evaluation and management (E/M) code 99291. First Coast Service Options Inc. website. Available at: http://medicare.fcso.com/Medical_documentation/249650.asp. Accessed May 5, 2013.
3. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 12, Section 30.6.12A. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/manuals/downloads/clm104c12.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2013.
4. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 12, Section 30.6.12B. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/manuals/downloads/clm104c12.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2013.
5. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 12, Section 30.6.12E. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. Available at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/manuals/downloads/clm104c12.pdf. Accessed May 6, 2013.
6. Abraham M, Ahlman J, Boudreau A, Connelly J, Levreau-Davis L. Current Procedural Terminology 2013 Professional Edition. Chicago: American Medical Association Press; 2012.
7. Novitas Solutions Inc. Evaluation & management: service-specific coding instructions. Novitas Solutions Inc. website. Available at: http://www.novitas-solutions.com/em/coding.html. Accessed May 7, 2013.
8. United Healthcare. Same day same service policy—adding edits. United Healthcare website. Available at: http://www.unitedhealthcareonline.com/ccmcontent/ ProviderII/ UHC/en-US/Assets/ProviderStaticFiles/ProviderStaticFilesPdf/News/Network_Bulletin_November _2012_Volume_52.pdf. Accessed May 7, 2013.
9. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 12, Section 30.6.12I. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/manuals/downloads/clm104c12.pdf. Accessed May 10, 2013.
10. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 12, Section 30.6.12G. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/manuals/downloads/clm104c12.pdf. Accessed May 4, 2013.

Hospitalists have long recognized that compensation varies significantly by geographic location and by the type of hospitalist medicine group (HMG) you work in: private vs. hospital-owned vs. national-management-owned. A review of SHM’s 2012 State of Hospital Medicine report suggests that hospitalist compensation is also evolving toward a model that more routinely includes both some production variable and performance-based pay (see Figure 1). Although the proportion of compensation paid as a base salary has been trending up over the last few years, so has the proportion paid as a performance incentive.

click for large version

The pay distribution of adult-medicine hospitalists employed by management companies is composed of a high base percentage (mean 88.3% by survey data) and relatively low production and performance variables (mean 6.8% and 4.9%, respectively) compared with other employment models. Contrast that with private hospitalist-only groups, where the mean base is 76.3% with an emphasis on a production component (19.4%) and slightly less on performance pay at 4.2%.

Of the three employment models, however, hospital-/health-system-employed groups have the highest proportion of compensation based on performance metrics with a mean of 7.8%. This makes sense given the financial penalties hospitals and health systems are facing from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) around pay-for-performance measures. Hospitals are looking for help from hospitalists in improving quality of care and patient satisfaction and avoiding incurring future penalties. Compensation models in these groups reflect the goals of aligning performance on these measures with financial incentives/risk for hospitalists working in these environments.

What are the top performance metrics hospitalists are being compensated for? CMS’ hospital value-based purchasing (HVBP) core measures and patient satisfaction scores are at the top of the list. More than 70% of all HMGs identify these two measures as part of their performance pay incentive, which is seen consistently by geographic location and by type of hospitalist group.

Beyond these top two metrics, management-company-employed groups also focus on ED throughput measures and early morning discharge times, with more than 70% of these groups having pay incentives aligned with these goals. They also have a higher proportion of their groups participating in several other measures, such as clinical protocols, medication reconciliation, EHR utilization, transitions of care, and readmission rates. In comparison, both hospital-employed and private groups have a wider variety of performance measures in which they participate. Differences are seen geographically, too, with hospitalists located in the Western region having a wider variety of performance measures than other regions.

How hospitalists are compensated for their work will likely continue to evolve. Overall, for nonacademic HMGs serving adults only, we are seeing an upward trend in percentage paid as base pay (from 76% in 2010 to 81% in 2012) and in performance (from 5% in 2010 to 7% in 2012). Hospitalists should anticipate that performance-based pay will continue to account for an increasingly larger percentage of their overall compensation, especially as CMS’ pay-for-performance measures for hospital systems really start to take effect.

Hospital CEOs and CFOs are looking to hospitalists to help deliver on quality, satisfaction, and other performance measures. Incentives will be put in place to reward those groups who do it well.

Dr. Sites is senior medical director of hospitalist programs at Providence Health and Services in Oregon. She is a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

Hospitalists have long recognized that compensation varies significantly by geographic location and by the type of hospitalist medicine group (HMG) you work in: private vs. hospital-owned vs. national-management-owned. A review of SHM’s 2012 State of Hospital Medicine report suggests that hospitalist compensation is also evolving toward a model that more routinely includes both some production variable and performance-based pay (see Figure 1). Although the proportion of compensation paid as a base salary has been trending up over the last few years, so has the proportion paid as a performance incentive.

click for large version

The pay distribution of adult-medicine hospitalists employed by management companies is composed of a high base percentage (mean 88.3% by survey data) and relatively low production and performance variables (mean 6.8% and 4.9%, respectively) compared with other employment models. Contrast that with private hospitalist-only groups, where the mean base is 76.3% with an emphasis on a production component (19.4%) and slightly less on performance pay at 4.2%.

Of the three employment models, however, hospital-/health-system-employed groups have the highest proportion of compensation based on performance metrics with a mean of 7.8%. This makes sense given the financial penalties hospitals and health systems are facing from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) around pay-for-performance measures. Hospitals are looking for help from hospitalists in improving quality of care and patient satisfaction and avoiding incurring future penalties. Compensation models in these groups reflect the goals of aligning performance on these measures with financial incentives/risk for hospitalists working in these environments.

What are the top performance metrics hospitalists are being compensated for? CMS’ hospital value-based purchasing (HVBP) core measures and patient satisfaction scores are at the top of the list. More than 70% of all HMGs identify these two measures as part of their performance pay incentive, which is seen consistently by geographic location and by type of hospitalist group.

Beyond these top two metrics, management-company-employed groups also focus on ED throughput measures and early morning discharge times, with more than 70% of these groups having pay incentives aligned with these goals. They also have a higher proportion of their groups participating in several other measures, such as clinical protocols, medication reconciliation, EHR utilization, transitions of care, and readmission rates. In comparison, both hospital-employed and private groups have a wider variety of performance measures in which they participate. Differences are seen geographically, too, with hospitalists located in the Western region having a wider variety of performance measures than other regions.

How hospitalists are compensated for their work will likely continue to evolve. Overall, for nonacademic HMGs serving adults only, we are seeing an upward trend in percentage paid as base pay (from 76% in 2010 to 81% in 2012) and in performance (from 5% in 2010 to 7% in 2012). Hospitalists should anticipate that performance-based pay will continue to account for an increasingly larger percentage of their overall compensation, especially as CMS’ pay-for-performance measures for hospital systems really start to take effect.

