User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
CMS has plan if ACA overturned in court; Verma silent on details
The Trump administration apparently plans to ensure Americans have access to health insurance in the event that the Affordable Care Act is struck down – but officials refuse to share that plan.
“The president has made clear that we will have a plan in action to make sure that Americans have access to affordable coverage” if or when courts negate the ACA, Seema Verma, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said Oct. 23 at a House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee hearing. “We do not have that today. There are many Americans today, they are not getting a subsidy. They can’t afford insurance today.”
When asked specifically about the provision to guarantee coverage for those with preexisting conditions, Ms. Verma replied that the president “has made clear that we will do everything we can to ensure that Americans with preexisting conditions maintain the protection that they have today.”
When pressed for details, Ms. Verma dodged the question, first by attempting to tell an anecdote about “a 55-year-old couple making $66,000 a year ...” before getting cut off. When the question was reiterated by Health Subcommittee Chair Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Ms. Verma replied, “I am not going get into any specifics of a plan.”
Committee Chair Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said it was “deceptive” that Ms. Verma would not provide any details and openly questioned whether a plan actually existed.
The hearing followed a partisan pattern.
Republican subcommittee members asked questions that allowed Ms Verma to highlight some of the actions taken by the CMS under her watch, such as lowering premiums for exchange plans, increasing the number of available plans and decreasing the number of states that had only one plan option available in the exchange, and other items that are focused on lowering the cost of health care.
“We’re trying to focus on actions that lower the cost of care for Americans,” she said. “If we do that, more people will be able to afford health care.”
Under questioning by panel Democrats, Ms. Verma took a more adversarial tone and tended to deflect rather than answer questions.
When pressed about Medicaid work requirement and the disruption in health care coverage they are causing, Ms. Verma had no answer, instead trying to talking about “community engagement requirements” before being cut off.
Ms. Verma also refused to address the coverage requirements, or lack thereof, of short-term, limited duration plans, which have been expanded under the Trump administration.
When asked whether plans could deny claims based on preexisting conditions, could implement coverage caps, charge more based on age or gender, or ignore other consumer protections in the ACA, she consistently defaulted to a comment that it “depends” on the plan and what they offer, without coming out and simply acknowledging that these plans have it within their power to ignore any and all consumer protections held within the Affordable Care Act.
“None of the actions that we have taken do anything to undermine the protections for people with preexisting conditions,” she said.
“Your testimony is not actually truthful to us today,” Rep. Ann Kuster (D-N.H.) replied.
The Trump administration apparently plans to ensure Americans have access to health insurance in the event that the Affordable Care Act is struck down – but officials refuse to share that plan.
“The president has made clear that we will have a plan in action to make sure that Americans have access to affordable coverage” if or when courts negate the ACA, Seema Verma, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said Oct. 23 at a House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee hearing. “We do not have that today. There are many Americans today, they are not getting a subsidy. They can’t afford insurance today.”
When asked specifically about the provision to guarantee coverage for those with preexisting conditions, Ms. Verma replied that the president “has made clear that we will do everything we can to ensure that Americans with preexisting conditions maintain the protection that they have today.”
When pressed for details, Ms. Verma dodged the question, first by attempting to tell an anecdote about “a 55-year-old couple making $66,000 a year ...” before getting cut off. When the question was reiterated by Health Subcommittee Chair Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Ms. Verma replied, “I am not going get into any specifics of a plan.”
Committee Chair Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said it was “deceptive” that Ms. Verma would not provide any details and openly questioned whether a plan actually existed.
The hearing followed a partisan pattern.
Republican subcommittee members asked questions that allowed Ms Verma to highlight some of the actions taken by the CMS under her watch, such as lowering premiums for exchange plans, increasing the number of available plans and decreasing the number of states that had only one plan option available in the exchange, and other items that are focused on lowering the cost of health care.
“We’re trying to focus on actions that lower the cost of care for Americans,” she said. “If we do that, more people will be able to afford health care.”
Under questioning by panel Democrats, Ms. Verma took a more adversarial tone and tended to deflect rather than answer questions.
When pressed about Medicaid work requirement and the disruption in health care coverage they are causing, Ms. Verma had no answer, instead trying to talking about “community engagement requirements” before being cut off.
Ms. Verma also refused to address the coverage requirements, or lack thereof, of short-term, limited duration plans, which have been expanded under the Trump administration.
When asked whether plans could deny claims based on preexisting conditions, could implement coverage caps, charge more based on age or gender, or ignore other consumer protections in the ACA, she consistently defaulted to a comment that it “depends” on the plan and what they offer, without coming out and simply acknowledging that these plans have it within their power to ignore any and all consumer protections held within the Affordable Care Act.
“None of the actions that we have taken do anything to undermine the protections for people with preexisting conditions,” she said.
“Your testimony is not actually truthful to us today,” Rep. Ann Kuster (D-N.H.) replied.
The Trump administration apparently plans to ensure Americans have access to health insurance in the event that the Affordable Care Act is struck down – but officials refuse to share that plan.
“The president has made clear that we will have a plan in action to make sure that Americans have access to affordable coverage” if or when courts negate the ACA, Seema Verma, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said Oct. 23 at a House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee hearing. “We do not have that today. There are many Americans today, they are not getting a subsidy. They can’t afford insurance today.”
When asked specifically about the provision to guarantee coverage for those with preexisting conditions, Ms. Verma replied that the president “has made clear that we will do everything we can to ensure that Americans with preexisting conditions maintain the protection that they have today.”
When pressed for details, Ms. Verma dodged the question, first by attempting to tell an anecdote about “a 55-year-old couple making $66,000 a year ...” before getting cut off. When the question was reiterated by Health Subcommittee Chair Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Ms. Verma replied, “I am not going get into any specifics of a plan.”
Committee Chair Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said it was “deceptive” that Ms. Verma would not provide any details and openly questioned whether a plan actually existed.
The hearing followed a partisan pattern.
Republican subcommittee members asked questions that allowed Ms Verma to highlight some of the actions taken by the CMS under her watch, such as lowering premiums for exchange plans, increasing the number of available plans and decreasing the number of states that had only one plan option available in the exchange, and other items that are focused on lowering the cost of health care.
“We’re trying to focus on actions that lower the cost of care for Americans,” she said. “If we do that, more people will be able to afford health care.”
Under questioning by panel Democrats, Ms. Verma took a more adversarial tone and tended to deflect rather than answer questions.
When pressed about Medicaid work requirement and the disruption in health care coverage they are causing, Ms. Verma had no answer, instead trying to talking about “community engagement requirements” before being cut off.
Ms. Verma also refused to address the coverage requirements, or lack thereof, of short-term, limited duration plans, which have been expanded under the Trump administration.
When asked whether plans could deny claims based on preexisting conditions, could implement coverage caps, charge more based on age or gender, or ignore other consumer protections in the ACA, she consistently defaulted to a comment that it “depends” on the plan and what they offer, without coming out and simply acknowledging that these plans have it within their power to ignore any and all consumer protections held within the Affordable Care Act.
“None of the actions that we have taken do anything to undermine the protections for people with preexisting conditions,” she said.
“Your testimony is not actually truthful to us today,” Rep. Ann Kuster (D-N.H.) replied.
REPORTING FROM a HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE HEALTH SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING
Pelosi drug pricing bill passes Ways and Means on party line vote
The House Ways and Means Committee is the latest to pass H.R. 3, a bill aimed at driving the price of prescription drugs down.
During an Oct. 22, 2019, markup of the bill, Republican members criticized committee leadership for abandoning bipartisan efforts to reign in drug prices in favor of a partisan bill that so far gained no support from the minority party. H.R. 3 was passed by the Ways and Means Committee on a 24-17 party line vote.
Both “Democrats and Republicans support lowering drug prices, cracking down on overpriced drugs, giving patients more power to choose affordable medicines, and removing the wrong incentives in federal health programs that reward bad actors for raising prices,” Committee Ranking Member Kevin Brady (R-Tex.) said in his opening statement. In fact, at the request of Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.), “both parties in this committee were working together toward that important goal. At least until Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) trashed the bipartisan work and forced through a secretly written, deeply controversial, and highly partisan drug bill to cure political illnesses rather than real ones.”
H.R. 3, recently renamed the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019, would give the secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services the ability to negotiate drug prices for Medicare Part D (something explicitly banned under current law), implement an excise tax on drugs that see price hikes above the rate of inflation, cap out-of-pocket expenditures annually for Medicare Part D beneficiaries at $2,000, and use an international pricing index to help bring prices for drugs sold in the United States more in line with the lower prices in foreign countries.
But panel Democrats praised the bill as a step forward in helping to lower the cost of prescription drugs.
“H.R. 3 levels the playing field for U.S. consumers who, on average, pay four times more than patients in other countries for the exact same drugs,” Chairman Neal said in a statement following the passage.
He highlighted specifically the provision that caps out-of-pocket expenses in Part D and the HHS’ negotiating power, noting that “more people will be able to afford the drugs they need that they may have previously forgone due to high costs. With more Americans taking the medicines they’re prescribed, families will be healthier, and premiums will go down.”
Republican committee members argued that these same provisions would stifle innovation and ultimately would reduce access to medicine. Most attempts at altering the provisions through amendments were met with strict party line rejection.
The House Ways and Means Committee is the latest to pass H.R. 3, a bill aimed at driving the price of prescription drugs down.
During an Oct. 22, 2019, markup of the bill, Republican members criticized committee leadership for abandoning bipartisan efforts to reign in drug prices in favor of a partisan bill that so far gained no support from the minority party. H.R. 3 was passed by the Ways and Means Committee on a 24-17 party line vote.
