Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Incidence of Endocarditis Before and After the 2007 AHA Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The American Heart Association updated its recommendations for antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) to prevent infective endocarditis (IE) in 2007, advising that AP cease for those at moderate risk of IE, but continue for those at high risk. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to quantify any change in AP prescribing and IE incidence. METHODS: High-risk, moderate-risk, and unknown/low-risk individuals with linked prescription and Medicare or commercial health care data were identified in the Truven Health MarketScan databases from May 2003 through August 2015 (198,522,665 enrollee-years of data). AP prescribing and IE incidence were evaluated by Poisson model analysis. RESULTS: By August 2015, the 2007 recommendation change was associated with a significant 64% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 59% to 68%) estimated fall in AP prescribing for moderate-risk individuals and a 20% (95% CI: 4% to 32%) estimated fall for those at high risk. Over the same period, there was a barely significant 75% (95% CI: 3% to 200%) estimated increase in IE incidence among moderate-risk individuals and a significant 177% estimated increase (95% CI: 66% to 361%) among those at high risk. In unknown/low-risk individuals, there was a significant 52% (95% CI: 46% to 58%) estimated fall in AP prescribing, but no significant increase in IE incidence. CONCLUSIONS: AP prescribing fell among all IE risk groups, particularly those at moderate risk. Concurrently, there was a significant increase in IE incidence among high-risk individuals, a borderline significant increase in moderate-risk individuals, and no change for those at low/unknown risk. Although these data do not establish a cause-effect relationship between AP reduction and IE increase, the fall in AP prescribing in those at high risk is of concern and, coupled with the borderline increase in IE incidence among those at moderate risk, warrants further investigation.

Downstream Breast Imaging Following Screening Mammography in Medicare Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Population-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: Screening tests are generally not recommended in patients with advanced cancer and limited life expectancy. Nonetheless, screening mammography still occurs and may lead to follow-up testing. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the frequency of downstream breast imaging following screening mammography in patients with advanced colorectal or lung cancer. DESIGN: Population-based study. PARTICIPANTS: The study included continuously enrolled female fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 years of age with advanced colorectal (stage IV) or lung (stage IIIB-IV) cancer reported to a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry between 2000 and 2011. MAIN MEASURES: We assessed the utilization of diagnostic mammography, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI following screening mammography. Logistic regression models were used to explore independent predictors of utilization of downstream tests while controlling for cancer type and patient sociodemographic and regional characteristics. KEY RESULTS: Among 34,127 women with advanced cancer (23% colorectal; 77% lung cancer; mean age at diagnosis 75 years), 9% (n = 3159) underwent a total of 5750 screening mammograms. Of these, 11% (n = 639) resulted in at least one subsequent diagnostic breast imaging examination within 9 months. Diagnostic mammography was most common (9%; n = 532), followed by ultrasound (6%; n = 334) and MRI (0.2%; n = 14). Diagnostic mammography rates were higher in whites than African Americans (OR, 1.6; p <0.05). Higher ultrasound utilization was associated with more favorable economic status (OR, 1.8; p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Among women with advanced colorectal and lung cancer, 9% continued screening mammography, and 11% of these screening studies led to at least one additional downstream test, resulting in costs with little likelihood of meaningful benefit.

The National Children's Study: Recruitment Outcomes Using the Provider-Based Recruitment Approach.

OBJECTIVE: In 2009, the National Children's Study (NCS) Vanguard Study tested the feasibility of household-based recruitment and participant enrollment using a birth-rate probability sample. In 2010, the NCS Program Office launched 3 additional recruitment approaches. We tested whether provider-based recruitment could improve recruitment outcomes compared with household-based recruitment. METHODS: The NCS aimed to recruit 18- to 49-year-old women who were pregnant or at risk for becoming pregnant who lived in designated geographic segments within primary sampling units, generally counties. Using provider-based recruitment, 10 study centers engaged providers to enroll eligible participants at their practice. Recruitment models used different levels of provider engagement (full, intermediate, information-only). RESULTS: The percentage of eligible women per county ranged from 1.5% to 57.3%. Across the centers, 3371 potential participants were approached for screening, 3459 (92%) were screened and 1479 were eligible (43%). Of those 1181 (80.0%) gave consent and 1008 (94%) were retained until delivery. Recruited participants were generally representative of the county population. CONCLUSIONS: Provider-based recruitment was successful in recruiting NCS participants. Challenges included time-intensity of engaging the clinical practices, differential willingness of providers to participate, and necessary reliance on providers for participant identification. The vast majority of practices cooperated to some degree. Recruitment from obstetric practices is an effective means of obtaining a representative sample.