Hospital CEOs and CFOs are looking to hospitalists to help deliver on quality, satisfaction, and other performance measures. Incentives will be put in place to reward those groups who do it well.

Dr. Sites is senior medical director of hospitalist programs at Providence Health and Services in Oregon. She is a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

Hospitalists have long recognized that compensation varies significantly by geographic location and by the type of hospitalist medicine group (HMG) you work in: private vs. hospital-owned vs. national-management-owned. A review of SHM’s 2012 State of Hospital Medicine report suggests that hospitalist compensation is also evolving toward a model that more routinely includes both some production variable and performance-based pay (see Figure 1). Although the proportion of compensation paid as a base salary has been trending up over the last few years, so has the proportion paid as a performance incentive.

click for large version

The pay distribution of adult-medicine hospitalists employed by management companies is composed of a high base percentage (mean 88.3% by survey data) and relatively low production and performance variables (mean 6.8% and 4.9%, respectively) compared with other employment models. Contrast that with private hospitalist-only groups, where the mean base is 76.3% with an emphasis on a production component (19.4%) and slightly less on performance pay at 4.2%.

Of the three employment models, however, hospital-/health-system-employed groups have the highest proportion of compensation based on performance metrics with a mean of 7.8%. This makes sense given the financial penalties hospitals and health systems are facing from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) around pay-for-performance measures. Hospitals are looking for help from hospitalists in improving quality of care and patient satisfaction and avoiding incurring future penalties. Compensation models in these groups reflect the goals of aligning performance on these measures with financial incentives/risk for hospitalists working in these environments.

What are the top performance metrics hospitalists are being compensated for? CMS’ hospital value-based purchasing (HVBP) core measures and patient satisfaction scores are at the top of the list. More than 70% of all HMGs identify these two measures as part of their performance pay incentive, which is seen consistently by geographic location and by type of hospitalist group.

Beyond these top two metrics, management-company-employed groups also focus on ED throughput measures and early morning discharge times, with more than 70% of these groups having pay incentives aligned with these goals. They also have a higher proportion of their groups participating in several other measures, such as clinical protocols, medication reconciliation, EHR utilization, transitions of care, and readmission rates. In comparison, both hospital-employed and private groups have a wider variety of performance measures in which they participate. Differences are seen geographically, too, with hospitalists located in the Western region having a wider variety of performance measures than other regions.

How hospitalists are compensated for their work will likely continue to evolve. Overall, for nonacademic HMGs serving adults only, we are seeing an upward trend in percentage paid as base pay (from 76% in 2010 to 81% in 2012) and in performance (from 5% in 2010 to 7% in 2012). Hospitalists should anticipate that performance-based pay will continue to account for an increasingly larger percentage of their overall compensation, especially as CMS’ pay-for-performance measures for hospital systems really start to take effect.

Hospital CEOs and CFOs are looking to hospitalists to help deliver on quality, satisfaction, and other performance measures. Incentives will be put in place to reward those groups who do it well.

Dr. Sites is senior medical director of hospitalist programs at Providence Health and Services in Oregon. She is a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

One hospital wanted to reduce readmissions among patients with congestive heart failure. Another hoped to improve upon its sepsis mortality rates. A third sought to determine whether its doctors were providing cost-effective care for pneumonia patients. All of them adopted the same type of technology to help identify a solution.

As the healthcare industry tilts toward accountable care, pay for performance and an increasingly

cost-conscious mindset, hospitalists and other providers are tapping into a fast-growing analytical tool collectively known as data mining to help make sense of the growing mounds of information. Although no single technology can be considered a cure-all, HM leaders are so optimistic about data mining’s potential to address cost, outcome, and performance issues that some have labeled it a “game changer” for hospitalists.

Karim Godamunne, MD, MBA, SFHM, chief medical officer at North Fulton Hospital in Roswell, Ga., and a member of SHM’s Practice Management Committee, says he can’t overstate the importance of hospitalists’ involvement in physician data mining. “From my perspective, we’re looking to hospitalists to help drive this quality-utilization bandwagon, to be the real leaders in it,” he says. With the tremendous value that can be generated through understanding and using the information, “it’s good for your group and can be good to your hospital as a whole.”

So what is data mining? The technology fully emerged in the mid-1990s as a way to help scientists analyze large and often disparate bodies of data, present relevant information in new ways, and illuminate previously unknown relationships.¹ In the healthcare industry, early adopters realized that the insights gleaned from data mining could help inform their clinical decision-making; organizations used the new tools to help predict health insurance fraud and identify at-risk patients, for example.

Cynthia Burghard, research director of Accountable Care IT Strategies at IDC Health Insights in Framingham, Mass., says researchers in academic medical centers initially conducted most of the clinical analytical work. Within the past few years, however, the increasing availability of data has allowed more hospitals to begin analyzing chronic disease, readmissions, and other areas of concern. In addition, Burghard says, new tools based on natural language processing are giving hospitals better access to unstructured clinical data, such as notes written by doctors and nurses.

“What I’m seeing both in my surveys as well as in conversations with hospitals is that analytics is the top of the investment priority for both hospitals and health plans,” Burghard says. According to IDC estimates, total spending for clinical analytics in the U.S. reached $3.7 billion in 2012 and is expected to grow to $5.14 billion by 2016. Much of the growth, she notes, is being driven by healthcare reform. “If your mandate is to manage populations of patients, it behooves you to know who those patients are and what their illnesses are, and to monitor what you’re doing for them,” she says.

Practice Improvement

Accordingly, a major goal of all this data-mining technology is to change practice behavior in a way that achieves the triple aim of improving quality of care, controlling costs, and bettering patient outcomes.

A growing number of companies are releasing tools that can compile and analyze the separate bits of information captured from claims and billing systems, Medicare reporting requirements, internal benchmarks, and other sources. Unlike passive data sources, such as Medicare’s Hospital Compare website, more active analytics can help their users zoom down to the level of an individual doctor or patient, pan out to the level of a hospitalist group, or expand out even more for a broader comparison among peer institutions.

Some newer data-mining tools with names like CRIMSON, Truven, Iodine, and Imagine are billing themselves as hospitalist-friendly performance-improvement aids and giving individual providers the ability to access and analyze the data themselves. A few of these applications can even provide real-time data via mobile devices (see “Physician Performance Aids,”).

Thomas Frederickson, MD, MBA, SFHM, medical director of the HM service at Alegent Creighton Health in Omaha, Neb., and a member of SHM’s Practice Management Committee, sees the biggest potential of this data-mining technology in its ability to help drive practice consistency. “You can use the database to analyze practice patterns of large groups, or even individuals, and see where variability exists,” he says. “And then, based on that, you can analyze why the variability exists and begin to address whether it’s variability that’s clinically indicated or not.”