Both “Democrats and Republicans support lowering drug prices, cracking down on overpriced drugs, giving patients more power to choose affordable medicines, and removing the wrong incentives in federal health programs that reward bad actors for raising prices,” Committee Ranking Member Kevin Brady (R-Tex.) said in his opening statement. In fact, at the request of Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.), “both parties in this committee were working together toward that important goal. At least until Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) trashed the bipartisan work and forced through a secretly written, deeply controversial, and highly partisan drug bill to cure political illnesses rather than real ones.”
H.R. 3, recently renamed the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019, would give the secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services the ability to negotiate drug prices for Medicare Part D (something explicitly banned under current law), implement an excise tax on drugs that see price hikes above the rate of inflation, cap out-of-pocket expenditures annually for Medicare Part D beneficiaries at $2,000, and use an international pricing index to help bring prices for drugs sold in the United States more in line with the lower prices in foreign countries.
But panel Democrats praised the bill as a step forward in helping to lower the cost of prescription drugs.
“H.R. 3 levels the playing field for U.S. consumers who, on average, pay four times more than patients in other countries for the exact same drugs,” Chairman Neal said in a statement following the passage.
He highlighted specifically the provision that caps out-of-pocket expenses in Part D and the HHS’ negotiating power, noting that “more people will be able to afford the drugs they need that they may have previously forgone due to high costs. With more Americans taking the medicines they’re prescribed, families will be healthier, and premiums will go down.”
Republican committee members argued that these same provisions would stifle innovation and ultimately would reduce access to medicine. Most attempts at altering the provisions through amendments were met with strict party line rejection.
The House Ways and Means Committee is the latest to pass H.R. 3, a bill aimed at driving the price of prescription drugs down.
During an Oct. 22, 2019, markup of the bill, Republican members criticized committee leadership for abandoning bipartisan efforts to reign in drug prices in favor of a partisan bill that so far gained no support from the minority party. H.R. 3 was passed by the Ways and Means Committee on a 24-17 party line vote.
Both “Democrats and Republicans support lowering drug prices, cracking down on overpriced drugs, giving patients more power to choose affordable medicines, and removing the wrong incentives in federal health programs that reward bad actors for raising prices,” Committee Ranking Member Kevin Brady (R-Tex.) said in his opening statement. In fact, at the request of Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.), “both parties in this committee were working together toward that important goal. At least until Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) trashed the bipartisan work and forced through a secretly written, deeply controversial, and highly partisan drug bill to cure political illnesses rather than real ones.”
H.R. 3, recently renamed the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019, would give the secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services the ability to negotiate drug prices for Medicare Part D (something explicitly banned under current law), implement an excise tax on drugs that see price hikes above the rate of inflation, cap out-of-pocket expenditures annually for Medicare Part D beneficiaries at $2,000, and use an international pricing index to help bring prices for drugs sold in the United States more in line with the lower prices in foreign countries.
But panel Democrats praised the bill as a step forward in helping to lower the cost of prescription drugs.
“H.R. 3 levels the playing field for U.S. consumers who, on average, pay four times more than patients in other countries for the exact same drugs,” Chairman Neal said in a statement following the passage.
He highlighted specifically the provision that caps out-of-pocket expenses in Part D and the HHS’ negotiating power, noting that “more people will be able to afford the drugs they need that they may have previously forgone due to high costs. With more Americans taking the medicines they’re prescribed, families will be healthier, and premiums will go down.”
Republican committee members argued that these same provisions would stifle innovation and ultimately would reduce access to medicine. Most attempts at altering the provisions through amendments were met with strict party line rejection.
When patient autonomy gets in the way
“Why didn’t you see that patient?”
The hospitalist on the phone was angry. He’d wanted the patient seen by neurology and cleared for discharge. Apparently, I hadn’t complied.
Actually, that isn’t true. I was on call, so I had dutifully dragged myself in (with the help of some coffee), reviewed the chart, and gone in to see the fellow.
The patient, however, had other ideas. He said he was sick of doctors, didn’t like them, didn’t want to see me, and asked me to leave. So I did.
This threw off the hospitalist’s well-choreographed day of admissions and discharges. Without me seeing the patient, he had to either discharge him on his own decision or find another neurologist who would do it.
Sorry, but I’m not going to force this issue. If a patient doesn’t want to see me, it’s not worth fighting over. Believe me, I get paid to see patients, so I don’t have much incentive to just walk away.
But at the same time I have to respect patients’ decisions. While a neurology consult is pretty noninvasive, it’s still a part of medicine. If a patient doesn’t want to see me, I’m not going to force them to.
Granted, there are exceptions. Obviously, if the patient is fairly demented or otherwise not mentally competent to make such a decision, I’ll see them. In those cases, their deteriorating mental status is likely the reason for the consult.
But the fellow that day seemed alert and reasonable, and there was nothing in the chart about confusion. So I’m going to assume he knew what he was doing when he told me to go away.
The hospitalist didn’t see this as an issue, but I did. I’m sorry if it messes up the discharge planning, but that’s not my fault. It’s the patient’s decision.
While I may disagree at times with patients’ decisions, their autonomy is still central to medicine. I respect and believe in that, even if it makes things more difficult for those around them.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
“Why didn’t you see that patient?”
The hospitalist on the phone was angry. He’d wanted the patient seen by neurology and cleared for discharge. Apparently, I hadn’t complied.
Actually, that isn’t true. I was on call, so I had dutifully dragged myself in (with the help of some coffee), reviewed the chart, and gone in to see the fellow.
The patient, however, had other ideas. He said he was sick of doctors, didn’t like them, didn’t want to see me, and asked me to leave. So I did.
This threw off the hospitalist’s well-choreographed day of admissions and discharges. Without me seeing the patient, he had to either discharge him on his own decision or find another neurologist who would do it.
Sorry, but I’m not going to force this issue. If a patient doesn’t want to see me, it’s not worth fighting over. Believe me, I get paid to see patients, so I don’t have much incentive to just walk away.
But at the same time I have to respect patients’ decisions. While a neurology consult is pretty noninvasive, it’s still a part of medicine. If a patient doesn’t want to see me, I’m not going to force them to.
Granted, there are exceptions. Obviously, if the patient is fairly demented or otherwise not mentally competent to make such a decision, I’ll see them. In those cases, their deteriorating mental status is likely the reason for the consult.
But the fellow that day seemed alert and reasonable, and there was nothing in the chart about confusion. So I’m going to assume he knew what he was doing when he told me to go away.
The hospitalist didn’t see this as an issue, but I did. I’m sorry if it messes up the discharge planning, but that’s not my fault. It’s the patient’s decision.
While I may disagree at times with patients’ decisions, their autonomy is still central to medicine. I respect and believe in that, even if it makes things more difficult for those around them.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
“Why didn’t you see that patient?”
The hospitalist on the phone was angry. He’d wanted the patient seen by neurology and cleared for discharge. Apparently, I hadn’t complied.
Actually, that isn’t true. I was on call, so I had dutifully dragged myself in (with the help of some coffee), reviewed the chart, and gone in to see the fellow.
The patient, however, had other ideas. He said he was sick of doctors, didn’t like them, didn’t want to see me, and asked me to leave. So I did.
This threw off the hospitalist’s well-choreographed day of admissions and discharges. Without me seeing the patient, he had to either discharge him on his own decision or find another neurologist who would do it.
Sorry, but I’m not going to force this issue. If a patient doesn’t want to see me, it’s not worth fighting over. Believe me, I get paid to see patients, so I don’t have much incentive to just walk away.
But at the same time I have to respect patients’ decisions. While a neurology consult is pretty noninvasive, it’s still a part of medicine. If a patient doesn’t want to see me, I’m not going to force them to.
Granted, there are exceptions. Obviously, if the patient is fairly demented or otherwise not mentally competent to make such a decision, I’ll see them. In those cases, their deteriorating mental status is likely the reason for the consult.
But the fellow that day seemed alert and reasonable, and there was nothing in the chart about confusion. So I’m going to assume he knew what he was doing when he told me to go away.
The hospitalist didn’t see this as an issue, but I did. I’m sorry if it messes up the discharge planning, but that’s not my fault. It’s the patient’s decision.
While I may disagree at times with patients’ decisions, their autonomy is still central to medicine. I respect and believe in that, even if it makes things more difficult for those around them.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
ACIP approves child and adolescent vaccination schedule for 2020
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted unanimously to approve the child and adolescent immunization schedule for 2020.
by busy providers,” Candice Robinson, MD, MPH, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said at the CDC’s October meeting of ACIP. Updates reflect changes in language in the adult vaccination schedule, notably the change in the definition of “contraindication.” The updated wording in the Notes substitutes “not recommended or contraindicated” instead of the word “contraindicated” only.
Another notable change was the addition of information on adolescent vaccination of children who received the meningococcal ACWY vaccine before 10 years of age. For “children in whom boosters are not recommended due to an ongoing or increased risk of meningococcal disease” (such as a healthy child traveling to an endemic area), they should receive MenACWY according to the recommended adolescent schedule. But those children for whom boosters are recommended because of increased disease risk from conditions including complement deficiency, HIV, or asplenia should “follow the booster schedule for persons at increased risk.”
Other changes include restructuring of the notes for the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) in special situations. The schedule now uses a bulleted list to show that LAIV should not be used in the following circumstances:
- Having history of severe allergic reaction to a previous vaccine or vaccine component.
- Using aspirin or a salicylate-containing medication.
- Being aged 2-4 years with a history of asthma or wheezing.
- Having immunocompromised conditions.
- Having anatomic or functional asplenia.
