February 17th, 2011 by RyanDuBosar in Health Policy, Research
No Comments »
Less than one in three primary care practices offer all 10 recommended adult vaccines, citing a variety of financial and logistical reasons.
Researchers sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sampled 993 family physicians and 997 general internists. Of the respondents, 27 percent (31 percent of family practitioners and 20 percent of internists) stocked all 10. Results appear in the Feb. 17 issue of the journal Vaccine.
The 10 vaccines were hepatitis A; hepatitis B; human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV); combined measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR); meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV4); pneumococcal polysaccharide (PPSV23); tetanus diphtheria (Td); combined tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap); varicella; and zoster.
Of the responding practices, two percent plan to stop vaccine purchases, 12 percent plan to increase them and the rest had no plans to change their vaccination stocking habits. But physicians who identified themselves as their respective practices’ decision makers for stocking vaccines were more likely to decrease the number of different vaccines stocked for adults (11 percent vs. three percent; P=.0001).
The National Vaccine Advisory Committee, a group that advises the various federal agencies involved in vaccines and immunizations, arrived at even bleaker figures in 2009, reported the April 2009 issue of ACP Internist. For example, 62 percent of decision makers in practices said they had delayed purchase of a vaccine at some time in the prior three years due to financial concerns. And in the prior year, 16 percent of practice decision makers had seriously considered stopping vaccinations for privately-insured patients due to the cost and reimbursement issues. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at ACP Internist*
January 19th, 2011 by BobDoherty in Better Health Network, Health Policy
1 Comment »
Federal law generally prohibits physicians from referring their own patients to a diagnostic facility in which they have an ownership issue — a practice called “self-referral” — unless the facility is located in their own practice. This exemption exists to allow patients with access to a laboratory test, X-ray, or other imaging test at the same time and place as when patients are seeing their physician for an office visit. Less inconvenience and speeder diagnosis and treatment — what could be wrong with that?
Much, say the critics, if it leads to overutilization and higher costs and doesn’t really represent a convenience to patients. This is the gist of two studies by staff employed by the American College of Radiology, published in the December issue of Health Affairs.
One study analyzes Medicare claims data and concludes that patients aren’t really getting “one-stop-shopping” convenience when their physician refers them to an imaging facility that qualifies for the “in-office” exemption.
“Specifically, same-day imaging was the exception, other than for the most straightforward types of X-rays. Overall, less than one-fourth of imaging other than these types of X-rays was accompanied by a same-day office visit. The fraction for high-tech imaging was even lower — approximately 15 percent.” Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at The ACP Advocate Blog by Bob Doherty*
November 29th, 2010 by Happy Hospitalist in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion
No Comments »
Have you ever wondered how hospitals get paid by Medicare? The New York Times has an excellent and simple explanation of this highly complicated process. It’s simple really.
First the hospital labor component is adjusted for geographic location and then added to the capital depreciation expenditures adjusted for geographic location and then a medical severity adjusted diagnosis related group multiplier is added (MS-DRG).
Once this adjusted payment rate is calculated, the hospital is given a bonus to cover the costs incurred if they are a teaching hospital, through the indirect medical education payment. Added to that is the disproportionate share payment for hospitals that see a lot of uninsured or Medicaid patients (strange that Medicare subsidizes Medicaid, isn’t it?) If you have a patient that is extremely sick or spends mulitple extra days in the hospital, they may get an extra outlier payment. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at The Happy Hospitalist*
November 19th, 2010 by RyanDuBosar in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Research
No Comments »
More than half of employers are likely to keep offering insurance rather than use state health insurance exchanges when they become available under health care reform in 2014, reported a survey by an insurance broker.
Willis Human Capital Practice released results of its Health Care Reform Survey 2010, which showed 55 percent of employers would keep their health plans in 2014 even if the new state exchanges offer competitive prices. The survey sampled 1,400 employers of varying sizes, industry sectors and geographies whose plans cover more than 9 million employees and dependents (including retirees).
Key findings from the survey include:
• 88 percent believe that group health plan costs will increase as a result of health care reform;
• 76 percent expect administrative compliance costs will increase;
• 72 percent plan to increase employee contributions in an attempt to offset higher administrative and premium costs. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at ACP Internist*
November 15th, 2010 by KevinMD in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion
1 Comment »
The bipartisan debt commission appointed by President Obama recently released its recommendations on how to pare the country’s debt.
Of interest to doctors is the suggestion to change the way doctors are paid. Physician lobbies have been advocating for removal of the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula — the flawed method by which Medicare, and subsequently private insurers, pays doctors. According to this method, physicians are due for a pay cut of more than 20 percent next month.
According to the commission:
The plan proposes eliminating the SGR in 2015 and replacing it with a “modest reduction” for physicians and other providers. The plan doesn’t elaborate on what constitutes a “modest reduction” in Medicare reimbursement.
Meanwhile, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should establish a new payment system — one that rewards doctors for quality, and includes accountable care organizations and bundling payments by episodes of care, the report said.
The commission also said in order to pay for the SGR reform, medical malpractice lawyers should be paid less, there should be a cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases, and that comprehensive tort reform should be adopted.
There’s little question that associating physician reimbursements with the number of tests and treatments ordered is a major driver of health costs. Removing that incentive, and better valuing the time doctors spend with patients, is a positive step in the right direction. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at KevinMD.com*
