Evaluación de las periciales extrajudiciales en Cataluña (España) en 2016-2017 / Evaluation of extrajudicial expert advice in Catalonia (Spain) in 2016-2017

INTRODUCCIÓN: Desde la entrada en vigor de la Ley 35/2015, los Institutos de Medicina Legal y Ciencias Forenses realizan periciales extrajudiciales a petición de particulares para la resolución de las reclamaciones por accidentes de circulación. El objetivo es analizar los aspectos médico-legales más relevantes de estas periciales. MATERIAL Y MÉTODO: Se trata de un estudio descriptivo retrospectivo de las periciales extrajudiciales en las divisiones de Barcelona y l'Hospitalet y Tarragona del Instituto de Medicina Legal y Ciencias Forenses de Cataluña durante los años 2016-2017. Los datos se obtuvieron de los registros de periciales extrajudiciales de ambas divisiones. RESULTADOS: Se realizaron 547 informes médico-forenses. Los accidentes fueron mayoritariamente causados por colisión por alcance entre turismos en trayectos urbanos. Las lesiones fueron en su mayoría de carácter leve, siendo la afectación cervical la más frecuente. En un alto porcentaje, se resolvió con tratamiento conservador en una media de 69 días, asociándose la aparición de secuelas leves en casi la mitad de los casos. El perjuicio estético se informó en el 14%. No hubo diferencias entre ambas divisiones. CONCLUSIÓN: Las periciales extrajudiciales resultan una fuente de información valiosa para la valoración de los perjuicios causados a las víctimas de accidentes de circulación. Como en otros estudios, la mayoría de lesiones son de carácter leve y se asocian a colisiones entre turismos, causando secuelas en la mitad de los casos. Parece que la vía extrajudicial es eficaz en las reclamaciones por accidentes de circulación, pero son necesarios más estudios para obtener una visión más completa

INTRODUCTION: Since the application of Law 35/2015, the Legal and Forensic Medicine Institutes provide extrajudicial expert advice at the request of individuals for the resolution of traffic accident claims. The objective is to analyze the most relevant medical-legal aspects of this expert advice. MATERIAL AND METHOD: This is a retrospective descriptive study of the extrajudicial expert advice in the divisions of Barcelona and l'Hospitalet, and Tarragona of the Catalonian Legal and Forensic Medicine Institute from 2016-2017. The data was obtained from the extrajudicial expert records of both divisions. RESULTS: 547 medical-forensic reports were made. The accidents were mainly caused by a rear collision between cars on urban routes. The injuries were mostly minor, with cervical involvement being the most frequent. A high percentage were resolved with conservative treatment in an average of 69 days, there were mild sequelae in almost half of the cases. Aesthetic damage was reported in 14%. There were no differences between the two divisions. CONCLUSION: Extrajudicial expert advice is a valuable source of information for assessing the damage caused to traffic accident victims. As in other studies, most injuries are mild and are associated with collisions between cars, causing sequelae in half of the cases. It seems that the extrajudicial route is effective in helping resolve traffic accident claims, but more studies are needed to obtain a more complete vision

Out in the Cold: Health Plan Blamed For Major Prompt-Pay Mess.

Molina Healthcare of Texas isn't the only insurer to give physicians prompt-pay problems, and it won't be the last. Some of the practices trying to recover payments blame not just the health plan, but also the extended response time from the state regulator overseeing insurance products and conduct: the Texas Department of Insurance, which says it's hiring staff and making other changes to improve that response.

A Farewell to Falsity: Shifting Standards in Medicare Fraud Enforcement.