- Having cochlear implants.
- Experiencing cerebrospinal fluid–oropharyngeal communication.
- Having immunocompromised close contacts or caregivers.
- Being pregnant.
- Having received flu antivirals within the previous 48 hours.
In addition, language on shared clinical decision-making was added to the notes on the meningococcal B vaccine for adolescents and young adults aged 18-23 years not at increased risk. Based on shared clinical decision making, the recommendation is a “two-dose series of Bexsero at least 1 month apart” or “two-dose series of Trumenba at least 6 months apart; if dose two is administered earlier than 6 months, administer a third dose at least 4 months after dose two.”
Several vaccines’ Notes sections, including hepatitis B and meningococcal disease, added links to detailed recommendations in the corresponding issues of the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, to allow clinicians easy access to additional information.
View the current Child & Adolescent Vaccination Schedule here.
The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted unanimously to approve the child and adolescent immunization schedule for 2020.
by busy providers,” Candice Robinson, MD, MPH, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said at the CDC’s October meeting of ACIP. Updates reflect changes in language in the adult vaccination schedule, notably the change in the definition of “contraindication.” The updated wording in the Notes substitutes “not recommended or contraindicated” instead of the word “contraindicated” only.
Another notable change was the addition of information on adolescent vaccination of children who received the meningococcal ACWY vaccine before 10 years of age. For “children in whom boosters are not recommended due to an ongoing or increased risk of meningococcal disease” (such as a healthy child traveling to an endemic area), they should receive MenACWY according to the recommended adolescent schedule. But those children for whom boosters are recommended because of increased disease risk from conditions including complement deficiency, HIV, or asplenia should “follow the booster schedule for persons at increased risk.”
Other changes include restructuring of the notes for the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) in special situations. The schedule now uses a bulleted list to show that LAIV should not be used in the following circumstances:
- Having history of severe allergic reaction to a previous vaccine or vaccine component.
- Using aspirin or a salicylate-containing medication.
- Being aged 2-4 years with a history of asthma or wheezing.
- Having immunocompromised conditions.
- Having anatomic or functional asplenia.
- Having cochlear implants.
- Experiencing cerebrospinal fluid–oropharyngeal communication.
- Having immunocompromised close contacts or caregivers.
- Being pregnant.
- Having received flu antivirals within the previous 48 hours.
In addition, language on shared clinical decision-making was added to the notes on the meningococcal B vaccine for adolescents and young adults aged 18-23 years not at increased risk. Based on shared clinical decision making, the recommendation is a “two-dose series of Bexsero at least 1 month apart” or “two-dose series of Trumenba at least 6 months apart; if dose two is administered earlier than 6 months, administer a third dose at least 4 months after dose two.”
Several vaccines’ Notes sections, including hepatitis B and meningococcal disease, added links to detailed recommendations in the corresponding issues of the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, to allow clinicians easy access to additional information.
View the current Child & Adolescent Vaccination Schedule here.
The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted unanimously to approve the child and adolescent immunization schedule for 2020.
by busy providers,” Candice Robinson, MD, MPH, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said at the CDC’s October meeting of ACIP. Updates reflect changes in language in the adult vaccination schedule, notably the change in the definition of “contraindication.” The updated wording in the Notes substitutes “not recommended or contraindicated” instead of the word “contraindicated” only.
Another notable change was the addition of information on adolescent vaccination of children who received the meningococcal ACWY vaccine before 10 years of age. For “children in whom boosters are not recommended due to an ongoing or increased risk of meningococcal disease” (such as a healthy child traveling to an endemic area), they should receive MenACWY according to the recommended adolescent schedule. But those children for whom boosters are recommended because of increased disease risk from conditions including complement deficiency, HIV, or asplenia should “follow the booster schedule for persons at increased risk.”
Other changes include restructuring of the notes for the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) in special situations. The schedule now uses a bulleted list to show that LAIV should not be used in the following circumstances:
- Having history of severe allergic reaction to a previous vaccine or vaccine component.
- Using aspirin or a salicylate-containing medication.
- Being aged 2-4 years with a history of asthma or wheezing.
- Having immunocompromised conditions.
- Having anatomic or functional asplenia.
- Having cochlear implants.
- Experiencing cerebrospinal fluid–oropharyngeal communication.
- Having immunocompromised close contacts or caregivers.
- Being pregnant.
- Having received flu antivirals within the previous 48 hours.
In addition, language on shared clinical decision-making was added to the notes on the meningococcal B vaccine for adolescents and young adults aged 18-23 years not at increased risk. Based on shared clinical decision making, the recommendation is a “two-dose series of Bexsero at least 1 month apart” or “two-dose series of Trumenba at least 6 months apart; if dose two is administered earlier than 6 months, administer a third dose at least 4 months after dose two.”
Several vaccines’ Notes sections, including hepatitis B and meningococcal disease, added links to detailed recommendations in the corresponding issues of the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, to allow clinicians easy access to additional information.
View the current Child & Adolescent Vaccination Schedule here.
The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM AN ACIP MEETING
FDA approves onabotulinumtoxinA for pediatric lower limb spasticity
The Food and Drug Administration has approved onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) for treatment of pediatric lower limb spasticity in patients aged 2-17 years, excluding those in whom it is associated with cerebral palsy, according to an announcement from Allergan.
The approval is based on a phase 3 study evaluating safety and efficacy in more than 300 patients with lower limb spasticity. Although patients with cerebral palsy were included in the study, they’re excluded from this indication. Orphan Drug Exclusivity prevents it from being indicated for lower limb spasticity in cerebral palsy because abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport) already has marketing exclusivity for the indication. Botox also is indicated for children aged 2-17 years of age with upper limb spasticity, as well as nine other indications.
OnabotulinumtoxinA comes with warnings, including problems of swallowing, speaking, or breathing and even risk of spread of the toxin. It also may cause loss of strength or general muscle weakness, vision problems, or dizziness within hours or weeks of administration. Serious and sometimes immediate allergic reactions have been reported. Patients and health care professionals should discuss various concerns before treatment, including whether the patient has recently received antibiotics by injection, or has taken muscle relaxants, allergy or cold medicine, sleep medicine, and aspirinlike products or blood thinners. It’s important to note that the dose of onabotulinumtoxinA is not the same as that for other botulinum toxin products. The full prescribing information is available on the Allergan website.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) for treatment of pediatric lower limb spasticity in patients aged 2-17 years, excluding those in whom it is associated with cerebral palsy, according to an announcement from Allergan.
The approval is based on a phase 3 study evaluating safety and efficacy in more than 300 patients with lower limb spasticity. Although patients with cerebral palsy were included in the study, they’re excluded from this indication. Orphan Drug Exclusivity prevents it from being indicated for lower limb spasticity in cerebral palsy because abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport) already has marketing exclusivity for the indication. Botox also is indicated for children aged 2-17 years of age with upper limb spasticity, as well as nine other indications.
OnabotulinumtoxinA comes with warnings, including problems of swallowing, speaking, or breathing and even risk of spread of the toxin. It also may cause loss of strength or general muscle weakness, vision problems, or dizziness within hours or weeks of administration. Serious and sometimes immediate allergic reactions have been reported. Patients and health care professionals should discuss various concerns before treatment, including whether the patient has recently received antibiotics by injection, or has taken muscle relaxants, allergy or cold medicine, sleep medicine, and aspirinlike products or blood thinners. It’s important to note that the dose of onabotulinumtoxinA is not the same as that for other botulinum toxin products. The full prescribing information is available on the Allergan website.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) for treatment of pediatric lower limb spasticity in patients aged 2-17 years, excluding those in whom it is associated with cerebral palsy, according to an announcement from Allergan.
The approval is based on a phase 3 study evaluating safety and efficacy in more than 300 patients with lower limb spasticity. Although patients with cerebral palsy were included in the study, they’re excluded from this indication. Orphan Drug Exclusivity prevents it from being indicated for lower limb spasticity in cerebral palsy because abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport) already has marketing exclusivity for the indication. Botox also is indicated for children aged 2-17 years of age with upper limb spasticity, as well as nine other indications.
OnabotulinumtoxinA comes with warnings, including problems of swallowing, speaking, or breathing and even risk of spread of the toxin. It also may cause loss of strength or general muscle weakness, vision problems, or dizziness within hours or weeks of administration. Serious and sometimes immediate allergic reactions have been reported. Patients and health care professionals should discuss various concerns before treatment, including whether the patient has recently received antibiotics by injection, or has taken muscle relaxants, allergy or cold medicine, sleep medicine, and aspirinlike products or blood thinners. It’s important to note that the dose of onabotulinumtoxinA is not the same as that for other botulinum toxin products. The full prescribing information is available on the Allergan website.
Smoking impairs cognition and shrinks brain volume in MS
STOCKHOLM – Ebtesam Alshehri, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
“We found that smokers have reduced Processing Speed Test scores compared with nonsmokers. They also have more brain atrophy. And we found that former smokers had intermediate results between current smokers and never smokers, suggesting that there is a benefit of smoking cessation early in the course of the disease,” explained Dr. Alshehri, a clinical neuroimmunology fellow at the Cleveland Clinic.
Dr. Alshehri and colleagues presented a cross-sectional study of 997 patients with MS. At the Cleveland Clinic, patients with MS routinely undergo the Processing Speed Test (PST) – an electronic version of the Symbol Digit Modalities Test – at each clinical visit as a means of assessing cognitive function. All 997 patients also underwent quantitative brain MRI within 90 days of their cognitive function test. The study population consisted of 520 never smokers, 335 ex-smokers, and 142 current smokers. Seventy-seven percent of the patients had relapsing-remitting MS, and most of the rest had progressive disease.