When Alegent Creighton Health was scrutinizing the care of its pneumonia patients, for example, officials could compare the number of chest X-rays per pneumonia patient by hospital or across the entire CRIMSON database. At a deeper level, the officials could see how often individual providers ordered the tests compared to their peers. For outliers, they could follow up to determine whether the variability was warranted.

As champions of process improvement, Dr. Frederickson says, hospitalists can make particularly good use of database analytics. “It’s part of the process of making hospitalists invaluable to their hospitals and their systems,” he says. “Part of that is building up expertise on process improvement and safety, and familiarity with these kinds of tools is one thing that will help us do that.”

North Fulton Hospital used CRIMSON to analyze how its doctors care for patients with sepsis and to establish new benchmarks. Dr. Godamunne says the tools allowed the hospital to track its doctors’ progress over time and identify potential problems. “If a patient with sepsis is staying too long, you can see who admitted the patient and see if, a few months ago, the same physician was having similar problems,” he says. Similarly, the hospital was able to track the top DRGs resulting in excess length of stay among patients, to identify potential bottlenecks in the care and discharge processes.

Some tools require only two-day training sessions for basic proficiency, though more advanced manipulations often require a bigger commitment, like the 12-week training session that Dr. Godamunne completed. That training included one hour of online learning and one hour of homework every week, and most of the cases highlighted during his coursework, he says, focused on hospitalists—another sign of the major role he believes HM will play in harnessing data to improve performance quality.

You can use the database to analyze practice patterns of large groups, or even individuals, and see where variability exists. And then, based on that, you can analyze why the variability exists and begin to address whether it’s variability that’s clinically indicated or not.

—Thomas Frederickson, MD, MBA, SFHM, medical director, hospital medicine service, Alegent Creighton Health, Omaha, Neb., SHM Practice Management Committee member

Slow—Construction Ahead

The best information is meaningful, individualized, and timely, says Steven Deitelzweig, MD, SFHM, system chairman for hospital medicine and medical director of regional business development at Ochsner Health System in New Orleans. “If you get something back six months after you’ve delivered the care, you’ll have a limited opportunity to improve, versus if you get it back in a week or two, or ideally, in real time,” says Dr. Deitelzweig, chair of SHM’s Practice Management Committee.

In examining length of stay, Dr. Deitelzweig says doctors could use data mining to look at time-stamped elements of patient flow and the timeliness of provider response: how patients go through the ED, and when they receive written orders or lab results. “It could be really powerful, and right now it’s a little bit of a black hole,” he says.

Based on her conversations with hospital executives and leaders, however, Burghard cautions that some real-time mobile applications, although technologically impressive, may be less useful or necessary in practice. “If it’s performance measurement, why do you need that in real time? It’s not going to change your behavior in the moment,” she says. “What you may want to get is an alert that your patient, who is in the hospital, has had some sort of negative event.”

Data mining has other potential limitations. “There’s always going to be questions of attribution, and you need to have clinical knowledge of your location,” Dr. Godamunne says. And data mining is only as good as the data that have been documented, underscoring the importance of securing provider cooperation.

Dr. Frederickson says physician acceptance, in fact, might be one of the biggest obstacles—a major reason why he recommends introducing the technology slowly and explaining why and how it will be used. If introduced too quickly and without adequate explanation about what a hospital or health system hopes to accomplish, he says, “there certainly is the potential for suspicion.” The key, he says, is to emphasize that the tools provide a valuable mechanism for gleaning new insights into doctors’ practice patterns, “not something that’s going to be used against them.”

Paul Roscoe, CEO of the Washington, D.C.-based Advisory Board Company's Crimson division, agrees that personally engaging physicians is essential for a good return on investment in analytical tools like his company’s suite of CRIMSON products. “If you can’t work with the physicians to get them to understand the data and actively use the data in their practice patterns, it becomes a bit meaningless,” he says.

We’re looking to hospitalists to help drive this quality utilization bandwagon, to be the real leaders in it.…It’s good for your group and can be good to your hospital as a whole.

—Karim Godamunne, MD, MBA, SFHM, chief medical officer, North Fulton Hospital, Roswell, Ga., SHM Practice Management Committee member

Roscoe sees big opportunities in prospectively examining information while a patient is still in the hospital and when a change of course by providers could avert a bad outcome. “Suggesting a set of interventions that they could do differently is really the value-add,” he says. But he cautions that those suggestions must be worded carefully to avoid alienating physicians.

“If doctors don’t feel like they’re being judged, they’ll engage with you,” Roscoe says.

Similar nuances can affect how users perceive the tools themselves. After hearing feedback from members that the words “data mining” didn’t conjure trust and confidence, the Advisory Board Company dropped the phrase altogether in favor of “data analytics,” “physician engagement,” and similar descriptors. “It’s simple things like that that can very quickly either turn a physician on or off,” Roscoe says.

Once users take the time to understand data-mining tools and how they can be properly harnessed, advocates say, the technology can lead to a host of unanticipated benefits. When a hospital bills the federal government for a Medicare patient, for example, it must submit an HCC code that describes the patient’s condition. By doing a better job of mining the data, Burghard says, a hospital can more accurately reflect that patient’s contdition. For example, if a hospital is treating a diabetic who comes in with a broken leg, the hospital could receive a lower payment rate if it does not properly identify and record both conditions.

And by using the tools prospectively, Burghard says, “I think there’s the opportunity to make a quantum leap from what we’re doing today. We usually just report on facts, and usually retrospectively. With some of the new technology that’s available, the healthcare industry can begin to do discovery analytics—you’re identifying insights, patterns, and relationships.”

Better integration of computerized physician order entry with data-mining ports, Dr. Godamunne predicts, will allow for much better attribution and finer parsing of the data. As the transparency increases, though, hospitalists will have to adapt to a new reality in which stronger analytical tools may point out individual outliers. And that level of detail, in turn, will require some hospitalists to justify why they’re different than their peers.

Even so, Roscoe says, he’s found that hospitalists are very open to using data to improve performance and that they make up a high percentage of CRIMSON users. “There isn’t a physician group that is in a better position to help drive this quality- and data-driven culture,” he says.

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer in Seattle.

Physician Performance Aids

Company: The Advisory Board Company

Sample product: CRIMSON Continuum of Care

Claim: “Places credible, severity-adjusted performance profiles directly in the hands of physicians, enabling the hospital-physician collaboration needed to advance quality goals and secure cost savings.”

Number of users: More than 850 hospitals

Real-time data? No, but available as add-on service

To learn more: www.advisory.com/Technology/Crimson-Continuum-of-Care

Company: Panacea Developments

Sample product: Iodine

Claim: “An easy-to-use mobile system that analyzes a hospital’s sea of data for knowledge that physicians, case managers, and documentation specialists can act upon to improve length-of-stay, readmissions, and documentation.”

Number of users: More than 50 hospitals

Real-time data? Yes

To learn more: www.panaceadevelopments.com/iodine

Company: Truven Health

Sample product: CareDiscovery

Claim: “Provides powerful insights into a hospital’s or health system’s quality measures and resource utilization to support improvement with objective, fact-based information.”

