Association Between 2010 Medicare Reform and Inpatient Rehabilitation Access in People With Intracerebral Hemorrhage.

Background Evidence suggests intracerebral hemorrhage survivors have earlier recovery compared with ischemic stroke survivors. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services prospective payment system instituted documentation rules for inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) in 2010, with the goal of optimizing patient selection. We investigated whether these requirements limited IRF and increased skilled nursing facility (SNF) use compared with home discharge. Methods and Results Intracerebral hemorrhage discharges to IRF, SNF, or home were estimated using GWTG (Get With The Guidelines) Stroke registry data between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2015 (n=265 444). Binary hierarchical models determined associations between the 2010 Rule and discharge setting; subgroup analyses evaluated age, geographic region, and hospital type. From January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2009, 45.5% of patients with intracerebral hemorrhage had home discharge, 22.2% went to SNF, and 32.3% went to IRF. After January 1, 2010, there was a 1.06% absolute increase in home discharge, a 0.46% increase in SNF, and a 1.52% decline in IRF. The adjusted odds of IRF versus home discharge decreased 3% after 2010 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-1.00). Lower odds of IRF versus home discharge were observed in people aged <65 years (aOR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89-0.96), Western states (aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.95), and nonteaching hospitals (aOR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.95). Adjusted odds of SNF versus home discharge increased 14% after 2010 (aOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.11-1.18); there were significant associations in all age groups, the Northeast, the South, the Midwest, and teaching hospitals. Conclusions The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 2010 IRF prospective payment system Rule resulted in fewer discharges to IRF and more discharges to SNF in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage. Health policy changes potentially affect access to intensive postacute rehabilitation.

Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Surgeon Industry Compensation Reported by the Open Payments Database.

Background. The current study aims to characterize and explore trends in Open Payments Database (OPD) payments reported to orthopaedic foot and ankle (F&A) surgeons. OPD payments are classified as General, Ownership, or Research. Methods. General, Ownership, and Research payments to orthopaedic F&A surgeons were characterized by total payment sum and number of transactions. The total payment was compared by category. Payments per surgeon were also assessed. Median payments for all orthopaedic F&A surgeons and the top 5% compensated were calculated and compared across the years. Medians were compared through Mann-Whitney U tests. Results. Over the period, industry paid over $39 million through 29,442 transactions to 802 orthopaedic F&A surgeons. The majority of this payment was General (64%), followed by Ownership (34%) and Research (2%). The median annual payments per orthopaedic F&A surgeon were compared to the 2014 median ($616): 2015 ($505; P = .191), 2016 ($868; P = .088), and 2017 ($336; P = .084). Over these years, the annual number of compensated orthopaedic F&A surgeons increased from 490 to 556. Averaged over 4 years, 91% of the total orthopaedic F&A payment was made to the top 5% of orthopaedic F&A surgeons. The median payment for this group increased from $177 000 (2014) to $192 000 (2017; P = .012). Conclusion. Though median payments to the top 5% of orthopaedic F&A surgeons increased, there was no overall change in median payment over four years for all compensated orthopaedic F&A surgeons. These findings shed insight into the orthopaedic F&A surgeon-industry relationship.Levels of Evidence: III, Retrospective Study.

Running Out of Reasons: Low Payments, Hassles Leave Physicians Wondering: Why stay in Medicare?

Texas physicians who deal with Medicare's substandard payments and world-class administrative hassles are feeling underappreciated. The latest report from the committee that advises Congress on Medicare payment policy may exacerbate that feeling. In March, the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee (MedPAC) released its annual report assessing payments to physicians, among other sectors. MedPAC recommended no changes to the 2021 Medicare physician fee schedule, meaning no increase in physician payments.

Common patterns of corporate dermatology billing abuses in Medicare data sets.