For the better part of a decade, Americans have had a front-row seat to a fervent and turbulent debate over the future of their health care system. The passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), the most comprehensive health reform effort since the mid-1960s, ushered in a new era in health law and policy, granting millions of Americans access to health care. After multiple legal challenges and congressional efforts that ultimately failed to slay the law, the ACA had become entrenched by the end of the Obama administration, even though pieces of the law had failed to work exactly as planned. Now, with the surprising election of President Donald Trump, reenergized Republicans are targeting the law once more, and it suddenly appears more vulnerable than ever. Dynamic uncertainty again permeates the national debate. Although most powerful protections of the ACA may evaporate--no small event, to be sure--the value-based era which it unleashed seems here to stay. Indeed, this era--focused on efficiency, standardization, and quality within American medicine--has just begun to bear fruit. Illustrated prominently by recent changes to Medicare that alter how the program pays its doctors for services they provide to its beneficiaries, America is moving away from the old strictures of fee-for-service medicine. At the same time, traditional legal tools, and particularly the federal government's most prominent anti-fraud tool, the civil federal False Claims Act (FCA), seem to be facing new limits. This has been recently evident in medical necessity-based fraud cases, and particularly highly publicized fights that have targeted the burgeoning industry of hospice care. This Article tracks this development, ultimately arguing that the move to "reimbursement-based regulation" may be a positive step in finally reining in the worst excesses of American health care. But it also cautions against the deceptive simplicity of allowing medical heterogeneity and clinical complexity to prevent application of America's most powerful anti-fraud tools to its medical industry. Just because reimbursement policy has shifted to shoulder some of the regulatory burden of overtreatment does not mean that health care fraud--like fee-for-service medicine--should be confined to the past. In the end--and regardless of whatever legislation the national debate surrounding American health care produces--American medicine must adequately address its susceptibility to overtreatment, its incentives toward financial excess and waste, and its inability to push providers and entities into adopting more efficient practices. Medicare is finally moving quickly to bring about effective changes, and the program is seeking clarity in the midst of a period of tremendous uncertainty for American health care.

Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2019 Rates; Quality Reporting Requirements for Specific Providers; Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs (Promoting Interoperability Programs) Requirements for Eligible Hospitals, Critical Access Hospitals, and Eligible Professionals; Medicare Cost Reporting Requirements; and Physician Certification and Recertification of Claims. Final rule.

We are revising the Medicare hospital inpatient prospective payment systems (IPPS) for operating and capital-related costs of acute care hospitals to implement changes arising from our continuing experience with these systems for FY 2019. Some of these changes implement certain statutory provisions contained in the 21st Century Cures Act and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, and other legislation. We also are making changes relating to Medicare graduate medical education (GME) affiliation agreements for new urban teaching hospitals. In addition, we are providing the market basket update that will apply to the rate-of-increase limits for certain hospitals excluded from the IPPS that are paid on a reasonable cost basis, subject to these limits for FY 2019. We are updating the payment policies and the annual payment rates for the Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) for inpatient hospital services provided by long-term care hospitals (LTCHs) for FY 2019. In addition, we are establishing new requirements or revising existing requirements for quality reporting by specific Medicare providers (acute care hospitals, PPS-exempt cancer hospitals, and LTCHs). We also are establishing new requirements or revising existing requirements for eligible professionals (EPs), eligible hospitals, and critical access hospitals (CAHs) participating in the Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs (now referred to as the Promoting Interoperability Programs). In addition, we are finalizing modifications to the requirements that apply to States operating Medicaid Promoting Interoperability Programs. We are updating policies for the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program, the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, and the Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program. We also are making changes relating to the required supporting documentation for an acceptable Medicare cost report submission and the supporting information for physician certification and recertification of claims.

Medical research using governments' health claims databases: with or without patients' consent?

Taking advantage of its single-payer, universal insurance system, Taiwan has leveraged its exhaustive database of health claims data for research purposes. Researchers can apply to receive access to pseudonymized (coded) medical data about insured patients, notably their diagnoses, health status and treatments. In view of the strict safeguards implemented, the Taiwanese government considers that this research use does not require patients' consent (either in the form of an opt-in or in the form of an opt-out). A group of non-governmental organizations has challenged this view in the Taiwanese Courts, but to no avail. The present article reviews the arguments both against and in favor of patients' consent for re-use of their data in research. It concludes that offering patients an opt-out would be appropriate as it would best balance the important interests at issue.

Extension of Expiration Dates for Four Body System Listings. Final rule.

We are extending the expiration dates of the following body systems in the Listing of Impairments (listings) in our regulations: Musculoskeletal System, Cardiovascular System, Digestive System, and Skin Disorders. We are making no other revisions to these body systems in this final rule. This extension ensures that we will continue to have the criteria we need to evaluate impairments in the affected body systems at step three of the sequential evaluation processes for initial claims and continuing disability reviews.

Claims Procedure for Plans Providing Disability Benefits; 90-Day Delay of Applicability Date. Final rule; delay of applicability date.