The impetus for this hypothesis-generating study was a recognition that while smoking has previously been reported to be a risk factor for MS and has also been associated with accelerated progression of disability in patients who already have the disease, the impact of smoking on cognition and brain atrophy in the MS population has been a murky area, according to Dr. Alshehri.
In a multivariate analysis adjusted for age, disease duration, and disease course, smoking status was an independent predictor of PST score. Former smokers scored an average of 3.6 points lower than never smokers, and current smokers scored 5.9 points lower than the never smokers. Similarly, former smokers appeared better off than current smokers in terms of brain atrophy as measured by whole brain function on MRI: The ex-smokers had significantly greater brain atrophy than that of never smokers, an effect that was magnified in current smokers.
For Dr. Alshehri, these findings contain an important message for physicians: “I think as clinicians we should ask our patients with MS about tobacco use at each visit, remind patients about the risks of smoking and the negative impact not only on their general health, but also the impact on disease progression and disability worsening, encourage patients to stop smoking, and provide them with this encouraging data.”
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding this study, which was conducted free of commercial support.
STOCKHOLM – Ebtesam Alshehri, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
“We found that smokers have reduced Processing Speed Test scores compared with nonsmokers. They also have more brain atrophy. And we found that former smokers had intermediate results between current smokers and never smokers, suggesting that there is a benefit of smoking cessation early in the course of the disease,” explained Dr. Alshehri, a clinical neuroimmunology fellow at the Cleveland Clinic.
Dr. Alshehri and colleagues presented a cross-sectional study of 997 patients with MS. At the Cleveland Clinic, patients with MS routinely undergo the Processing Speed Test (PST) – an electronic version of the Symbol Digit Modalities Test – at each clinical visit as a means of assessing cognitive function. All 997 patients also underwent quantitative brain MRI within 90 days of their cognitive function test. The study population consisted of 520 never smokers, 335 ex-smokers, and 142 current smokers. Seventy-seven percent of the patients had relapsing-remitting MS, and most of the rest had progressive disease.
The impetus for this hypothesis-generating study was a recognition that while smoking has previously been reported to be a risk factor for MS and has also been associated with accelerated progression of disability in patients who already have the disease, the impact of smoking on cognition and brain atrophy in the MS population has been a murky area, according to Dr. Alshehri.
In a multivariate analysis adjusted for age, disease duration, and disease course, smoking status was an independent predictor of PST score. Former smokers scored an average of 3.6 points lower than never smokers, and current smokers scored 5.9 points lower than the never smokers. Similarly, former smokers appeared better off than current smokers in terms of brain atrophy as measured by whole brain function on MRI: The ex-smokers had significantly greater brain atrophy than that of never smokers, an effect that was magnified in current smokers.
For Dr. Alshehri, these findings contain an important message for physicians: “I think as clinicians we should ask our patients with MS about tobacco use at each visit, remind patients about the risks of smoking and the negative impact not only on their general health, but also the impact on disease progression and disability worsening, encourage patients to stop smoking, and provide them with this encouraging data.”
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding this study, which was conducted free of commercial support.
STOCKHOLM – Ebtesam Alshehri, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
“We found that smokers have reduced Processing Speed Test scores compared with nonsmokers. They also have more brain atrophy. And we found that former smokers had intermediate results between current smokers and never smokers, suggesting that there is a benefit of smoking cessation early in the course of the disease,” explained Dr. Alshehri, a clinical neuroimmunology fellow at the Cleveland Clinic.
Dr. Alshehri and colleagues presented a cross-sectional study of 997 patients with MS. At the Cleveland Clinic, patients with MS routinely undergo the Processing Speed Test (PST) – an electronic version of the Symbol Digit Modalities Test – at each clinical visit as a means of assessing cognitive function. All 997 patients also underwent quantitative brain MRI within 90 days of their cognitive function test. The study population consisted of 520 never smokers, 335 ex-smokers, and 142 current smokers. Seventy-seven percent of the patients had relapsing-remitting MS, and most of the rest had progressive disease.
The impetus for this hypothesis-generating study was a recognition that while smoking has previously been reported to be a risk factor for MS and has also been associated with accelerated progression of disability in patients who already have the disease, the impact of smoking on cognition and brain atrophy in the MS population has been a murky area, according to Dr. Alshehri.
In a multivariate analysis adjusted for age, disease duration, and disease course, smoking status was an independent predictor of PST score. Former smokers scored an average of 3.6 points lower than never smokers, and current smokers scored 5.9 points lower than the never smokers. Similarly, former smokers appeared better off than current smokers in terms of brain atrophy as measured by whole brain function on MRI: The ex-smokers had significantly greater brain atrophy than that of never smokers, an effect that was magnified in current smokers.
For Dr. Alshehri, these findings contain an important message for physicians: “I think as clinicians we should ask our patients with MS about tobacco use at each visit, remind patients about the risks of smoking and the negative impact not only on their general health, but also the impact on disease progression and disability worsening, encourage patients to stop smoking, and provide them with this encouraging data.”
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding this study, which was conducted free of commercial support.
REPORTING FROM ECTRIMS 2019
ACIP approves 2020 adult vaccination schedule
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted unanimously to approve the adult immunization schedule for 2020, although some fine-tuning may occur before publication.
“Some of the wordsmithing may be done later,” ACIP executive secretary Amanda Cohn, MD, said at the ACIP October meeting.
Key updates to the schedule included a change in wording for the definition of the red bars on the table to include “not recommended or contraindicated” instead of only the word “contraindicated.” Committee members were especially interested in changing this wording to guide clinicians in use of the live attenuated influenza vaccine because of its potential value in vaccinating health care personnel.
Other updates include language that vaccination of adolescents and young adults aged 16-23 years who are not at increased risk for meningococcal disease should be vaccinated as follows: “Based on shared clinical decision making, 2-dose series MenB-4C at least 1 month apart or 2-dose series MenB-FHbp at 0, 6 months.”
Similarly, clinical decision-making language was added to the notes for the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) and the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13).
The routine vaccination calls for only one dose of PPSV23 given on or after the individual’s 65th birthday. Then, based on shared clinical decision making, a dose of PCV13 is recommended for immunocompetent individuals aged 65 years and older. The notes also state that, based on shared clinical decision making, PCV13 and PPSV23 should not be given in the same visit and, if both will be given, PCV13 should be first and should be given 1 year before PPSV23. In addition, “PPSV23 should be given at least 5 years after any previous PPSV23 dose.”
The schedule also adds shared clinical decision making to the notes on human papillomavirus vaccination for adults aged 27-45 years.
The committee members acknowledged the increasing complexity of the adult vaccination schedule, but several members agreed that it is accessible to many clinicians.
“We can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” said Jason Goldman, MD, liaison representing the American College of Physicians. “Those who want to learn the schedule will learn it; the health system will learn it,” even if not every specialist does.
The table “is something to draw you in,” said Sandra Fryhofer, MD, an internist who is liaison for the American Medical Association. The notes provide more details.
More specific information about contraindications for patients with cochlear implants, which also came up in the discussion, may be added to the schedule at a later date.
View the current adult vaccination schedule here.
The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted unanimously to approve the adult immunization schedule for 2020, although some fine-tuning may occur before publication.
“Some of the wordsmithing may be done later,” ACIP executive secretary Amanda Cohn, MD, said at the ACIP October meeting.
Key updates to the schedule included a change in wording for the definition of the red bars on the table to include “not recommended or contraindicated” instead of only the word “contraindicated.” Committee members were especially interested in changing this wording to guide clinicians in use of the live attenuated influenza vaccine because of its potential value in vaccinating health care personnel.
Other updates include language that vaccination of adolescents and young adults aged 16-23 years who are not at increased risk for meningococcal disease should be vaccinated as follows: “Based on shared clinical decision making, 2-dose series MenB-4C at least 1 month apart or 2-dose series MenB-FHbp at 0, 6 months.”
Similarly, clinical decision-making language was added to the notes for the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) and the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13).
The routine vaccination calls for only one dose of PPSV23 given on or after the individual’s 65th birthday. Then, based on shared clinical decision making, a dose of PCV13 is recommended for immunocompetent individuals aged 65 years and older. The notes also state that, based on shared clinical decision making, PCV13 and PPSV23 should not be given in the same visit and, if both will be given, PCV13 should be first and should be given 1 year before PPSV23. In addition, “PPSV23 should be given at least 5 years after any previous PPSV23 dose.”
The schedule also adds shared clinical decision making to the notes on human papillomavirus vaccination for adults aged 27-45 years.
The committee members acknowledged the increasing complexity of the adult vaccination schedule, but several members agreed that it is accessible to many clinicians.
“We can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” said Jason Goldman, MD, liaison representing the American College of Physicians. “Those who want to learn the schedule will learn it; the health system will learn it,” even if not every specialist does.
The table “is something to draw you in,” said Sandra Fryhofer, MD, an internist who is liaison for the American Medical Association. The notes provide more details.
More specific information about contraindications for patients with cochlear implants, which also came up in the discussion, may be added to the schedule at a later date.
View the current adult vaccination schedule here.
The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted unanimously to approve the adult immunization schedule for 2020, although some fine-tuning may occur before publication.
“Some of the wordsmithing may be done later,” ACIP executive secretary Amanda Cohn, MD, said at the ACIP October meeting.
Key updates to the schedule included a change in wording for the definition of the red bars on the table to include “not recommended or contraindicated” instead of only the word “contraindicated.” Committee members were especially interested in changing this wording to guide clinicians in use of the live attenuated influenza vaccine because of its potential value in vaccinating health care personnel.