Real-time data? No

Number of users: More than 3,000 users in 400 hospitals

To learn more: http://truvenhealth.com/products/carediscovery

Company: Ingenious Med

Sample product: Imagine

Claim: “A comprehensive analytics dashboard platform that provides actionable decision making data to optimize physician performance and revenue.”

Real-time data? Yes

Number of users: 25,000 total users (not separated by individual products)

To learn more: http://ingeniousmed.com/what-we-do/imagine

Reference

1. Yoo I, Alafaireet P, Marinov M, et al. Data mining in healthcare and biomedicine: a survey of the literature. J Med Syst. 2012;36:2431-2448.

One hospital wanted to reduce readmissions among patients with congestive heart failure. Another hoped to improve upon its sepsis mortality rates. A third sought to determine whether its doctors were providing cost-effective care for pneumonia patients. All of them adopted the same type of technology to help identify a solution.

As the healthcare industry tilts toward accountable care, pay for performance and an increasingly

cost-conscious mindset, hospitalists and other providers are tapping into a fast-growing analytical tool collectively known as data mining to help make sense of the growing mounds of information. Although no single technology can be considered a cure-all, HM leaders are so optimistic about data mining’s potential to address cost, outcome, and performance issues that some have labeled it a “game changer” for hospitalists.

Karim Godamunne, MD, MBA, SFHM, chief medical officer at North Fulton Hospital in Roswell, Ga., and a member of SHM’s Practice Management Committee, says he can’t overstate the importance of hospitalists’ involvement in physician data mining. “From my perspective, we’re looking to hospitalists to help drive this quality-utilization bandwagon, to be the real leaders in it,” he says. With the tremendous value that can be generated through understanding and using the information, “it’s good for your group and can be good to your hospital as a whole.”

So what is data mining? The technology fully emerged in the mid-1990s as a way to help scientists analyze large and often disparate bodies of data, present relevant information in new ways, and illuminate previously unknown relationships.¹ In the healthcare industry, early adopters realized that the insights gleaned from data mining could help inform their clinical decision-making; organizations used the new tools to help predict health insurance fraud and identify at-risk patients, for example.

Cynthia Burghard, research director of Accountable Care IT Strategies at IDC Health Insights in Framingham, Mass., says researchers in academic medical centers initially conducted most of the clinical analytical work. Within the past few years, however, the increasing availability of data has allowed more hospitals to begin analyzing chronic disease, readmissions, and other areas of concern. In addition, Burghard says, new tools based on natural language processing are giving hospitals better access to unstructured clinical data, such as notes written by doctors and nurses.

“What I’m seeing both in my surveys as well as in conversations with hospitals is that analytics is the top of the investment priority for both hospitals and health plans,” Burghard says. According to IDC estimates, total spending for clinical analytics in the U.S. reached $3.7 billion in 2012 and is expected to grow to $5.14 billion by 2016. Much of the growth, she notes, is being driven by healthcare reform. “If your mandate is to manage populations of patients, it behooves you to know who those patients are and what their illnesses are, and to monitor what you’re doing for them,” she says.

Practice Improvement

Accordingly, a major goal of all this data-mining technology is to change practice behavior in a way that achieves the triple aim of improving quality of care, controlling costs, and bettering patient outcomes.

A growing number of companies are releasing tools that can compile and analyze the separate bits of information captured from claims and billing systems, Medicare reporting requirements, internal benchmarks, and other sources. Unlike passive data sources, such as Medicare’s Hospital Compare website, more active analytics can help their users zoom down to the level of an individual doctor or patient, pan out to the level of a hospitalist group, or expand out even more for a broader comparison among peer institutions.

Some newer data-mining tools with names like CRIMSON, Truven, Iodine, and Imagine are billing themselves as hospitalist-friendly performance-improvement aids and giving individual providers the ability to access and analyze the data themselves. A few of these applications can even provide real-time data via mobile devices (see “Physician Performance Aids,”).

Thomas Frederickson, MD, MBA, SFHM, medical director of the HM service at Alegent Creighton Health in Omaha, Neb., and a member of SHM’s Practice Management Committee, sees the biggest potential of this data-mining technology in its ability to help drive practice consistency. “You can use the database to analyze practice patterns of large groups, or even individuals, and see where variability exists,” he says. “And then, based on that, you can analyze why the variability exists and begin to address whether it’s variability that’s clinically indicated or not.”

When Alegent Creighton Health was scrutinizing the care of its pneumonia patients, for example, officials could compare the number of chest X-rays per pneumonia patient by hospital or across the entire CRIMSON database. At a deeper level, the officials could see how often individual providers ordered the tests compared to their peers. For outliers, they could follow up to determine whether the variability was warranted.

As champions of process improvement, Dr. Frederickson says, hospitalists can make particularly good use of database analytics. “It’s part of the process of making hospitalists invaluable to their hospitals and their systems,” he says. “Part of that is building up expertise on process improvement and safety, and familiarity with these kinds of tools is one thing that will help us do that.”

North Fulton Hospital used CRIMSON to analyze how its doctors care for patients with sepsis and to establish new benchmarks. Dr. Godamunne says the tools allowed the hospital to track its doctors’ progress over time and identify potential problems. “If a patient with sepsis is staying too long, you can see who admitted the patient and see if, a few months ago, the same physician was having similar problems,” he says. Similarly, the hospital was able to track the top DRGs resulting in excess length of stay among patients, to identify potential bottlenecks in the care and discharge processes.

Some tools require only two-day training sessions for basic proficiency, though more advanced manipulations often require a bigger commitment, like the 12-week training session that Dr. Godamunne completed. That training included one hour of online learning and one hour of homework every week, and most of the cases highlighted during his coursework, he says, focused on hospitalists—another sign of the major role he believes HM will play in harnessing data to improve performance quality.

You can use the database to analyze practice patterns of large groups, or even individuals, and see where variability exists. And then, based on that, you can analyze why the variability exists and begin to address whether it’s variability that’s clinically indicated or not.

—Thomas Frederickson, MD, MBA, SFHM, medical director, hospital medicine service, Alegent Creighton Health, Omaha, Neb., SHM Practice Management Committee member

Slow—Construction Ahead

The best information is meaningful, individualized, and timely, says Steven Deitelzweig, MD, SFHM, system chairman for hospital medicine and medical director of regional business development at Ochsner Health System in New Orleans. “If you get something back six months after you’ve delivered the care, you’ll have a limited opportunity to improve, versus if you get it back in a week or two, or ideally, in real time,” says Dr. Deitelzweig, chair of SHM’s Practice Management Committee.