This document delays for ninety (90) days--through April 1, 2018--the applicability of a final rule amending the claims procedure requirements applicable to ERISA-covered employee benefit plans that provide disability benefits (Final Rule). The Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on December 19, 2016, became effective on January 18, 2017, and was scheduled to become applicable on January 1, 2018. The delay announced in this document is necessary to enable the Department of Labor to carefully consider comments and data as part of its effort, pursuant to Executive Order 13777, to examine regulatory alternatives that meet its objectives of ensuring the full and fair review of disability benefit claims while not imposing unnecessary costs and adverse consequences.

Off-label prescriptions and decisions on reimbursement requests in Germany - a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: "Off-label use" is defined as the prescription of pharmaceutical products outside their approved indications. Rare diseases frequently lack "on-label" treatment options. In order to avoid reimbursement claims following the prescription of off-label drugs, physicians in Germany can - on a case-by-case basis - file an application for cost coverage with the competent health insurance prior to treatment initiation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a chart review for cost coverage requests submitted by two outpatient clinics at a university-affiliated dermatology department between 2010 and 2012 (clinic for autoimmune diseases and urticaria clinic). Insurance providers, acceptance rates, reasons for rejection, and processing times were analyzed. RESULTS: The analysis showed that 56.8 % of applications for off-label use (n = 44) were approved during the first round. The rate increased to 75.0 % when including approvals granted after up to two rejections. The time between initial application and the response of health insurers was 49 days (median). In case of cost coverage approval, treatments were initiated 92 days (median) after the initial request. CONCLUSIONS: The present case series shows that, in the majority of cases, health insurers in Germany have agreed to reimburse the costs of proposed off-label therapies. A prospective study is required in order to evaluate whether current changes to legal regulations (GKV-Versorgungsstrukturgesetz, Patientenrechtegesetz) adequately address the problems identified.

Schedule for Rating Disabilities; Dental and Oral Conditions. Final rule.

This document amends the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Schedule for Rating Disabilities by revising the portion of the schedule that addresses dental and oral conditions. The effect of this action is to ensure that the rating schedule uses current medical terminology and to provide detailed and updated criteria for evaluation of dental and oral conditions for disability rating purposes.

NHSLA litigation in hip fractures: Lessons learnt from NHSLA data.

Hip fractures are a major cause of trauma related death, usually occurring in vulnerable elderly patients. There are an estimated 70,000 hip fractures in the UK per year with numbers set to rise. The estimated annual cost to the healthcare economy is in the region of £2 billion. A 17-year review examining litigation related to hip fractures was undertaken. Under a freedom of information request, data was obtained relating to all orthopaedic claims made to the NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA) between 1995 and 2012. Data was filtered to identify cases involving hip fractures examining litigation trends related to this specific area. 10263 NHSLA orthopaedic cases were identified, of which 13.3% (n=1364) cases related to the hip and femur. Hip fractures made up 16.7% (n=229). The total cost of hip fracture litigation was over £7 million with an average cost per case of £32,700. The commonest reasons for litigation were diagnostic errors (30.6%), issues with care (24.9%) alleged incompetent surgery (15.7%) and development of pressure sores (5.7%). This study highlights the main causes of litigation in patients sustaining hip fractures, with diagnosis in the emergency department and ward presenting a significant problem. In addition, the data identifies a range of care related issues, as well as several surgical factors and highlights the importance of pressure area care. We discuss these and make suggestions on how to improve practice in this area with the aim of improving patient care and reducing litigation.

Hospitalizations With Observation Services and the Medicare Part A Complex Appeals Process at Three Academic Medical Centers.

