Practice Management

Dollar value of uncompensated care provided by U.S. hospitals in 2012, expressed in terms of actual costs, according to data from the American Hospital Association’s Annual Survey of Hospitals^.6 This figure represents 6.1% of total costs, an increase of 11.7% from 2011. The total includes both bad debt and charity care provided to patients unable to pay for their care, AHA says, but does not include underpayments by Medicare and Medicaid.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Alameda, Calif.

References

1. Bailey FA, Williams BR, Woodby LL, et al. Intervention to improve care at life's end in inpatient settings: The BEACON trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(6):836-843.
2. Burling S. Yogurt a solution to hospital infection? Philadelphia Inquirer website. December 10, 2013. Available at: http://articles.philly.com/2013-12-10/news/44946926_1_holy-redeemer-probiotics-yogurt. Accessed June 5, 2014.
3. Landelle C, Verachten M, Legrand P, Girou E, Barbut F, Buisson CB. Contamination of healthcare workers’ hands with Clostridium difficile spores after caring for patients with C. difficile infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35(1):10-15.
4. Lewis K, Walker C. Development and application of information technology solutions to improve the quality and availability of discharge summaries. Journal of Hospital Medicine RIV abstracts website. Available at: http://www.shmabstracts.com/abstract.asp?MeetingID=793&id=104276&meeting=JHM201305. Published May 2013. Accessed June 14, 2014.
5. Snow V, Beck D, Budnitz T, et al. Transitions of Care Consensus Policy Statement. American College of Physicians; Society of General Internal Medicine; Society of Hospital Medicine; American Geriatrics Society; American College of Emergency Physicians; Society of Academic Emergency Medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(8):971-976.
6. American Hospital Association: Uncompensated hospital care cost fact sheet. January 2014. Available at: http://www.aha.org/content/14/14uncompensatedcare.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2014.

Dollar value of uncompensated care provided by U.S. hospitals in 2012, expressed in terms of actual costs, according to data from the American Hospital Association’s Annual Survey of Hospitals^.6 This figure represents 6.1% of total costs, an increase of 11.7% from 2011. The total includes both bad debt and charity care provided to patients unable to pay for their care, AHA says, but does not include underpayments by Medicare and Medicaid.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Alameda, Calif.

References

1. Bailey FA, Williams BR, Woodby LL, et al. Intervention to improve care at life's end in inpatient settings: The BEACON trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(6):836-843.
2. Burling S. Yogurt a solution to hospital infection? Philadelphia Inquirer website. December 10, 2013. Available at: http://articles.philly.com/2013-12-10/news/44946926_1_holy-redeemer-probiotics-yogurt. Accessed June 5, 2014.
3. Landelle C, Verachten M, Legrand P, Girou E, Barbut F, Buisson CB. Contamination of healthcare workers’ hands with Clostridium difficile spores after caring for patients with C. difficile infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35(1):10-15.
4. Lewis K, Walker C. Development and application of information technology solutions to improve the quality and availability of discharge summaries. Journal of Hospital Medicine RIV abstracts website. Available at: http://www.shmabstracts.com/abstract.asp?MeetingID=793&id=104276&meeting=JHM201305. Published May 2013. Accessed June 14, 2014.
5. Snow V, Beck D, Budnitz T, et al. Transitions of Care Consensus Policy Statement. American College of Physicians; Society of General Internal Medicine; Society of Hospital Medicine; American Geriatrics Society; American College of Emergency Physicians; Society of Academic Emergency Medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(8):971-976.
6. American Hospital Association: Uncompensated hospital care cost fact sheet. January 2014. Available at: http://www.aha.org/content/14/14uncompensatedcare.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2014.

Dollar value of uncompensated care provided by U.S. hospitals in 2012, expressed in terms of actual costs, according to data from the American Hospital Association’s Annual Survey of Hospitals^.6 This figure represents 6.1% of total costs, an increase of 11.7% from 2011. The total includes both bad debt and charity care provided to patients unable to pay for their care, AHA says, but does not include underpayments by Medicare and Medicaid.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Alameda, Calif.

References

1. Bailey FA, Williams BR, Woodby LL, et al. Intervention to improve care at life's end in inpatient settings: The BEACON trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(6):836-843.
2. Burling S. Yogurt a solution to hospital infection? Philadelphia Inquirer website. December 10, 2013. Available at: http://articles.philly.com/2013-12-10/news/44946926_1_holy-redeemer-probiotics-yogurt. Accessed June 5, 2014.
3. Landelle C, Verachten M, Legrand P, Girou E, Barbut F, Buisson CB. Contamination of healthcare workers’ hands with Clostridium difficile spores after caring for patients with C. difficile infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35(1):10-15.
4. Lewis K, Walker C. Development and application of information technology solutions to improve the quality and availability of discharge summaries. Journal of Hospital Medicine RIV abstracts website. Available at: http://www.shmabstracts.com/abstract.asp?MeetingID=793&id=104276&meeting=JHM201305. Published May 2013. Accessed June 14, 2014.
5. Snow V, Beck D, Budnitz T, et al. Transitions of Care Consensus Policy Statement. American College of Physicians; Society of General Internal Medicine; Society of Hospital Medicine; American Geriatrics Society; American College of Emergency Physicians; Society of Academic Emergency Medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(8):971-976.
6. American Hospital Association: Uncompensated hospital care cost fact sheet. January 2014. Available at: http://www.aha.org/content/14/14uncompensatedcare.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2014.

The Philadelphia Inquirer recently reported that Holy Redeemer Hospital in Meadowbrook, Pa., cut its incidence of Clostridium difficile by two-thirds after its nutritionists began encouraging hospitalized patients with orders for antibiotics for more than one day to eat a widely available brand of yogurt.² Seventy-five C. diff cases were reported in the hospital during 2011 and only 23 in 2012. The facility won an innovation award for the program from the Hospital and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania.