Current procedural terminology; a primer.

In 1966, The American Medical Association (AMA) working with multiple major medical specialty societies developed an iterative coding system for describing medical procedures and services using uniform language, the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) system. The current code set, CPT IV, forms the basis of reporting most of the services performed by healthcare providers, physicians and non-physicians as well as facilities allowing effective, reliable communication among physician and other providers, third parties and patients. This coding system and its maintenance has evolved significantly since its inception, and now goes well beyond its readily perceived role in reimbursement. Additional roles include administrative management, tracking new and investigational procedures, and evolving aspects of 'pay for performance'. The system also allows for local, regional and national utilization comparisons for medical education and research. Neurointerventional specialists use CPT category I codes regularly--for example, 36,215 for first-order cerebrovascular angiography, 36,216 for second-order vessels, and 37,184 for acute stroke treatment by mechanical means. Additionally, physicians add relevant modifiers to the CPT codes, such as '-26' to indicate 'professional charge only,' or '-59' to indicate a distinct procedural service performed on the same day.

Contraception for adolescents.

Contraception is a pillar in reducing adolescent pregnancy rates. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that pediatricians develop a working knowledge of contraception to help adolescents reduce risks of and negative health consequences related to unintended pregnancy. Over the past 10 years, a number of new contraceptive methods have become available to adolescents, newer guidance has been issued on existing contraceptive methods, and the evidence base for contraception for special populations (adolescents who have disabilities, are obese, are recipients of solid organ transplants, or are HIV infected) has expanded. The Academy has addressed contraception since 1980, and this policy statement updates the 2007 statement on contraception and adolescents. It provides the pediatrician with a description and rationale for best practices in counseling and prescribing contraception for adolescents. It is supported by an accompanying technical report.

Ready or not! Here comes ICD-10.

The International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10) is a new system that is a federally mandated change affecting all payers and providers, and is expected to exceed both the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and Y2K in terms of costs and risks. In 2003, HIPAA named ICD-9 as the code set for supporting diagnoses and procedures in electronic administrative transactions. However, on 16 January 2009, the Department of Health and Human Services published a regulation requiring the replacement of ICD-9 with ICD-10 as of 1 October 2013. While ICD-9 and ICD-10 have a similar type of hierarchy in their structures, ICD-10 is more complex and incorporates numerous changes. Overall, ICD-10 contains more than 141 000 codes, a whopping 712% increase over the <20 000 codes in ICD-9, creating enormous complexities, confusion and expense. Published statistics illustrate that there are instances where a single ICD-9 code can map to more than 50 distinct ICD-10 codes. Also, there are multiple instances where a single ICD-10 code can map to more than one ICD-9 code. Proponents of the new ICD-10 system argue that the granularity should lead to improvements in the quality of healthcare whereas detractors of the system see the same granularity as burdensome. The estimated cost per physician is projected to range from $25 000 to $50 000.

Transparency in psychiatric care.

Transparency in medical care is emerging as a new standard. In the United States, patients have always been able to access to their chart in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), established in 1996. Such access, nevertheless, can be time consuming and burdensome. Among the many provisions afforded by HIPAA are the security and privacy of health data. Physicians are recently coming to realize the benefits enjoyed by patients and the healthcare system when the information in a patient's chart is made available in real-time. Psychiatrists often find the concept of revealing their progress notes, however, quite provocative and controversial. In these evolving times, it is important for psychiatrists to recognize the potential consequences and advantages of sharing their progress notes with patients. This review provides guidelines for psychiatrists to follow regarding proper documentation of progress notes and how to successfully share that information with patients.

Necessity and implications of ICD-10: facts and fallacies.