In examining length of stay, Dr. Deitelzweig says doctors could use data mining to look at time-stamped elements of patient flow and the timeliness of provider response: how patients go through the ED, and when they receive written orders or lab results. “It could be really powerful, and right now it’s a little bit of a black hole,” he says.

Based on her conversations with hospital executives and leaders, however, Burghard cautions that some real-time mobile applications, although technologically impressive, may be less useful or necessary in practice. “If it’s performance measurement, why do you need that in real time? It’s not going to change your behavior in the moment,” she says. “What you may want to get is an alert that your patient, who is in the hospital, has had some sort of negative event.”

Data mining has other potential limitations. “There’s always going to be questions of attribution, and you need to have clinical knowledge of your location,” Dr. Godamunne says. And data mining is only as good as the data that have been documented, underscoring the importance of securing provider cooperation.

Dr. Frederickson says physician acceptance, in fact, might be one of the biggest obstacles—a major reason why he recommends introducing the technology slowly and explaining why and how it will be used. If introduced too quickly and without adequate explanation about what a hospital or health system hopes to accomplish, he says, “there certainly is the potential for suspicion.” The key, he says, is to emphasize that the tools provide a valuable mechanism for gleaning new insights into doctors’ practice patterns, “not something that’s going to be used against them.”

Paul Roscoe, CEO of the Washington, D.C.-based Advisory Board Company's Crimson division, agrees that personally engaging physicians is essential for a good return on investment in analytical tools like his company’s suite of CRIMSON products. “If you can’t work with the physicians to get them to understand the data and actively use the data in their practice patterns, it becomes a bit meaningless,” he says.

We’re looking to hospitalists to help drive this quality utilization bandwagon, to be the real leaders in it.…It’s good for your group and can be good to your hospital as a whole.

—Karim Godamunne, MD, MBA, SFHM, chief medical officer, North Fulton Hospital, Roswell, Ga., SHM Practice Management Committee member

Roscoe sees big opportunities in prospectively examining information while a patient is still in the hospital and when a change of course by providers could avert a bad outcome. “Suggesting a set of interventions that they could do differently is really the value-add,” he says. But he cautions that those suggestions must be worded carefully to avoid alienating physicians.

“If doctors don’t feel like they’re being judged, they’ll engage with you,” Roscoe says.

Similar nuances can affect how users perceive the tools themselves. After hearing feedback from members that the words “data mining” didn’t conjure trust and confidence, the Advisory Board Company dropped the phrase altogether in favor of “data analytics,” “physician engagement,” and similar descriptors. “It’s simple things like that that can very quickly either turn a physician on or off,” Roscoe says.

Once users take the time to understand data-mining tools and how they can be properly harnessed, advocates say, the technology can lead to a host of unanticipated benefits. When a hospital bills the federal government for a Medicare patient, for example, it must submit an HCC code that describes the patient’s condition. By doing a better job of mining the data, Burghard says, a hospital can more accurately reflect that patient’s contdition. For example, if a hospital is treating a diabetic who comes in with a broken leg, the hospital could receive a lower payment rate if it does not properly identify and record both conditions.

And by using the tools prospectively, Burghard says, “I think there’s the opportunity to make a quantum leap from what we’re doing today. We usually just report on facts, and usually retrospectively. With some of the new technology that’s available, the healthcare industry can begin to do discovery analytics—you’re identifying insights, patterns, and relationships.”

Better integration of computerized physician order entry with data-mining ports, Dr. Godamunne predicts, will allow for much better attribution and finer parsing of the data. As the transparency increases, though, hospitalists will have to adapt to a new reality in which stronger analytical tools may point out individual outliers. And that level of detail, in turn, will require some hospitalists to justify why they’re different than their peers.

Even so, Roscoe says, he’s found that hospitalists are very open to using data to improve performance and that they make up a high percentage of CRIMSON users. “There isn’t a physician group that is in a better position to help drive this quality- and data-driven culture,” he says.

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer in Seattle.

Physician Performance Aids

Company: The Advisory Board Company

Sample product: CRIMSON Continuum of Care

Claim: “Places credible, severity-adjusted performance profiles directly in the hands of physicians, enabling the hospital-physician collaboration needed to advance quality goals and secure cost savings.”

Number of users: More than 850 hospitals

Real-time data? No, but available as add-on service

To learn more: www.advisory.com/Technology/Crimson-Continuum-of-Care

Company: Panacea Developments

Sample product: Iodine

Claim: “An easy-to-use mobile system that analyzes a hospital’s sea of data for knowledge that physicians, case managers, and documentation specialists can act upon to improve length-of-stay, readmissions, and documentation.”

Number of users: More than 50 hospitals

Real-time data? Yes

To learn more: www.panaceadevelopments.com/iodine

Company: Truven Health

Sample product: CareDiscovery

Claim: “Provides powerful insights into a hospital’s or health system’s quality measures and resource utilization to support improvement with objective, fact-based information.”

Real-time data? No

Number of users: More than 3,000 users in 400 hospitals

To learn more: http://truvenhealth.com/products/carediscovery

Company: Ingenious Med

Sample product: Imagine

Claim: “A comprehensive analytics dashboard platform that provides actionable decision making data to optimize physician performance and revenue.”

Real-time data? Yes

Number of users: 25,000 total users (not separated by individual products)

To learn more: http://ingeniousmed.com/what-we-do/imagine

Reference

1. Yoo I, Alafaireet P, Marinov M, et al. Data mining in healthcare and biomedicine: a survey of the literature. J Med Syst. 2012;36:2431-2448.

One hospital wanted to reduce readmissions among patients with congestive heart failure. Another hoped to improve upon its sepsis mortality rates. A third sought to determine whether its doctors were providing cost-effective care for pneumonia patients. All of them adopted the same type of technology to help identify a solution.

As the healthcare industry tilts toward accountable care, pay for performance and an increasingly

cost-conscious mindset, hospitalists and other providers are tapping into a fast-growing analytical tool collectively known as data mining to help make sense of the growing mounds of information. Although no single technology can be considered a cure-all, HM leaders are so optimistic about data mining’s potential to address cost, outcome, and performance issues that some have labeled it a “game changer” for hospitalists.

Karim Godamunne, MD, MBA, SFHM, chief medical officer at North Fulton Hospital in Roswell, Ga., and a member of SHM’s Practice Management Committee, says he can’t overstate the importance of hospitalists’ involvement in physician data mining. “From my perspective, we’re looking to hospitalists to help drive this quality-utilization bandwagon, to be the real leaders in it,” he says. With the tremendous value that can be generated through understanding and using the information, “it’s good for your group and can be good to your hospital as a whole.”

So what is data mining? The technology fully emerged in the mid-1990s as a way to help scientists analyze large and often disparate bodies of data, present relevant information in new ways, and illuminate previously unknown relationships.¹ In the healthcare industry, early adopters realized that the insights gleaned from data mining could help inform their clinical decision-making; organizations used the new tools to help predict health insurance fraud and identify at-risk patients, for example.