Hospitalists and other providers must classify hospitalized patients as inpatient or outpatient, the latter of which includes all observation stays. These orders direct hospital billing and payment, as well as patient out-of-pocket expenses. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) audits hospital billing for Medicare beneficiaries, historically through the Recovery Audit program. A recent U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report identified problems in the hospital appeals process of Recovery Audit program audits to which CMS proposed reforms. In the context of the GAO report and CMS's proposed improvements, we conducted a study to describe the time course and process of complex Medicare Part A audits and appeals reaching Level 3 of the 5-level appeals process as of May 1, 2016 at 3 academic medical centers. Of 219 appeals reaching Level 3, 135 had a decision--96 (71.1%) successful for the hospitals. Mean total time since date of service was 1663.3 days, which includes mean days between date of service and audit (560.4) and total days in appeals (891.3). Government contractors were responsible for 70.7% of total appeals time. Overall, government contractors and judges met legislative timeliness deadlines less than half the time (47.7%), with declining compliance at successive levels (discussion, 92.5%; Level 1, 85.4%; Level 2, 38.8%; Level 3, 0%). Most Level 1 and Level 2 decision letters (95.2%) cited time-based (24-hour) criteria for determining inpatient status, despite 70.3% of denied appeals meeting the 24-hour benchmark. These findings suggest that the Medicare appeals system merits process improvement beyond current proposed reforms. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2017;12:251-255.

A Contemporary Medicolegal Analysis of Implanted Devices for Chronic Pain Management.

BACKGROUND: Analysis of closed malpractice claims allows the study of rare but serious complications and likely results in improved patient safety by raising awareness of such complications. Clinical studies and closed claims analyses have previously reported on the common complications associated with intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDS) and spinal cord stimulators (SCS). This study provides a contemporary analysis of claims from within the past 10 years. METHODS: We performed a closed claims analysis for a period January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2013 for cases with pain medicine as the primary service. These cases were identified using the Controlled Risk Insurance Company (CRICO) Comparative Benchmarking System (CBS), a database containing more than 300,000 malpractice claims from more than 400 academic and community institutions, representing approximately 30% of malpractice cases in the United States. The clinical narratives, which included medical files, claims files, depositions, and expert witness testimony, were reviewed by the authors, as were the CRICO coded variables, which included algorithmically determined contributing factors to the patient injury. RESULTS: Intrathecal drug delivery systems represented 17 of the closed claims; spinal cord stimulators represented 11 of the closed claims. The most common chronic pain diagnoses for which a device was implanted included failed back surgery syndrome and spasticity. The average total incurred for pain medicine claims was $166,028. Damaging events included IDDS refill errors (eg, subcutaneous administration of medication, reprogramming errors), intraoperative nerve damage, and postoperative infection (eg, epidural abscess, meningitis). High-severity outcomes included nerve damage (eg, paraplegia) and death. Medium-severity outcomes included drug reactions (eg, respiratory arrest from opioid overdose) and the need for reoperation. For both IDDS and SCS, deficits in technical skill were the most common contributing factor to injury, followed by deficits in clinical judgment, communication, and documentation. CONCLUSIONS: Implanted devices used for pain management involve a significant risk of morbidity and mortality. Proper education of providers and patients is essential. Providers must acquire the technical skills required for the implantation and refilling of these devices and the clinical skills required for the identification and management of complications such as intrathecal granuloma. Proper patient selection and clear communication between the provider and the patient about these possible complications are of paramount importance.

Risk factors for injuries associated with damage claims following groin hernia repair.

PURPOSE: Surgical repair of groin hernia should be carried out with minimal complication rates, and it is important to have regular quality control and accurate means of assessment. The Swedish healthcare system has a mutual insurance company (LÖF) that receives claims from patients who have suffered healthcare-related damage or malpractice. The Swedish Hernia Register (SHR) currently covers around 98% of all Swedish groin hernia operations. The aim of this study was to analyse damage claims following groin hernia repair surgery and link these with entries in the SHR, in order to identify risk factors and causes of injuries and malpractice associated with hernia repair. METHODS: Data on all 48,574 groin hernia operations registered in the SHR between 2008 and 2010 were compared and linked with data on claims made to the Swedish National Patient Injury Insurance (LÖF). RESULTS: Of the 130 damage claims received by LÖF, 26 dealt with bleeding, 20 with testicular injury and 7 with intestinal lesions. Eighty (62%) of the complications were considered malpractice according to the Swedish Patient Injury Act. Acute and recurrent surgery, sutured repair and general anaesthesia were associated with a significantly increased risk for a damage claim independently the patients were compensated or not. Females filed claims in greater proportion than males. There was no significant difference in background factors between claims accepted by LÖF and compensated and those who were rejected compensation. CONCLUSION: Risk factors for filing a damage claim included acute surgery, operation for recurrence, sutured repair and general anaesthesia, whereas local anaesthesia reduced the risk.

Obstetric Anesthesia Liability Concerns.