Advances in technology have brought about significant changes in the way physicians' encounters are viewed. Patient charts once existed only in medical offices and hospital basements with medical billing done manually. Technologic changes have created new methods and expectations for oversight of the physician's practice. This contribution examines the effects of data transparency on dermatology. Medicare has also responded with new requirements for quality reporting. The ability to recreate clinical encounters from freely available and physician-identifiable claims data has led to lawsuits, investigations by news outlets, and distrust in the medical judgment of physicians. The release of data has also uncovered possible improper payments that have brought these practices out of the shadows. Medicare data over the past few years also show evidence of rapid corporatization and consolidation, which is changing the practice of dermatology.

"Absurd" Contract Dodge Rejected: Court Lets Cancer Center's Debt-Collection Suit Proceed.

Appeals court denies "free speech" challenge to cancer center's debt-collection suit.

The patient-driven payment model: addressing perverse incentives, creating new ones.

The Patient-Driven Payment Model addresses perverse incentives in Medicare's previous payment system for skilled nursing facilities, but it includes new incentives that may be problematic.

Bundled Payment Reform and Dialysis Facility Closures in ESKD.

BACKGROUND: In 2011, inclusion of injectable medications into an expanded ESKD payment bundle prompted concerns that dialysis facilities facing higher costs might close, disrupting care delivery and access to care. Whether this policy change influenced dialysis facility closures is unknown. METHODS: To examine whether facility closures increased after 2011 and whether factors influencing closures changed, we analyzed US Renal Data System registry data to identify all patients receiving in-center hemodialysis from 2006 through 2015 and to track dialysis facility closures. We used interrupted time series logistic regression models and estimated marginal effects to examine immediate and longer-term changes in the likelihood of being affected by facility closures following payment reform. We also examined whether associations between selected predictors of closures indicating populations at "high risk" of closure (patient characteristics, facility characteristics, and geography-related characteristics) and closures changed after payment reform. RESULTS: Dialysis facility closures were uncommon over the study period. In adjusted models, the relative odds of experiencing a closure declined by 37% (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.59 to 0.67) immediately after payment reform and declined by an additional 6% (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91 to 0.97) annually thereafter, corresponding to a 0.3% lower absolute probability of closure in 2015 in association with payment reform. Patients who were black and who dialyzed at small, hospital-based facilities experienced slight increases in closures following payment reform, whereas Hispanic and Medicare/Medicaid dual-eligible patients experienced slight decreases in closures. CONCLUSIONS: Expansion of the ESKD payment bundle was not associated with increased closure of dialysis facilities, although the likelihood of closures changed slightly for some higher-risk populations.

Right-sizing cardiac CT reimbursement through local and national efforts: A call to action for the imaging community.

The proposed 2020 CMS Physician Fee Schedule (MFPS) and Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) rules issued a reduction in the technical component (TC) payment that would decrease reimbursement for cardiac CT codes by nearly 29% compared to the 2018 final rule. Cardiac CT codes are currently allocated to ambulatory payment classification (APC) 5571, which is used for level I imaging tests with contrast. However, cardiac CT exams utilize more resources and are very different in clinical scope. Current CMS methodology markedly underestimates the actual cost of performing cardiac CT exams. The low reimbursement is a key factor in slowing the adoption of cardiac CT into clinical practice. Grassroot efforts are needed at all institutions who perform cardiac CT, and at local and national levels, to "right-size" reimbursement for cardiac CT exams. This article will provide an overview of various factors affecting cardiac CT reimbursements and advocacy effort.

Priority: Primary Care.

The Texas Medical Association and other corners of organized medicine know primary care is part of the bedrock of a sturdy health care system. So medicine - including the Texas Primary Care Consortium (TPCC), of which TMA is a member, and the Texas Academy of Family Physicians (TAFP) - is engaging policymakers to not only help the state's primary care system survive the pandemic, but also enable it to thrive for the long haul.

Physician-initiated payment reform: a new path toward value.

