In a continuing effort to link payments to quality, Medicare will
soon stop paying hospitals for certain conditions and infections
acquired after admission.
The change was mandated by Congress under the Deficit Reduction Act
and will go into effect in October 2008. Starting this month, hospitals
will be required to report on secondary diagnoses that are present at
the time of admission.
Officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have
identified eight "reasonably preventable" events that can be
avoided in most cases by engaging in good medical practice. Hospitals
will not receive additional payments for these secondary diagnoses if
they develop after admission: pressure ulcers; an object left in the
patient during surgery; air embolism; blood incompatibility;
catheter-associated urinary tract infections; vascular
catheter-associated infections; mediastinitis after coronary artery
bypass graft surgery; and falls.
CMS officials will consider adding three other hospital-acquired
conditions next year: ventilator-associated pneumonia; Staphylococcus
aureus septicemia; and deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism.
Under the new policy, the costs cannot be passed along to patients.
However, hospitals will not bear the total financial risk of these cases
because the payment policy will not affect Medicare's high-cost
outlier policy. CMS will continue to use the hospital's total
charges for all inpatient services provided during a patient's stay
when determining whether the case qualifies for an outlier payment.
The hospital-acquired conditions policy was issued as part of the
Medicare acute care hospital inpatient prospective payment system final
rule, which was published in the Federal Register on Aug. 22.
The move was applauded by payers and quality advocates, but
hospitals and physicians raised some red flags about the change.
In a June 12 letter to CMS, the American Medical Association voiced
concerns that the policy could have "significant unintended
consequences for patients."
"The concept of not paying for complications that are often a
biological inevitability regardless of safe practice is discriminatory
and could be punitive to those patients at the greatest risk,"
wrote Dr. Michael D. Mares, executive vice president and CEO of the AMA.
"Certain patients, including those that are older, have medical
comorbidities, or have otherwise compromised immune systems, are more
susceptible to infection and other complications."
These types of patients already have difficulty accessing care, and
the CMS policy could increase the barriers, Dr. Maves wrote.
"'This is an idea that makes sense to bean
counters," said Dr. Joel Schlessinger, president of the American
Society of Cosmetic Dermatology and Aesthetic Surgery.
While improving infection control in the hospital is essential, the
new policy is impractical, he said. Even when appropriate precautions
are put in place, not all serious infections can be prevented in the
hospital. Dr. Schlessinger also objected to the punitive nature of the
Medicare policy.
Although the CMS focus on quality and patient safety is laudable,
agency officials are overreaching with their list of conditions, said
Dr. Junaid Khan, a cardiothoracic surgeon in Oakland, Calif.
For example, surgical site infections are a significant problem,
but it's unlikely that they can be eliminated even with proper
adherence to guidelines, he said, adding that a more global approach
would be more useful at identifying systems issues and improving patient
safety
The American Hospital Association supports the inclusion of only
three of the conditions outlined by CMS (an object left in during
surgery, air embolism, and blood incompatibility).
However, there are concerns about whether the other conditions are
always or even usually preventable, even with excellent care, said David
Allen, an AHA spokesman.
Preexisting conditions also are of concern. For example, if a
person presents to the emergency department with shortness of breath,
the physician may not test for a urinary tract infection, he said.
But the Medicare policy shift was welcomed by health plans and some
quality advocates.
The announcement by CMS is consistent with the move to pay for
quality, said Susan Pisano, a spokesperson for America's Health
Insurance Plans. The new policy provides an incentive for hospitals to
develop processes to avoid these conditions, she said.
Officials at the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA)
also favor the policy change. "If we can't say no to the wrong
kinds of care, it going to be virtually impossible to say yes to the
right kinds," said Jeff Van Ness, a spokesman for NCQA.
The CMS policy sends a "loud and clear signal" to
hospitals that they must pay attention to these preventable events, said
Rachel Weissburg, a program associate at the Leapfrog Group, a coalition
of employers focused on health care quality and transparency.
In fact, officials at the Leapfrog Group would like to see CMS
expand the list of hospital-acquired conditions to include the 28
serious reportable events--rare medical errors that should never happen
to a patient--which have been compiled by the National Quality Forum.
The Leapfrog Group launched a project last year to encourage
hospitals to develop plans to avoid these serious reportable events.
In its 2007 Quality and Safety Survey, the group offered hospitals
public recognition if they agreed to take four actions following a
serious reportable event: offer an apology to the patient or family;
report the event to a recognized reporting agency, perform a root-cause
analysis, and waive all costs directly related to the event.
BY MARY ELLEN SCHNEIDER
New York Bureau
Minnesota Plan Could Become Model
Private payers are watching with interest to see how Medicare
implements its new policy of withholding payment for certain
hospital-acquired conditions and infections.
But at least one health plan has already launched a similar program
with its affiliated hospitals. HealthPartners Inc., a Minnesota-based
health plan. stopped paying hospitals for charges associated with
serious adverse events. or so-called "never events," starting
in January 2005.
The move was designed to build on quality-reporting efforts within
the state. In 2003. Minnesota began requiring hospitals to report on 27
never events identified at that time by the National Quality Forum
(NQF). The NQF currently lists 28 serious adverse events as never
events, meaning that they should never occur in the hospital. For
example, the list of never events includes surgery on the wrong body
part or person, an infant discharged to the wrong person, and patient
death or disability associated with contaminated drugs or devices.
Under the Minnesota reporting law, hospitals must report these
events, investigate the underlying cause, and take corrective action.
HealthPartners took this a step further by saying that they would
not pay for additional costs resulting from never events, and prohibited
hospitals from billing the plan's members.
Since its launch in 2005, the program has been a national model,
according to Babette Apland, senior vice president for health and care
management at HealthPartners. Officials from the plan have consulted
with the Leapfrog Group and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
There was some controversy around the HealthPartners policy when it
was first implemented, but hospitals quickly got on board, Ms. Apland
said.
These never events are rare, so the savings to the health plan for
withholding payment has been negligible, Ms. Apland said. Instead, the
program's aim was to provide hospitals with an incentive to
systematically prevent these events.
COPYRIGHT 2007 International Medical News
Group Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
Copyright 2007, Gale Group. All rights
reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.
NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.