Obstetric practice carries a high risk of medical liability and involves both obstetricians and anesthesiologists. Analysis of data from the Anesthesia Closed Claims Project database shows an increase in the proportion of anesthesia claims for maternal death and brain damage between the 1990s and 2000 and later, primarily due to hemorrhage. The proportion of claims for newborn brain damage remained unchanged while those for maternal nerve injury and minor injuries decreased. Use of massive transfusion protocols and clinical drills have been shown to improve outcomes from hemorrhage. Good communication and teamwork are critical for reducing obstetric liability.

Medicare Program: Changes to the Medicare Claims and Entitlement, Medicare Advantage Organization Determination, and Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage Determination Appeals Procedures. Final rule.

This final rule revises the procedures that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) follows at the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) level for appeals of payment and coverage determinations for items and services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries, enrollees in Medicare Advantage (MA) and other Medicare competitive health plans, and enrollees in Medicare prescription drug plans, as well as appeals of Medicare beneficiary enrollment and entitlement determinations, and certain Medicare premium appeals. In addition, this final rule revises procedures that the Department of Health and Human Services follows at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Medicare Appeals Council (Council) levels of appeal for certain matters affecting the ALJ level.

Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence. Final rules.

We are revising our medical evidence rules. The revisions include redefining several key terms related to evidence, revising our rules about acceptable medical sources (AMS), revising how we consider and articulate our consideration of medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings, revising our rules about medical consultants (MC) and psychological consultants (PC), revising our rules about treating sources, and reorganizing our evidence regulations for ease of use. These revisions conform our rules to the requirements of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA), reflect changes in the national healthcare workforce and in the manner that individuals receive medical care, and emphasize the need for objective medical evidence in disability and blindness claims. We expect that these changes will simplify our rules to make them easier to understand and apply, and allow us to continue to make accurate and consistent disability determinations and decisions.

Recognition of Tribal Organizations for Representation of VA Claimants. Final rule.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending its regulations concerning recognition of certain national, State, and regional or local organizations for purposes of VA claims representation. Specifically, this rulemaking allows the Secretary to recognize tribal organizations in a similar manner as the Secretary recognizes State organizations. The final rule allows a tribal organization that is established and funded by one or more tribal governments to be recognized for the purpose of providing assistance on VA benefit claims. In addition, the final rule allows an employee of a tribal government to become accredited through a recognized State organization in a similar manner as a County Veterans' Service Officer (CVSO) may become accredited through a recognized State organization. The effect of this action is to address the needs of Native American populations who are geographically isolated from existing recognized Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs) or who may not be utilizing other recognized VSOs due to cultural barriers or lack of familiarity with those organizations.

Neonatal hypoglycaemia: learning from claims.

OBJECTIVES: Neonatal hypoglycaemia is a potential cause of neonatal morbidity, and on rare but tragic occasions causes long-term neurodevelopmental harm with consequent emotional and practical costs for the family. The organisational cost to the NHS includes the cost of successful litigation claims. The purpose of the review was to identify themes that could alert clinicians to common pitfalls and thus improve patient safety. DESIGN: The NHS Litigation Authority (NHS LA) Claims Management System was reviewed to identify and review 30 claims for injury secondary to neonatal hypoglycaemia, which were notified to the NHS LA between 2002 and 2011. SETTING: NHS LA. PATIENTS: Anonymised documentation relating to 30 neonates for whom claims were made relating to neonatal hypoglycaemia. Dates of birth were between 1995 and 2010. INTERVENTIONS: Review of documentation held on the NHS LA database. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Identifiable risk factors for hypoglycaemia, presenting clinical signs, possible deficits in care, financial costs of litigation. RESULTS: All claims related to babies of at least 36 weeks' gestation. The most common risk factor for hypoglycaemia was low birth weight or borderline low birth weight, and the most common reported presenting sign was abnormal feeding behaviour. A number of likely deficits in care were reported, all of which were avoidable. In this 10-year reporting period, there were 25 claims for which damages were paid, with a total financial cost of claims to the NHS of £162 166 677. CONCLUSIONS: Acknowledging that these are likely to be the most rare but most seriously affected cases, the clinical themes arising from these cases should be used for further development of training and guidance to reduce harm and redivert NHS funds from litigation to direct care.