Cynthia Burghard, research director of Accountable Care IT Strategies at IDC Health Insights in Framingham, Mass., says researchers in academic medical centers initially conducted most of the clinical analytical work. Within the past few years, however, the increasing availability of data has allowed more hospitals to begin analyzing chronic disease, readmissions, and other areas of concern. In addition, Burghard says, new tools based on natural language processing are giving hospitals better access to unstructured clinical data, such as notes written by doctors and nurses.

“What I’m seeing both in my surveys as well as in conversations with hospitals is that analytics is the top of the investment priority for both hospitals and health plans,” Burghard says. According to IDC estimates, total spending for clinical analytics in the U.S. reached $3.7 billion in 2012 and is expected to grow to $5.14 billion by 2016. Much of the growth, she notes, is being driven by healthcare reform. “If your mandate is to manage populations of patients, it behooves you to know who those patients are and what their illnesses are, and to monitor what you’re doing for them,” she says.

Practice Improvement

Accordingly, a major goal of all this data-mining technology is to change practice behavior in a way that achieves the triple aim of improving quality of care, controlling costs, and bettering patient outcomes.

A growing number of companies are releasing tools that can compile and analyze the separate bits of information captured from claims and billing systems, Medicare reporting requirements, internal benchmarks, and other sources. Unlike passive data sources, such as Medicare’s Hospital Compare website, more active analytics can help their users zoom down to the level of an individual doctor or patient, pan out to the level of a hospitalist group, or expand out even more for a broader comparison among peer institutions.

Some newer data-mining tools with names like CRIMSON, Truven, Iodine, and Imagine are billing themselves as hospitalist-friendly performance-improvement aids and giving individual providers the ability to access and analyze the data themselves. A few of these applications can even provide real-time data via mobile devices (see “Physician Performance Aids,”).

Thomas Frederickson, MD, MBA, SFHM, medical director of the HM service at Alegent Creighton Health in Omaha, Neb., and a member of SHM’s Practice Management Committee, sees the biggest potential of this data-mining technology in its ability to help drive practice consistency. “You can use the database to analyze practice patterns of large groups, or even individuals, and see where variability exists,” he says. “And then, based on that, you can analyze why the variability exists and begin to address whether it’s variability that’s clinically indicated or not.”

When Alegent Creighton Health was scrutinizing the care of its pneumonia patients, for example, officials could compare the number of chest X-rays per pneumonia patient by hospital or across the entire CRIMSON database. At a deeper level, the officials could see how often individual providers ordered the tests compared to their peers. For outliers, they could follow up to determine whether the variability was warranted.

As champions of process improvement, Dr. Frederickson says, hospitalists can make particularly good use of database analytics. “It’s part of the process of making hospitalists invaluable to their hospitals and their systems,” he says. “Part of that is building up expertise on process improvement and safety, and familiarity with these kinds of tools is one thing that will help us do that.”

North Fulton Hospital used CRIMSON to analyze how its doctors care for patients with sepsis and to establish new benchmarks. Dr. Godamunne says the tools allowed the hospital to track its doctors’ progress over time and identify potential problems. “If a patient with sepsis is staying too long, you can see who admitted the patient and see if, a few months ago, the same physician was having similar problems,” he says. Similarly, the hospital was able to track the top DRGs resulting in excess length of stay among patients, to identify potential bottlenecks in the care and discharge processes.

Some tools require only two-day training sessions for basic proficiency, though more advanced manipulations often require a bigger commitment, like the 12-week training session that Dr. Godamunne completed. That training included one hour of online learning and one hour of homework every week, and most of the cases highlighted during his coursework, he says, focused on hospitalists—another sign of the major role he believes HM will play in harnessing data to improve performance quality.

You can use the database to analyze practice patterns of large groups, or even individuals, and see where variability exists. And then, based on that, you can analyze why the variability exists and begin to address whether it’s variability that’s clinically indicated or not.

—Thomas Frederickson, MD, MBA, SFHM, medical director, hospital medicine service, Alegent Creighton Health, Omaha, Neb., SHM Practice Management Committee member

Slow—Construction Ahead

The best information is meaningful, individualized, and timely, says Steven Deitelzweig, MD, SFHM, system chairman for hospital medicine and medical director of regional business development at Ochsner Health System in New Orleans. “If you get something back six months after you’ve delivered the care, you’ll have a limited opportunity to improve, versus if you get it back in a week or two, or ideally, in real time,” says Dr. Deitelzweig, chair of SHM’s Practice Management Committee.

In examining length of stay, Dr. Deitelzweig says doctors could use data mining to look at time-stamped elements of patient flow and the timeliness of provider response: how patients go through the ED, and when they receive written orders or lab results. “It could be really powerful, and right now it’s a little bit of a black hole,” he says.

Based on her conversations with hospital executives and leaders, however, Burghard cautions that some real-time mobile applications, although technologically impressive, may be less useful or necessary in practice. “If it’s performance measurement, why do you need that in real time? It’s not going to change your behavior in the moment,” she says. “What you may want to get is an alert that your patient, who is in the hospital, has had some sort of negative event.”

Data mining has other potential limitations. “There’s always going to be questions of attribution, and you need to have clinical knowledge of your location,” Dr. Godamunne says. And data mining is only as good as the data that have been documented, underscoring the importance of securing provider cooperation.

Dr. Frederickson says physician acceptance, in fact, might be one of the biggest obstacles—a major reason why he recommends introducing the technology slowly and explaining why and how it will be used. If introduced too quickly and without adequate explanation about what a hospital or health system hopes to accomplish, he says, “there certainly is the potential for suspicion.” The key, he says, is to emphasize that the tools provide a valuable mechanism for gleaning new insights into doctors’ practice patterns, “not something that’s going to be used against them.”

Paul Roscoe, CEO of the Washington, D.C.-based Advisory Board Company's Crimson division, agrees that personally engaging physicians is essential for a good return on investment in analytical tools like his company’s suite of CRIMSON products. “If you can’t work with the physicians to get them to understand the data and actively use the data in their practice patterns, it becomes a bit meaningless,” he says.

We’re looking to hospitalists to help drive this quality utilization bandwagon, to be the real leaders in it.…It’s good for your group and can be good to your hospital as a whole.

—Karim Godamunne, MD, MBA, SFHM, chief medical officer, North Fulton Hospital, Roswell, Ga., SHM Practice Management Committee member

Roscoe sees big opportunities in prospectively examining information while a patient is still in the hospital and when a change of course by providers could avert a bad outcome. “Suggesting a set of interventions that they could do differently is really the value-add,” he says. But he cautions that those suggestions must be worded carefully to avoid alienating physicians.

“If doctors don’t feel like they’re being judged, they’ll engage with you,” Roscoe says.