Other updates include language that vaccination of adolescents and young adults aged 16-23 years who are not at increased risk for meningococcal disease should be vaccinated as follows: “Based on shared clinical decision making, 2-dose series MenB-4C at least 1 month apart or 2-dose series MenB-FHbp at 0, 6 months.”
Similarly, clinical decision-making language was added to the notes for the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) and the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13).
The routine vaccination calls for only one dose of PPSV23 given on or after the individual’s 65th birthday. Then, based on shared clinical decision making, a dose of PCV13 is recommended for immunocompetent individuals aged 65 years and older. The notes also state that, based on shared clinical decision making, PCV13 and PPSV23 should not be given in the same visit and, if both will be given, PCV13 should be first and should be given 1 year before PPSV23. In addition, “PPSV23 should be given at least 5 years after any previous PPSV23 dose.”
The schedule also adds shared clinical decision making to the notes on human papillomavirus vaccination for adults aged 27-45 years.
The committee members acknowledged the increasing complexity of the adult vaccination schedule, but several members agreed that it is accessible to many clinicians.
“We can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” said Jason Goldman, MD, liaison representing the American College of Physicians. “Those who want to learn the schedule will learn it; the health system will learn it,” even if not every specialist does.
The table “is something to draw you in,” said Sandra Fryhofer, MD, an internist who is liaison for the American Medical Association. The notes provide more details.
More specific information about contraindications for patients with cochlear implants, which also came up in the discussion, may be added to the schedule at a later date.
View the current adult vaccination schedule here.
The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
NAM offers recommendations to fight clinician burnout
WASHINGTON – a condition now estimated to affect a third to a half of clinicians in the United States, according to a report from an influential federal panel.
The National Academy of Medicine (NAM) on Oct. 23 released a report, “Taking Action Against Clinician Burnout: A Systems Approach to Professional Well-Being.” The report calls for a broad and unified approach to tackling the root causes of burnout.
There must be a concerted effort by leaders of many fields of health care to create less stressful workplaces for clinicians, Pascale Carayon, PhD, cochair of the NAM committee that produced the report, said during the NAM press event.
“This is not an easy process,” said Dr. Carayon, a researcher into patient safety issues at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “There is no single solution.”
The NAM report assigns specific tasks to many different participants in health care through a six-goal approach, as described below.
–Create positive workplaces. Leaders of health care systems should consider how their business and management decisions will affect clinicians’ jobs, taking into account the potential to add to their levels of burnout. Executives need to continuously monitor and evaluate the extent of burnout in their organizations, and report on this at least annually.
–Address burnout in training and in clinicians’ early years. Medical, nursing, and pharmacy schools should consider steps such as monitoring workload, implementing pass-fail grading, improving access to scholarships and affordable loans, and creating new loan repayment systems.
–Reduce administrative burden. Federal and state bodies and organizations such as the National Quality Forum should reconsider how their regulations and recommendations contribute to burnout. Organizations should seek to eliminate tasks that do not improve the care of patients.
–Improve usability and relevance of health information technology (IT). Medical organizations should develop and buy systems that are as user-friendly and easy to operate as possible. They also should look to use IT to reduce documentation demands and automate nonessential tasks.
–Reduce stigma and improve burnout recovery services. State officials and legislative bodies should make it easier for clinicians to use employee assistance programs, peer support programs, and mental health providers without the information being admissible in malpractice litigation. The report notes the recommendations from the Federation of State Medical Boards, American Medical Association, and the American Psychiatric Association on limiting inquiries in licensing applications about a clinician’s mental health. Questions should focus on current impairment rather than reach well into a clinician’s past.
–Create a national research agenda on clinician well-being. By the end of 2020, federal agencies – including the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the Health Resources and Services Administration, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs – should develop a coordinated research agenda on clinician burnout, the report said.
In casting a wide net and assigning specific tasks, the NAM report seeks to establish efforts to address clinician burnout as a broad and shared responsibility. It would be too easy for different medical organizations to depict addressing burnout as being outside of their responsibilities, Christine K. Cassel, MD, the cochair of the NAM committee that produced the report, said during the press event.
“Nothing could be farther from the truth. Everyone is necessary to solve this problem,” said Dr. Cassel, who is a former chief executive officer of the National Quality Forum.
Darrell G. Kirch, MD, chief executive of the Association of American Medical Colleges, described the report as a “call to action” at the press event.
Previously published research has found between 35% and 54% of nurses and physicians in the United States have substantial symptoms of burnout, with the prevalence of burnout ranging between 45% and 60% for medical students and residents, the NAM report said.
Leaders of health organizations must consider how the policies they set will add stress for clinicians and make them less effective in caring for patients, said Vindell Washington, MD, chief medical officer of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana and a member of the NAM committee that wrote the report.
“Those linkages should be incentives and motivations for boards and leaders more broadly to act on the problem,” Dr. Washington said at the NAM event.
Dr. Kirch said he experienced burnout as a first-year medical student. He said a “brilliant aspect” of the NAM report is its emphasis on burnout as a response to the conditions under which medicine is practiced. In the past, burnout has been viewed as being the fault of the physician or nurse experiencing it, with the response then being to try to “fix” this individual, Dr. Kirch said at the event.
The NAM report instead defines burnout as a “work-related phenomenon studied since at least the 1970s,” in which an individual may experience exhaustion and detachment. Depression and other mental health issues such as anxiety disorders and addiction can follow burnout, he said. “That involves a real human toll.”
Joe Rotella, MD, MBA, chief medical officer at American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, said in an interview that this NAM paper has the potential to spark the kind of transformation that its earlier research did for the quality of care. Then called the Institute of Medicine(IOM), NAM in 1999 issued a report, “To Err Is Human,” which is broadly seen as a key catalyst in efforts in the ensuing decades to improve the quality of care. IOM then followed up with a 2001 report, “Crossing the Quality Chasm.”
“Those papers over a period of time really did change the way we do health care,” said Dr. Rotella, who was not involved with the NAM report.
In Dr. Rotella’s view, the NAM report provides a solid framework for what remains a daunting task, addressing the many factors involved in burnout.
“The most exciting thing about this is that they don’t have 500 recommendations. They had six and that’s something people can organize around,” he said. “They are not small goals. I’m not saying they are simple.”
The NAM report delves into the factors that contribute to burnout. These include a maze of government and commercial insurance plans that create “a confusing and onerous environment for clinicians,” with many of them juggling “multiple payment systems with complex rules, processes, metrics, and incentives that may frequently change.”
Clinicians face a growing field of measurements intended to judge the quality of their performance. While some of these are useful, others are duplicative and some are not relevant to patient care, the NAM report said.
The report also noted that many clinicians describe electronic health records (EHRs) as taking a toll on their work and private lives. Previously published research has found that for every hour spent with a patient, physicians spend an additional 1-2 hours on the EHR at work, with additional time needed to complete this data entry at home after work hours, the report said.
In an interview, Cynda Rushton, RN, PhD, a Johns Hopkins University researcher and a member of the NAM committee that produced the report, said this new publication will support efforts to overhaul many aspects of current medical practice. She said she hopes it will be a “catalyst for bold and fundamental reform.
“It’s taking a deep dive into the evidence to see how we can begin to dismantle the system’s contributions to burnout,” she said. “No longer can we put Band-Aids on a gaping wound.”
WASHINGTON – a condition now estimated to affect a third to a half of clinicians in the United States, according to a report from an influential federal panel.
The National Academy of Medicine (NAM) on Oct. 23 released a report, “Taking Action Against Clinician Burnout: A Systems Approach to Professional Well-Being.” The report calls for a broad and unified approach to tackling the root causes of burnout.
There must be a concerted effort by leaders of many fields of health care to create less stressful workplaces for clinicians, Pascale Carayon, PhD, cochair of the NAM committee that produced the report, said during the NAM press event.
“This is not an easy process,” said Dr. Carayon, a researcher into patient safety issues at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “There is no single solution.”
The NAM report assigns specific tasks to many different participants in health care through a six-goal approach, as described below.
–Create positive workplaces. Leaders of health care systems should consider how their business and management decisions will affect clinicians’ jobs, taking into account the potential to add to their levels of burnout. Executives need to continuously monitor and evaluate the extent of burnout in their organizations, and report on this at least annually.
–Address burnout in training and in clinicians’ early years. Medical, nursing, and pharmacy schools should consider steps such as monitoring workload, implementing pass-fail grading, improving access to scholarships and affordable loans, and creating new loan repayment systems.
–Reduce administrative burden. Federal and state bodies and organizations such as the National Quality Forum should reconsider how their regulations and recommendations contribute to burnout. Organizations should seek to eliminate tasks that do not improve the care of patients.
–Improve usability and relevance of health information technology (IT). Medical organizations should develop and buy systems that are as user-friendly and easy to operate as possible. They also should look to use IT to reduce documentation demands and automate nonessential tasks.
–Reduce stigma and improve burnout recovery services. State officials and legislative bodies should make it easier for clinicians to use employee assistance programs, peer support programs, and mental health providers without the information being admissible in malpractice litigation. The report notes the recommendations from the Federation of State Medical Boards, American Medical Association, and the American Psychiatric Association on limiting inquiries in licensing applications about a clinician’s mental health. Questions should focus on current impairment rather than reach well into a clinician’s past.
–Create a national research agenda on clinician well-being. By the end of 2020, federal agencies – including the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the Health Resources and Services Administration, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs – should develop a coordinated research agenda on clinician burnout, the report said.