The International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10 is a new system that is expected to be implemented effective on October 1, 2013. This new system is a federally mandated change affecting all payers and providers, and is expected to exceed both the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and Y2K in terms of costs and risks. However, the Administration is poised to implement these changes at a rapid pace which could be problematic for health care in the United States. In 2003, HIPAA named ICD-9 as the code set for supporting diagnoses and procedures in electronic administrative transactions. However, on January 16, 2009, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a regulation requiring the replacement of ICD-9 with ICD-10 as of October 1, 2013. While ICD-9 and 10 have a similar type of hierarchy in their structures, the ICD-10 is more complex and incorporates numerous changes. Overall, ICD-10 contains over 141,000 codes, a whopping 712% increase over the less than 20,000 codes in ICD-9, creating enormous complexities, confusion, and expense. Multiple published statistics illustrate that there are approximately 119 instances where a single ICD-9 code can map to more than 100 distinct ICD-10 codes, whereas there are 255 instances where a single ICD-9 code can map to more than 50 ICD-10 codes. To add to the confusion, there are 3,684 instances in the mapping for diseases where a single ICD-10 code can map to more than one ICD-9 code. Proponents of the new ICD-10 system argue that the granularity should lead to improvements in the quality of health care, since more precise coding that more accurately reflects actual patient conditions will permit smarter and more effective disease management in pay-for-performance programs.  This, in essence, encapsulates the benefits that supporters of this new system believe will be realized, even though many of these experts may not be involved in actual day-to-day medical practices. Detractors of the system see the same granularity as burdensome.  The estimated cost per physician is projected to range from $25,000 to $50,000.  Further, they argue that the ICD-10 classification is extremely complicated, and expensive. Concerns exist that it is being implemented without establishing either the necessity or thinking through the unintended consequences. Opponents also argue that beyond financial expense, it is also costly in terms of human toll, hardware and software expenses and has the potential to delay reimbursement. There is also concern that an unintended consequence of granularity would be the potential for enhanced and unnecessary fraud and abuse investigations. The authors of this article favor postponing the implementation of the ICD-10 until such time as its necessity is proven and implications are understood.  

What a difference a year makes--for better and for worse.

These are times of turbulence and change at many levels-for the nation at large, within the health care delivery arena broadly, and for nephrology specifically. The factors outlined above have created a degree of complexity in developing solutions for these issues never seen before. We'll see how the next 12 months unfolds.

Obtaining medical records from healthcare facilities under the HIPAA Privacy Rule: the experience of a national longitudinal cohort study.

The processes for acquiring medical records from healthcare facilities in longitudinal cohort studies have not been well examined post-HIPAA Privacy Rule. We examined the response rates, correlates of response rates, and response times for obtaining patient medical records from healthcare facilities under the HIPAA Privacy Rule. Medical records were requested from facilities across the country on adults 45 or older enrolled in the national longitudinal cohort study REGARDS (Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke) who reported physician encounters for potential stroke events. From October 2003 to October 2006, 1,439 medical records were received out of 1,518 reported eligible events (94.7%), with 39 (2.6%) requests pending at the time of the analysis. The refusal rate for record requests from healthcare facilities was only 0.4%. The median length of time to receipt of a record was 26 days (range 1-679 days). Hospitals had the fastest return time (22 days from date of request to date of receipt) compared with outpatient clinics (28 days), doctor's offices (31 days), and long-term care facilities (55 days, p < 0.01). Healthcare facilities located in the Southern region had fastest return time compared with those in the Northwestern region (23 vs. 46 days, p = 0.048). Medical records retrieval in prospective research studies is still feasible under HIPAA regulation.

HIPAA: past, present and future implications for nurses.

Congress enacted Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in 1996 to limit the ability of an employer to deny health insurance coverage to employees with preexisting medical conditions. The law also directed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to develop privacy rules, including, but not limited to, the use of electronic medical records. This law has increased patient privacy, but in doing so has added to the financial burden, including personnel costs in health care. Nurses stand at the forefront in the resolution of the dilemma of patient privacy versus health care expediency. The purpose of this article is to assist nurses and other health care professionals to better understand their responsibilities regarding HIPAA regulations. First, responses to HIPAA regulations by covered entities to date, along with responses which are still needed, will be described. It will be noted that HIPAA is a work in progress and not a specific act. Next, future initiatives having HIPAA implications will be presented. In conclusion, the need for all covered entities and their personnel to look broadly at HIPAA as initiating a new way of work in health care will be emphasized.