OBJECTIVES: In the move toward value-based payment, new payment models have largely been designed by payers and focused on the role of primary care providers. We examine a new phase of payment reform wherein providers, mostly specialists, are designing alternative payment models (APMs) for their own practices through a task force, called the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee, created by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015. Although it is a potentially notable shift in payment reform, little is known about the content of these proposals to date. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative systematic review of physician-focused payment model proposals submitted to CMS. METHODS: We analyzed the first wave of new payment models proposed. For each of the 24 proposals submitted by physicians and physician groups, we assessed the models on their 10 key dimensions and evaluated underlying themes across all or many of the models to gain insights into what providers are looking for in APMs within the constraints of the rules established by the HHS secretary. RESULTS: Key features of the models and our analysis include bearing financial risk, a reliance on case management, embrace of new technologies, and consideration of legal barriers. CONCLUSIONS: We discuss how specialists may help lead in the evolving payment landscape and recommend how these models might be improved. Payers and policy makers could benefit from our findings, which reflect how providers view financial risk in APMs and provide guidance on the types of payment reforms that they may embrace in the journey toward value.

Does One Size Fit All With the Effects of Payment Reform? Dialysis Facility Payer Mix and Anemia Management Under the Expanded Medicare Prospective Payment System.

BACKGROUND: The effects of Medicare payment reforms aiming to improve the efficiency and quality of care by establishing greater financial accountability for providers may vary based on the extent and types of other coverage for their patient populations. Providers who are more resource constrained due to a less favorable payer mix face greater financial risks under such reforms. The impact of the expanded Medicare dialysis prospective payment system (PPS) on quality of care in independent dialysis facilities may vary based on the extent of higher payments from private insurers available for managing increased risks. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether anemia outcomes for dialysis patients in independent facilities differ under the Medicare PPS based on facility payer mix. DESIGN: We examined changes in anemia outcomes for 122,641 Medicare dialysis patients in 921 independent facilities during 2009-2014 among facilities with differing levels of employer insurance (EI). We performed similar analyses of facilities affiliated with large dialysis organizations, whose practices were not expected to change based on facility-specific payer mix. RESULTS: Among independent facilities, similar modeled trends in low hemoglobin for all 3 facility EI groups in 2009-2010 were followed by increased low hemoglobin during 2012-2014 for facilities with lower EI (P<0.01). Post-PPS standardized blood transfusion ratios were 9% higher for lower EI versus higher EI independent facilities (P<0.01). Among large dialysis organizations facilities, there was no divergence in low hemoglobin by payer mix under the PPS. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence of poorer quality of care for anemia under the PPS in independent facilities with lower versus higher EI. Provider responses to payment reform may vary based on attributes such as payer mix that could have implications for health disparities.

How do hospitals respond to price changes in emergency departments?

Little is known about how prospective provider payment affects the provision of services led by unpredictable demand. We investigate hospital responses to a 32% increase in price for two treatments in emergency departments in England in April 2011 using data on 11,532,304 attendances (79 hospitals) between 2009/2010 and 2013/2014. We compare changes in the volumes of these two treatments to a treatment not attracting additional reimbursement using a difference-in-differences framework. Additional reimbursement led to 76% and 152% increases in the volumes of the two incentivised treatments. Hospitals received an additional £64.4 M between April 2011 and March 2014 for providing these treatments, of which 40% (£25.9 M) was attributable to the unanticipated hospital response to the price increase. We use time in treatment to distinguish real increases in treatment from reductions in undercoding or increases in upcoding. The association between the recorded receipt of these treatments and time spent in treatment was the same before and after the price increase, and there was no association between hospital-specific increases in recorded treatment volumes and changes in treatment times. The persistence of the treatment time increment suggests the increase in recorded treatment was a real increase in provision of treatments.

Litigation Continues; Payment Rule Arrives.

Spring brings legal challenges for the administration agenda, the latest payment rule ever, more twists in Texas, and new action in Congress.