In casting a wide net and assigning specific tasks, the NAM report seeks to establish efforts to address clinician burnout as a broad and shared responsibility. It would be too easy for different medical organizations to depict addressing burnout as being outside of their responsibilities, Christine K. Cassel, MD, the cochair of the NAM committee that produced the report, said during the press event.
“Nothing could be farther from the truth. Everyone is necessary to solve this problem,” said Dr. Cassel, who is a former chief executive officer of the National Quality Forum.
Darrell G. Kirch, MD, chief executive of the Association of American Medical Colleges, described the report as a “call to action” at the press event.
Previously published research has found between 35% and 54% of nurses and physicians in the United States have substantial symptoms of burnout, with the prevalence of burnout ranging between 45% and 60% for medical students and residents, the NAM report said.
Leaders of health organizations must consider how the policies they set will add stress for clinicians and make them less effective in caring for patients, said Vindell Washington, MD, chief medical officer of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana and a member of the NAM committee that wrote the report.
“Those linkages should be incentives and motivations for boards and leaders more broadly to act on the problem,” Dr. Washington said at the NAM event.
Dr. Kirch said he experienced burnout as a first-year medical student. He said a “brilliant aspect” of the NAM report is its emphasis on burnout as a response to the conditions under which medicine is practiced. In the past, burnout has been viewed as being the fault of the physician or nurse experiencing it, with the response then being to try to “fix” this individual, Dr. Kirch said at the event.
The NAM report instead defines burnout as a “work-related phenomenon studied since at least the 1970s,” in which an individual may experience exhaustion and detachment. Depression and other mental health issues such as anxiety disorders and addiction can follow burnout, he said. “That involves a real human toll.”
Joe Rotella, MD, MBA, chief medical officer at American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, said in an interview that this NAM paper has the potential to spark the kind of transformation that its earlier research did for the quality of care. Then called the Institute of Medicine(IOM), NAM in 1999 issued a report, “To Err Is Human,” which is broadly seen as a key catalyst in efforts in the ensuing decades to improve the quality of care. IOM then followed up with a 2001 report, “Crossing the Quality Chasm.”
“Those papers over a period of time really did change the way we do health care,” said Dr. Rotella, who was not involved with the NAM report.
In Dr. Rotella’s view, the NAM report provides a solid framework for what remains a daunting task, addressing the many factors involved in burnout.
“The most exciting thing about this is that they don’t have 500 recommendations. They had six and that’s something people can organize around,” he said. “They are not small goals. I’m not saying they are simple.”
The NAM report delves into the factors that contribute to burnout. These include a maze of government and commercial insurance plans that create “a confusing and onerous environment for clinicians,” with many of them juggling “multiple payment systems with complex rules, processes, metrics, and incentives that may frequently change.”
Clinicians face a growing field of measurements intended to judge the quality of their performance. While some of these are useful, others are duplicative and some are not relevant to patient care, the NAM report said.
The report also noted that many clinicians describe electronic health records (EHRs) as taking a toll on their work and private lives. Previously published research has found that for every hour spent with a patient, physicians spend an additional 1-2 hours on the EHR at work, with additional time needed to complete this data entry at home after work hours, the report said.
In an interview, Cynda Rushton, RN, PhD, a Johns Hopkins University researcher and a member of the NAM committee that produced the report, said this new publication will support efforts to overhaul many aspects of current medical practice. She said she hopes it will be a “catalyst for bold and fundamental reform.
“It’s taking a deep dive into the evidence to see how we can begin to dismantle the system’s contributions to burnout,” she said. “No longer can we put Band-Aids on a gaping wound.”
WASHINGTON – a condition now estimated to affect a third to a half of clinicians in the United States, according to a report from an influential federal panel.
The National Academy of Medicine (NAM) on Oct. 23 released a report, “Taking Action Against Clinician Burnout: A Systems Approach to Professional Well-Being.” The report calls for a broad and unified approach to tackling the root causes of burnout.
There must be a concerted effort by leaders of many fields of health care to create less stressful workplaces for clinicians, Pascale Carayon, PhD, cochair of the NAM committee that produced the report, said during the NAM press event.
“This is not an easy process,” said Dr. Carayon, a researcher into patient safety issues at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “There is no single solution.”
The NAM report assigns specific tasks to many different participants in health care through a six-goal approach, as described below.
–Create positive workplaces. Leaders of health care systems should consider how their business and management decisions will affect clinicians’ jobs, taking into account the potential to add to their levels of burnout. Executives need to continuously monitor and evaluate the extent of burnout in their organizations, and report on this at least annually.
–Address burnout in training and in clinicians’ early years. Medical, nursing, and pharmacy schools should consider steps such as monitoring workload, implementing pass-fail grading, improving access to scholarships and affordable loans, and creating new loan repayment systems.
–Reduce administrative burden. Federal and state bodies and organizations such as the National Quality Forum should reconsider how their regulations and recommendations contribute to burnout. Organizations should seek to eliminate tasks that do not improve the care of patients.
–Improve usability and relevance of health information technology (IT). Medical organizations should develop and buy systems that are as user-friendly and easy to operate as possible. They also should look to use IT to reduce documentation demands and automate nonessential tasks.
–Reduce stigma and improve burnout recovery services. State officials and legislative bodies should make it easier for clinicians to use employee assistance programs, peer support programs, and mental health providers without the information being admissible in malpractice litigation. The report notes the recommendations from the Federation of State Medical Boards, American Medical Association, and the American Psychiatric Association on limiting inquiries in licensing applications about a clinician’s mental health. Questions should focus on current impairment rather than reach well into a clinician’s past.
–Create a national research agenda on clinician well-being. By the end of 2020, federal agencies – including the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the Health Resources and Services Administration, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs – should develop a coordinated research agenda on clinician burnout, the report said.
In casting a wide net and assigning specific tasks, the NAM report seeks to establish efforts to address clinician burnout as a broad and shared responsibility. It would be too easy for different medical organizations to depict addressing burnout as being outside of their responsibilities, Christine K. Cassel, MD, the cochair of the NAM committee that produced the report, said during the press event.
“Nothing could be farther from the truth. Everyone is necessary to solve this problem,” said Dr. Cassel, who is a former chief executive officer of the National Quality Forum.
Darrell G. Kirch, MD, chief executive of the Association of American Medical Colleges, described the report as a “call to action” at the press event.
Previously published research has found between 35% and 54% of nurses and physicians in the United States have substantial symptoms of burnout, with the prevalence of burnout ranging between 45% and 60% for medical students and residents, the NAM report said.
Leaders of health organizations must consider how the policies they set will add stress for clinicians and make them less effective in caring for patients, said Vindell Washington, MD, chief medical officer of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana and a member of the NAM committee that wrote the report.
“Those linkages should be incentives and motivations for boards and leaders more broadly to act on the problem,” Dr. Washington said at the NAM event.
Dr. Kirch said he experienced burnout as a first-year medical student. He said a “brilliant aspect” of the NAM report is its emphasis on burnout as a response to the conditions under which medicine is practiced. In the past, burnout has been viewed as being the fault of the physician or nurse experiencing it, with the response then being to try to “fix” this individual, Dr. Kirch said at the event.
The NAM report instead defines burnout as a “work-related phenomenon studied since at least the 1970s,” in which an individual may experience exhaustion and detachment. Depression and other mental health issues such as anxiety disorders and addiction can follow burnout, he said. “That involves a real human toll.”
Joe Rotella, MD, MBA, chief medical officer at American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, said in an interview that this NAM paper has the potential to spark the kind of transformation that its earlier research did for the quality of care. Then called the Institute of Medicine(IOM), NAM in 1999 issued a report, “To Err Is Human,” which is broadly seen as a key catalyst in efforts in the ensuing decades to improve the quality of care. IOM then followed up with a 2001 report, “Crossing the Quality Chasm.”
“Those papers over a period of time really did change the way we do health care,” said Dr. Rotella, who was not involved with the NAM report.
In Dr. Rotella’s view, the NAM report provides a solid framework for what remains a daunting task, addressing the many factors involved in burnout.
“The most exciting thing about this is that they don’t have 500 recommendations. They had six and that’s something people can organize around,” he said. “They are not small goals. I’m not saying they are simple.”
The NAM report delves into the factors that contribute to burnout. These include a maze of government and commercial insurance plans that create “a confusing and onerous environment for clinicians,” with many of them juggling “multiple payment systems with complex rules, processes, metrics, and incentives that may frequently change.”
Clinicians face a growing field of measurements intended to judge the quality of their performance. While some of these are useful, others are duplicative and some are not relevant to patient care, the NAM report said.
The report also noted that many clinicians describe electronic health records (EHRs) as taking a toll on their work and private lives. Previously published research has found that for every hour spent with a patient, physicians spend an additional 1-2 hours on the EHR at work, with additional time needed to complete this data entry at home after work hours, the report said.
In an interview, Cynda Rushton, RN, PhD, a Johns Hopkins University researcher and a member of the NAM committee that produced the report, said this new publication will support efforts to overhaul many aspects of current medical practice. She said she hopes it will be a “catalyst for bold and fundamental reform.
“It’s taking a deep dive into the evidence to see how we can begin to dismantle the system’s contributions to burnout,” she said. “No longer can we put Band-Aids on a gaping wound.”
A cigarette in one hand and a Fitbit on the other
A cardiologist friend of mine told me a story about one of his patients. The man had recently been in to see him for an office visit. He had quite a scare needing two stents after an episode of prolonged chest pain and, during the office visit, apparently had said that he had “found religion” and was going to change his ways. He showed off the Fitbit that he had gotten and shared his excitement about using a new app to track his diet on his smart phone. His blood pressure was a little elevated, so my friend added a third antihypertensive in an effort to get his blood pressure under control. He referred the patient back to his primary care physician to address his elevated hemoglobin A1c.