Similar nuances can affect how users perceive the tools themselves. After hearing feedback from members that the words “data mining” didn’t conjure trust and confidence, the Advisory Board Company dropped the phrase altogether in favor of “data analytics,” “physician engagement,” and similar descriptors. “It’s simple things like that that can very quickly either turn a physician on or off,” Roscoe says.

Once users take the time to understand data-mining tools and how they can be properly harnessed, advocates say, the technology can lead to a host of unanticipated benefits. When a hospital bills the federal government for a Medicare patient, for example, it must submit an HCC code that describes the patient’s condition. By doing a better job of mining the data, Burghard says, a hospital can more accurately reflect that patient’s contdition. For example, if a hospital is treating a diabetic who comes in with a broken leg, the hospital could receive a lower payment rate if it does not properly identify and record both conditions.

And by using the tools prospectively, Burghard says, “I think there’s the opportunity to make a quantum leap from what we’re doing today. We usually just report on facts, and usually retrospectively. With some of the new technology that’s available, the healthcare industry can begin to do discovery analytics—you’re identifying insights, patterns, and relationships.”

Better integration of computerized physician order entry with data-mining ports, Dr. Godamunne predicts, will allow for much better attribution and finer parsing of the data. As the transparency increases, though, hospitalists will have to adapt to a new reality in which stronger analytical tools may point out individual outliers. And that level of detail, in turn, will require some hospitalists to justify why they’re different than their peers.

Even so, Roscoe says, he’s found that hospitalists are very open to using data to improve performance and that they make up a high percentage of CRIMSON users. “There isn’t a physician group that is in a better position to help drive this quality- and data-driven culture,” he says.

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer in Seattle.

Physician Performance Aids

Company: The Advisory Board Company

Sample product: CRIMSON Continuum of Care

Claim: “Places credible, severity-adjusted performance profiles directly in the hands of physicians, enabling the hospital-physician collaboration needed to advance quality goals and secure cost savings.”

Number of users: More than 850 hospitals

Real-time data? No, but available as add-on service

To learn more: www.advisory.com/Technology/Crimson-Continuum-of-Care

Company: Panacea Developments

Sample product: Iodine

Claim: “An easy-to-use mobile system that analyzes a hospital’s sea of data for knowledge that physicians, case managers, and documentation specialists can act upon to improve length-of-stay, readmissions, and documentation.”

Number of users: More than 50 hospitals

Real-time data? Yes

To learn more: www.panaceadevelopments.com/iodine

Company: Truven Health

Sample product: CareDiscovery

Claim: “Provides powerful insights into a hospital’s or health system’s quality measures and resource utilization to support improvement with objective, fact-based information.”

Real-time data? No

Number of users: More than 3,000 users in 400 hospitals

To learn more: http://truvenhealth.com/products/carediscovery

Company: Ingenious Med

Sample product: Imagine

Claim: “A comprehensive analytics dashboard platform that provides actionable decision making data to optimize physician performance and revenue.”

Real-time data? Yes

Number of users: 25,000 total users (not separated by individual products)

To learn more: http://ingeniousmed.com/what-we-do/imagine

Reference

1. Yoo I, Alafaireet P, Marinov M, et al. Data mining in healthcare and biomedicine: a survey of the literature. J Med Syst. 2012;36:2431-2448.

The latest anniversary of my birth is fast approaching; but fortunately, I have learned to celebrate these annual events rather than dread them. I now understand that life gets better as we get older, on all levels – except, perhaps, the physical.

But I have also found that birthdays are a good time to pause and consider the various financial arrangements that I’ve set up over the years and to determine whether any of them need updating.

Estate plans, in particular, need regular review and revision. Nothing important has changed in your life since you drafted your will, you say? Well, chances are the laws have changed; or, other factors may have rendered your plan obsolete without your even realizing it.

I am assuming, of course, that you have in fact drafted a will. If not, do it now. Things happen; if you die without one ("intestate," in lawyers’ lingo), your heirs will be at the mercy of attorneys, bureaucrats, state and federal laws, and greed. Quarrels will ensue; decisions will be made that are almost certainly at variance with what you would have wanted; and a substantial chunk of your estate, which could have gone to loved ones or to charity, will be lost to taxes and fees. If you don’t have a will, regardless of your age or current financial status, have one written at your earliest possible convenience.

That said, let’s consider some variables that mandate your constant vigilance:

• Laws change. Trust laws, in particular, have changed a great deal in recent years, and trust strategies have changed with them. New instruments like perpetual trusts, trust protectors, directed trusts, and total return trusts may or may not work to your advantage, but you won\'t know without asking. State laws change, too, all the time.

Once a year my wife and I meet with our estate lawyer to learn about any new legislation that may have affected our plan. Last year, I learned that my irrevocable trust is no longer irrevocable; new laws now permit certain provisions to be modified.

Laws that don’t directly regulate wills and trusts can affect them as well. For instance, the ever-popular Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) affects your estate as well as your practice; under its provisions, your family cannot access your medical information or make treatment and life-support decisions without your specific permission. So if a Health Care Power of Attorney is not already part of your will, add it. And remember to modify it if your medical status, or your philosophy of life, change.

• Financial markets change. It’s not exactly a secret that asset values and interest rates are way different than they were even a few years ago. Real estate or securities bequests could now be significantly larger, or smaller. Your accountant and estate lawyer should take a look at your assets periodically and their apportionment in your will, to be sure all arrangements remain as you intend. And be sure to notify them whenever the composition of your assets changes, even if the value doesn’t. Let’s say you sell a business or property and reinvest the proceeds in something completely different; that will change how you leave that asset to your heirs, because a different set of tax laws will apply.

• Fiduciaries change. The executor of your estate and the trustee(s) of your trust(s) need periodic review. If your brother-in-law is your executor, and your sister divorces him, you may want to find a new executor. A once-vigorous trustee who is now old or sick should be replaced. Trustees are often financial institutions; if one of your corporate trustees goes belly up, or the employee you were working with retires or changes firms, you’ll need a replacement. Keep track of your fiduciaries and be prepared to make changes as needed.

• Personal circumstances change. Some changes – marriage, divorce, the death of an heir, or the birth of a new one – obviously require modifications to wills and trusts. But any significant alteration of your personal or financial circumstances probably merits at least a phone call to your financial planners. The need for changes, and your options should changes be necessary, are not always obvious.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is a clinical associate professor of dermatology at Seton Hall University School of Graduate Medical Education in South Orange, N.J. Dr. Eastern is a two-time past-president of the Dermatological Society of New Jersey and currently serves on its executive board. He holds teaching positions at a number of hospitals and has delivered more than 500 academic speaking presentations. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters and is a long-time monthly columnist for Skin & Allergy News, a publication of IMNG Medical Media.

The latest anniversary of my birth is fast approaching; but fortunately, I have learned to celebrate these annual events rather than dread them. I now understand that life gets better as we get older, on all levels – except, perhaps, the physical.