My friend saw the patient again a couple of weeks later – this time at the mall. As he was driving through the parking lot, he noticed his patient sitting on a bench outside the entrance. He also noticed a cigarette in his patient’s right hand and saw the Fitbit still on his wrist. Now, it’s not that there is anything wrong with wearing a Fitbit, but …
My friend is an incredibly respectful person, and very nice. He decided not to say hello and risk embarrassing his patient, so he walked to a different door far from the bench and went inside. Nonetheless, the image bothered him. It bothered him enough to repeat the story to me 2 weeks later. It bothers me too.
The other day I was talking to a healthy young nurse with whom I work. She has been trying to get into shape, and her goal is to get to the gym 5 days a week after work. She read on a popular website that she should use a heart rate monitor to keep track of her training and that, if her heart rate is too slow, she should run faster and, if her heart rate is too fast, she should slow down. She was discouraged the other day, however, because her watch indicated that her pulse was going up to 170 while she was running hard, and she had heard that could be dangerous for her heart.
When she doesn’t push hard, though, she told me that her heart rate often plateaus at about 110, sometimes 115. She has been finding it difficult to achieve her calculated target heart rate of 120-160 beats per minute. She is frustrated and was going to skip her workout that evening. I explained to her that she should stop checking her pulse and just run – if she felt she was running too slow she could run faster.
With everything that we have learned about science and technology, the reality is that we are still people, with all our weaknesses and strengths. We often set goals with ambivalence, then rush forward hoping that a technological solution will move us in the direction we think we want to move. Unfortunately, owning a Fitbit will not make us more fit, and checking our pulse every five minutes while working out will not lead to a better exercise session. With the availability of so much technology for tracking our daily exercise, vital signs, and various other measures of health, we need to be more careful than ever to determine specifically what it is that we are trying to accomplish with the use of our technology.
When it comes to good health, it is the fundamentals that matter, and achieving the fundamentals requires being mindful and making repeated efforts to master them. For almost all adults, the most important habits to develop are still related to diet and exercise. Consuming the right diet and exercising adequately requires that the correct choices be made each and every day, all day long. Technology can help but will not do it for us. We need to be thoughtful about how we use technology and explicit about how we expect it to help. After a reasonable amount of time, we should evaluate to see if it is working for us. If it is, then we should continue to use it. If it is not, then we should stop using it or make a different change, like performing a new type of exercise.
Our goal should be to have intelligent empathic integration of technological and behavioral techniques to achieve an optimal health outcome. Putting running shoes by the bed at night is a great thing to do to encourage us to run in the morning. Choosing motivational music can help us get the energy and enthusiasm to go for that run (our favorites include the Rocky theme song and “I Didn’t Come this Far to Only Come this Far”). A visual reminder over the refrigerator can “nudge” us to make good choices as we open the door.
For those who want to learn more about how to integrate behavioral management into their advice for patients we highly recommend reading “Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard” by Chip Heath and “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness” by Richard Thaler. We have always been, and remain, excited about the promise of technology to help us accomplish our goals. That said, we told the nurse to stop checking her pulse, to put on some music, and to appreciate the leaves on the trees this autumn while she was running. As for the gentleman outside the mall, well …
We are interested in your thoughts. Please email us at fpnews@mdedge.com.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter @doctornotte. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.
A cardiologist friend of mine told me a story about one of his patients. The man had recently been in to see him for an office visit. He had quite a scare needing two stents after an episode of prolonged chest pain and, during the office visit, apparently had said that he had “found religion” and was going to change his ways. He showed off the Fitbit that he had gotten and shared his excitement about using a new app to track his diet on his smart phone. His blood pressure was a little elevated, so my friend added a third antihypertensive in an effort to get his blood pressure under control. He referred the patient back to his primary care physician to address his elevated hemoglobin A1c.
My friend saw the patient again a couple of weeks later – this time at the mall. As he was driving through the parking lot, he noticed his patient sitting on a bench outside the entrance. He also noticed a cigarette in his patient’s right hand and saw the Fitbit still on his wrist. Now, it’s not that there is anything wrong with wearing a Fitbit, but …
My friend is an incredibly respectful person, and very nice. He decided not to say hello and risk embarrassing his patient, so he walked to a different door far from the bench and went inside. Nonetheless, the image bothered him. It bothered him enough to repeat the story to me 2 weeks later. It bothers me too.
The other day I was talking to a healthy young nurse with whom I work. She has been trying to get into shape, and her goal is to get to the gym 5 days a week after work. She read on a popular website that she should use a heart rate monitor to keep track of her training and that, if her heart rate is too slow, she should run faster and, if her heart rate is too fast, she should slow down. She was discouraged the other day, however, because her watch indicated that her pulse was going up to 170 while she was running hard, and she had heard that could be dangerous for her heart.
When she doesn’t push hard, though, she told me that her heart rate often plateaus at about 110, sometimes 115. She has been finding it difficult to achieve her calculated target heart rate of 120-160 beats per minute. She is frustrated and was going to skip her workout that evening. I explained to her that she should stop checking her pulse and just run – if she felt she was running too slow she could run faster.
With everything that we have learned about science and technology, the reality is that we are still people, with all our weaknesses and strengths. We often set goals with ambivalence, then rush forward hoping that a technological solution will move us in the direction we think we want to move. Unfortunately, owning a Fitbit will not make us more fit, and checking our pulse every five minutes while working out will not lead to a better exercise session. With the availability of so much technology for tracking our daily exercise, vital signs, and various other measures of health, we need to be more careful than ever to determine specifically what it is that we are trying to accomplish with the use of our technology.
When it comes to good health, it is the fundamentals that matter, and achieving the fundamentals requires being mindful and making repeated efforts to master them. For almost all adults, the most important habits to develop are still related to diet and exercise. Consuming the right diet and exercising adequately requires that the correct choices be made each and every day, all day long. Technology can help but will not do it for us. We need to be thoughtful about how we use technology and explicit about how we expect it to help. After a reasonable amount of time, we should evaluate to see if it is working for us. If it is, then we should continue to use it. If it is not, then we should stop using it or make a different change, like performing a new type of exercise.
Our goal should be to have intelligent empathic integration of technological and behavioral techniques to achieve an optimal health outcome. Putting running shoes by the bed at night is a great thing to do to encourage us to run in the morning. Choosing motivational music can help us get the energy and enthusiasm to go for that run (our favorites include the Rocky theme song and “I Didn’t Come this Far to Only Come this Far”). A visual reminder over the refrigerator can “nudge” us to make good choices as we open the door.
For those who want to learn more about how to integrate behavioral management into their advice for patients we highly recommend reading “Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard” by Chip Heath and “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness” by Richard Thaler. We have always been, and remain, excited about the promise of technology to help us accomplish our goals. That said, we told the nurse to stop checking her pulse, to put on some music, and to appreciate the leaves on the trees this autumn while she was running. As for the gentleman outside the mall, well …
We are interested in your thoughts. Please email us at fpnews@mdedge.com.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter @doctornotte. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.
A cardiologist friend of mine told me a story about one of his patients. The man had recently been in to see him for an office visit. He had quite a scare needing two stents after an episode of prolonged chest pain and, during the office visit, apparently had said that he had “found religion” and was going to change his ways. He showed off the Fitbit that he had gotten and shared his excitement about using a new app to track his diet on his smart phone. His blood pressure was a little elevated, so my friend added a third antihypertensive in an effort to get his blood pressure under control. He referred the patient back to his primary care physician to address his elevated hemoglobin A1c.
My friend saw the patient again a couple of weeks later – this time at the mall. As he was driving through the parking lot, he noticed his patient sitting on a bench outside the entrance. He also noticed a cigarette in his patient’s right hand and saw the Fitbit still on his wrist. Now, it’s not that there is anything wrong with wearing a Fitbit, but …
My friend is an incredibly respectful person, and very nice. He decided not to say hello and risk embarrassing his patient, so he walked to a different door far from the bench and went inside. Nonetheless, the image bothered him. It bothered him enough to repeat the story to me 2 weeks later. It bothers me too.
The other day I was talking to a healthy young nurse with whom I work. She has been trying to get into shape, and her goal is to get to the gym 5 days a week after work. She read on a popular website that she should use a heart rate monitor to keep track of her training and that, if her heart rate is too slow, she should run faster and, if her heart rate is too fast, she should slow down. She was discouraged the other day, however, because her watch indicated that her pulse was going up to 170 while she was running hard, and she had heard that could be dangerous for her heart.
When she doesn’t push hard, though, she told me that her heart rate often plateaus at about 110, sometimes 115. She has been finding it difficult to achieve her calculated target heart rate of 120-160 beats per minute. She is frustrated and was going to skip her workout that evening. I explained to her that she should stop checking her pulse and just run – if she felt she was running too slow she could run faster.
With everything that we have learned about science and technology, the reality is that we are still people, with all our weaknesses and strengths. We often set goals with ambivalence, then rush forward hoping that a technological solution will move us in the direction we think we want to move. Unfortunately, owning a Fitbit will not make us more fit, and checking our pulse every five minutes while working out will not lead to a better exercise session. With the availability of so much technology for tracking our daily exercise, vital signs, and various other measures of health, we need to be more careful than ever to determine specifically what it is that we are trying to accomplish with the use of our technology.
When it comes to good health, it is the fundamentals that matter, and achieving the fundamentals requires being mindful and making repeated efforts to master them. For almost all adults, the most important habits to develop are still related to diet and exercise. Consuming the right diet and exercising adequately requires that the correct choices be made each and every day, all day long. Technology can help but will not do it for us. We need to be thoughtful about how we use technology and explicit about how we expect it to help. After a reasonable amount of time, we should evaluate to see if it is working for us. If it is, then we should continue to use it. If it is not, then we should stop using it or make a different change, like performing a new type of exercise.
Our goal should be to have intelligent empathic integration of technological and behavioral techniques to achieve an optimal health outcome. Putting running shoes by the bed at night is a great thing to do to encourage us to run in the morning. Choosing motivational music can help us get the energy and enthusiasm to go for that run (our favorites include the Rocky theme song and “I Didn’t Come this Far to Only Come this Far”). A visual reminder over the refrigerator can “nudge” us to make good choices as we open the door.
For those who want to learn more about how to integrate behavioral management into their advice for patients we highly recommend reading “Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard” by Chip Heath and “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness” by Richard Thaler. We have always been, and remain, excited about the promise of technology to help us accomplish our goals. That said, we told the nurse to stop checking her pulse, to put on some music, and to appreciate the leaves on the trees this autumn while she was running. As for the gentleman outside the mall, well …
We are interested in your thoughts. Please email us at fpnews@mdedge.com.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter @doctornotte. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.
GAO calls out HHS’ poor oversight of administrative costs of Medicaid work requirements
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services needs to be doing a better job overseeing the administrative costs associated with the implementation of work requirements in Medicaid, the Government Accountability Office said in a new report.
The government watchdog found two key weaknesses in CMS’s oversight of the administrative costs of the Medicaid demonstration projects related to work requirements for Medicaid.
First, the GAO report notes that no consideration of the administrative costs of the work requirements is given during the administration of the approval process.
The GAO reports that, of five states’ approvals, the estimated administrative costs range from the low end of $6.1 million for New Hampshire (with 50,000 beneficiaries subject to the work requirement) to $271.6 million for Kentucky (with 620,000 beneficiaries subject to the work requirement). Indiana, with 420,000 beneficiaries subject to work requirements, has an estimated cost of $35.1 million.
A significant portion of Kentucky’s funding was for a the development of a new information technology system to help track work requirements.
“GAO found that CMS does not require states to provide projections of administrative costs when requesting demonstration approvals,” the report states. “Thus, the cost of administering demonstrations, including those with work requirements, is not transparent to the public or included in CMS’s assessment of whether a demonstration is budget neutral – that is, that federal spending will be no higher under the demonstration than it would have been without it.”
The GAO also reported that, by not requiring cost estimates, it also fails to meet the demonstration objective of transparency, something that goes hand in hand with budget neutrality.
The second weakness identified by GAO is that current procedures “may be insufficient to ensure that costs are allowable and matched at the correct rate.” Three of the five states examined in the report had received CMS approval for federal funds for administrative costs that were either not allowable for matching or were matched at higher rates than appropriate, based on CMS guidance.
The government watchdog noted that CMS did implement “procedures that may provide additional information on demonstrations’ administrative costs. ... However, it is unclear whether these efforts will result in data that improves CMS’s oversight.”
The GAO made three recommendations in the report. First, the CMS should require states to submit public projections of administrative costs when seeking approval for demonstration projects. Second, the administrative costs should be a part of the calculation for assessing the budget neutrality of demonstration project applications. Finally, CMS should do a better job assessing the risk that federal funds are being used to cover administrative costs that are not allowable and should improve oversight procedures as needed.
The GAO report included the Department of Health & Human Services’s response to the recommendations. To the first, the agency said that “its experience suggests that demonstration administrative costs will be a relatively small portion of total costs and therefore HHS believes making information about these costs available would provide stakeholders little to no value.”
Similarly, to the second recommendation, HHS countered that the information would provide little to no value given that administrative costs represent a relatively small portion of the total demonstration costs.
To the final recommendation on the need for better risk assessment, HHS said its existing approach “is appropriate for the low level of risk that administrative expenditures represent. ... CMS officials told us that they had not assessed wither current procedures sufficiently address risks posed by administrative costs for work requirements and had no plans to do so.”
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services needs to be doing a better job overseeing the administrative costs associated with the implementation of work requirements in Medicaid, the Government Accountability Office said in a new report.
The government watchdog found two key weaknesses in CMS’s oversight of the administrative costs of the Medicaid demonstration projects related to work requirements for Medicaid.
First, the GAO report notes that no consideration of the administrative costs of the work requirements is given during the administration of the approval process.
The GAO reports that, of five states’ approvals, the estimated administrative costs range from the low end of $6.1 million for New Hampshire (with 50,000 beneficiaries subject to the work requirement) to $271.6 million for Kentucky (with 620,000 beneficiaries subject to the work requirement). Indiana, with 420,000 beneficiaries subject to work requirements, has an estimated cost of $35.1 million.
A significant portion of Kentucky’s funding was for a the development of a new information technology system to help track work requirements.
“GAO found that CMS does not require states to provide projections of administrative costs when requesting demonstration approvals,” the report states. “Thus, the cost of administering demonstrations, including those with work requirements, is not transparent to the public or included in CMS’s assessment of whether a demonstration is budget neutral – that is, that federal spending will be no higher under the demonstration than it would have been without it.”
The GAO also reported that, by not requiring cost estimates, it also fails to meet the demonstration objective of transparency, something that goes hand in hand with budget neutrality.
The second weakness identified by GAO is that current procedures “may be insufficient to ensure that costs are allowable and matched at the correct rate.” Three of the five states examined in the report had received CMS approval for federal funds for administrative costs that were either not allowable for matching or were matched at higher rates than appropriate, based on CMS guidance.
The government watchdog noted that CMS did implement “procedures that may provide additional information on demonstrations’ administrative costs. ... However, it is unclear whether these efforts will result in data that improves CMS’s oversight.”
The GAO made three recommendations in the report. First, the CMS should require states to submit public projections of administrative costs when seeking approval for demonstration projects. Second, the administrative costs should be a part of the calculation for assessing the budget neutrality of demonstration project applications. Finally, CMS should do a better job assessing the risk that federal funds are being used to cover administrative costs that are not allowable and should improve oversight procedures as needed.
The GAO report included the Department of Health & Human Services’s response to the recommendations. To the first, the agency said that “its experience suggests that demonstration administrative costs will be a relatively small portion of total costs and therefore HHS believes making information about these costs available would provide stakeholders little to no value.”
Similarly, to the second recommendation, HHS countered that the information would provide little to no value given that administrative costs represent a relatively small portion of the total demonstration costs.
To the final recommendation on the need for better risk assessment, HHS said its existing approach “is appropriate for the low level of risk that administrative expenditures represent. ... CMS officials told us that they had not assessed wither current procedures sufficiently address risks posed by administrative costs for work requirements and had no plans to do so.”
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services needs to be doing a better job overseeing the administrative costs associated with the implementation of work requirements in Medicaid, the Government Accountability Office said in a new report.
The government watchdog found two key weaknesses in CMS’s oversight of the administrative costs of the Medicaid demonstration projects related to work requirements for Medicaid.
First, the GAO report notes that no consideration of the administrative costs of the work requirements is given during the administration of the approval process.
The GAO reports that, of five states’ approvals, the estimated administrative costs range from the low end of $6.1 million for New Hampshire (with 50,000 beneficiaries subject to the work requirement) to $271.6 million for Kentucky (with 620,000 beneficiaries subject to the work requirement). Indiana, with 420,000 beneficiaries subject to work requirements, has an estimated cost of $35.1 million.
A significant portion of Kentucky’s funding was for a the development of a new information technology system to help track work requirements.
“GAO found that CMS does not require states to provide projections of administrative costs when requesting demonstration approvals,” the report states. “Thus, the cost of administering demonstrations, including those with work requirements, is not transparent to the public or included in CMS’s assessment of whether a demonstration is budget neutral – that is, that federal spending will be no higher under the demonstration than it would have been without it.”
The GAO also reported that, by not requiring cost estimates, it also fails to meet the demonstration objective of transparency, something that goes hand in hand with budget neutrality.
The second weakness identified by GAO is that current procedures “may be insufficient to ensure that costs are allowable and matched at the correct rate.” Three of the five states examined in the report had received CMS approval for federal funds for administrative costs that were either not allowable for matching or were matched at higher rates than appropriate, based on CMS guidance.
The government watchdog noted that CMS did implement “procedures that may provide additional information on demonstrations’ administrative costs. ... However, it is unclear whether these efforts will result in data that improves CMS’s oversight.”
The GAO made three recommendations in the report. First, the CMS should require states to submit public projections of administrative costs when seeking approval for demonstration projects. Second, the administrative costs should be a part of the calculation for assessing the budget neutrality of demonstration project applications. Finally, CMS should do a better job assessing the risk that federal funds are being used to cover administrative costs that are not allowable and should improve oversight procedures as needed.
The GAO report included the Department of Health & Human Services’s response to the recommendations. To the first, the agency said that “its experience suggests that demonstration administrative costs will be a relatively small portion of total costs and therefore HHS believes making information about these costs available would provide stakeholders little to no value.”
Similarly, to the second recommendation, HHS countered that the information would provide little to no value given that administrative costs represent a relatively small portion of the total demonstration costs.
To the final recommendation on the need for better risk assessment, HHS said its existing approach “is appropriate for the low level of risk that administrative expenditures represent. ... CMS officials told us that they had not assessed wither current procedures sufficiently address risks posed by administrative costs for work requirements and had no plans to do so.”