But I have also found that birthdays are a good time to pause and consider the various financial arrangements that I’ve set up over the years and to determine whether any of them need updating.

Estate plans, in particular, need regular review and revision. Nothing important has changed in your life since you drafted your will, you say? Well, chances are the laws have changed; or, other factors may have rendered your plan obsolete without your even realizing it.

I am assuming, of course, that you have in fact drafted a will. If not, do it now. Things happen; if you die without one ("intestate," in lawyers’ lingo), your heirs will be at the mercy of attorneys, bureaucrats, state and federal laws, and greed. Quarrels will ensue; decisions will be made that are almost certainly at variance with what you would have wanted; and a substantial chunk of your estate, which could have gone to loved ones or to charity, will be lost to taxes and fees. If you don’t have a will, regardless of your age or current financial status, have one written at your earliest possible convenience.

That said, let’s consider some variables that mandate your constant vigilance:

• Laws change. Trust laws, in particular, have changed a great deal in recent years, and trust strategies have changed with them. New instruments like perpetual trusts, trust protectors, directed trusts, and total return trusts may or may not work to your advantage, but you won\'t know without asking. State laws change, too, all the time.

Once a year my wife and I meet with our estate lawyer to learn about any new legislation that may have affected our plan. Last year, I learned that my irrevocable trust is no longer irrevocable; new laws now permit certain provisions to be modified.

Laws that don’t directly regulate wills and trusts can affect them as well. For instance, the ever-popular Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) affects your estate as well as your practice; under its provisions, your family cannot access your medical information or make treatment and life-support decisions without your specific permission. So if a Health Care Power of Attorney is not already part of your will, add it. And remember to modify it if your medical status, or your philosophy of life, change.

• Financial markets change. It’s not exactly a secret that asset values and interest rates are way different than they were even a few years ago. Real estate or securities bequests could now be significantly larger, or smaller. Your accountant and estate lawyer should take a look at your assets periodically and their apportionment in your will, to be sure all arrangements remain as you intend. And be sure to notify them whenever the composition of your assets changes, even if the value doesn’t. Let’s say you sell a business or property and reinvest the proceeds in something completely different; that will change how you leave that asset to your heirs, because a different set of tax laws will apply.

• Fiduciaries change. The executor of your estate and the trustee(s) of your trust(s) need periodic review. If your brother-in-law is your executor, and your sister divorces him, you may want to find a new executor. A once-vigorous trustee who is now old or sick should be replaced. Trustees are often financial institutions; if one of your corporate trustees goes belly up, or the employee you were working with retires or changes firms, you’ll need a replacement. Keep track of your fiduciaries and be prepared to make changes as needed.

• Personal circumstances change. Some changes – marriage, divorce, the death of an heir, or the birth of a new one – obviously require modifications to wills and trusts. But any significant alteration of your personal or financial circumstances probably merits at least a phone call to your financial planners. The need for changes, and your options should changes be necessary, are not always obvious.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is a clinical associate professor of dermatology at Seton Hall University School of Graduate Medical Education in South Orange, N.J. Dr. Eastern is a two-time past-president of the Dermatological Society of New Jersey and currently serves on its executive board. He holds teaching positions at a number of hospitals and has delivered more than 500 academic speaking presentations. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters and is a long-time monthly columnist for Skin & Allergy News, a publication of IMNG Medical Media.

The latest anniversary of my birth is fast approaching; but fortunately, I have learned to celebrate these annual events rather than dread them. I now understand that life gets better as we get older, on all levels – except, perhaps, the physical.

But I have also found that birthdays are a good time to pause and consider the various financial arrangements that I’ve set up over the years and to determine whether any of them need updating.

Estate plans, in particular, need regular review and revision. Nothing important has changed in your life since you drafted your will, you say? Well, chances are the laws have changed; or, other factors may have rendered your plan obsolete without your even realizing it.

I am assuming, of course, that you have in fact drafted a will. If not, do it now. Things happen; if you die without one ("intestate," in lawyers’ lingo), your heirs will be at the mercy of attorneys, bureaucrats, state and federal laws, and greed. Quarrels will ensue; decisions will be made that are almost certainly at variance with what you would have wanted; and a substantial chunk of your estate, which could have gone to loved ones or to charity, will be lost to taxes and fees. If you don’t have a will, regardless of your age or current financial status, have one written at your earliest possible convenience.

That said, let’s consider some variables that mandate your constant vigilance:

• Laws change. Trust laws, in particular, have changed a great deal in recent years, and trust strategies have changed with them. New instruments like perpetual trusts, trust protectors, directed trusts, and total return trusts may or may not work to your advantage, but you won\'t know without asking. State laws change, too, all the time.

Once a year my wife and I meet with our estate lawyer to learn about any new legislation that may have affected our plan. Last year, I learned that my irrevocable trust is no longer irrevocable; new laws now permit certain provisions to be modified.

Laws that don’t directly regulate wills and trusts can affect them as well. For instance, the ever-popular Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) affects your estate as well as your practice; under its provisions, your family cannot access your medical information or make treatment and life-support decisions without your specific permission. So if a Health Care Power of Attorney is not already part of your will, add it. And remember to modify it if your medical status, or your philosophy of life, change.

• Financial markets change. It’s not exactly a secret that asset values and interest rates are way different than they were even a few years ago. Real estate or securities bequests could now be significantly larger, or smaller. Your accountant and estate lawyer should take a look at your assets periodically and their apportionment in your will, to be sure all arrangements remain as you intend. And be sure to notify them whenever the composition of your assets changes, even if the value doesn’t. Let’s say you sell a business or property and reinvest the proceeds in something completely different; that will change how you leave that asset to your heirs, because a different set of tax laws will apply.

• Fiduciaries change. The executor of your estate and the trustee(s) of your trust(s) need periodic review. If your brother-in-law is your executor, and your sister divorces him, you may want to find a new executor. A once-vigorous trustee who is now old or sick should be replaced. Trustees are often financial institutions; if one of your corporate trustees goes belly up, or the employee you were working with retires or changes firms, you’ll need a replacement. Keep track of your fiduciaries and be prepared to make changes as needed.

• Personal circumstances change. Some changes – marriage, divorce, the death of an heir, or the birth of a new one – obviously require modifications to wills and trusts. But any significant alteration of your personal or financial circumstances probably merits at least a phone call to your financial planners. The need for changes, and your options should changes be necessary, are not always obvious.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is a clinical associate professor of dermatology at Seton Hall University School of Graduate Medical Education in South Orange, N.J. Dr. Eastern is a two-time past-president of the Dermatological Society of New Jersey and currently serves on its executive board. He holds teaching positions at a number of hospitals and has delivered more than 500 academic speaking presentations. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters and is a long-time monthly columnist for Skin & Allergy News, a publication of IMNG Medical Media.