Other hospitals dispense probiotic dietary supplements, shown to have benefits against C. diff, in granular form. Medical experts have expressed skepticism that dispensing yogurt made the difference in cutting C. diff infections, arguing that there has not been enough research yet to support its widespread implementation in hospital settings.

Nationally, 337,000 cases of C. diff are reported in hospitals each year. A recent study reports that its spores are still commonly carried on the hands of healthcare workers who rubbed alcohol on their hands shortly after providing routine care to patients.³ Risk factors independently associated with hand contamination among healthcare workers in the exposed group included high-risk contacts and at least one contact without the use of gloves.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Alameda, Calif.

References

1. Bailey FA, Williams BR, Woodby LL, et al. Intervention to improve care at life's end in inpatient settings: The BEACON trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(6):836-843.
2. Burling S. Yogurt a solution to hospital infection? Philadelphia Inquirer website. December 10, 2013. Available at: http://articles.philly.com/2013-12-10/news/44946926_1_holy-redeemer-probiotics-yogurt. Accessed June 5, 2014.
3. Landelle C, Verachten M, Legrand P, Girou E, Barbut F, Buisson CB. Contamination of healthcare workers’ hands with Clostridium difficile spores after caring for patients with C. difficile infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35(1):10-15.
4. Lewis K, Walker C. Development and application of information technology solutions to improve the quality and availability of discharge summaries. Journal of Hospital Medicine RIV abstracts website. Available at: http://www.shmabstracts.com/abstract.asp?MeetingID=793&id=104276&meeting=JHM201305. Published May 2013. Accessed June 14, 2014.
5. Snow V, Beck D, Budnitz T, et al. Transitions of Care Consensus Policy Statement. American College of Physicians; Society of General Internal Medicine; Society of Hospital Medicine; American Geriatrics Society; American College of Emergency Physicians; Society of Academic Emergency Medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(8):971-976.
6. American Hospital Association: Uncompensated hospital care cost fact sheet. January 2014. Available at: http://www.aha.org/content/14/14uncompensatedcare.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2014.

The Philadelphia Inquirer recently reported that Holy Redeemer Hospital in Meadowbrook, Pa., cut its incidence of Clostridium difficile by two-thirds after its nutritionists began encouraging hospitalized patients with orders for antibiotics for more than one day to eat a widely available brand of yogurt.² Seventy-five C. diff cases were reported in the hospital during 2011 and only 23 in 2012. The facility won an innovation award for the program from the Hospital and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania.

Other hospitals dispense probiotic dietary supplements, shown to have benefits against C. diff, in granular form. Medical experts have expressed skepticism that dispensing yogurt made the difference in cutting C. diff infections, arguing that there has not been enough research yet to support its widespread implementation in hospital settings.

Nationally, 337,000 cases of C. diff are reported in hospitals each year. A recent study reports that its spores are still commonly carried on the hands of healthcare workers who rubbed alcohol on their hands shortly after providing routine care to patients.³ Risk factors independently associated with hand contamination among healthcare workers in the exposed group included high-risk contacts and at least one contact without the use of gloves.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Alameda, Calif.

References

1. Bailey FA, Williams BR, Woodby LL, et al. Intervention to improve care at life's end in inpatient settings: The BEACON trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(6):836-843.
2. Burling S. Yogurt a solution to hospital infection? Philadelphia Inquirer website. December 10, 2013. Available at: http://articles.philly.com/2013-12-10/news/44946926_1_holy-redeemer-probiotics-yogurt. Accessed June 5, 2014.
3. Landelle C, Verachten M, Legrand P, Girou E, Barbut F, Buisson CB. Contamination of healthcare workers’ hands with Clostridium difficile spores after caring for patients with C. difficile infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35(1):10-15.
4. Lewis K, Walker C. Development and application of information technology solutions to improve the quality and availability of discharge summaries. Journal of Hospital Medicine RIV abstracts website. Available at: http://www.shmabstracts.com/abstract.asp?MeetingID=793&id=104276&meeting=JHM201305. Published May 2013. Accessed June 14, 2014.
5. Snow V, Beck D, Budnitz T, et al. Transitions of Care Consensus Policy Statement. American College of Physicians; Society of General Internal Medicine; Society of Hospital Medicine; American Geriatrics Society; American College of Emergency Physicians; Society of Academic Emergency Medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(8):971-976.
6. American Hospital Association: Uncompensated hospital care cost fact sheet. January 2014. Available at: http://www.aha.org/content/14/14uncompensatedcare.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2014.

The Philadelphia Inquirer recently reported that Holy Redeemer Hospital in Meadowbrook, Pa., cut its incidence of Clostridium difficile by two-thirds after its nutritionists began encouraging hospitalized patients with orders for antibiotics for more than one day to eat a widely available brand of yogurt.² Seventy-five C. diff cases were reported in the hospital during 2011 and only 23 in 2012. The facility won an innovation award for the program from the Hospital and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania.

Other hospitals dispense probiotic dietary supplements, shown to have benefits against C. diff, in granular form. Medical experts have expressed skepticism that dispensing yogurt made the difference in cutting C. diff infections, arguing that there has not been enough research yet to support its widespread implementation in hospital settings.

Nationally, 337,000 cases of C. diff are reported in hospitals each year. A recent study reports that its spores are still commonly carried on the hands of healthcare workers who rubbed alcohol on their hands shortly after providing routine care to patients.³ Risk factors independently associated with hand contamination among healthcare workers in the exposed group included high-risk contacts and at least one contact without the use of gloves.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Alameda, Calif.

References

1. Bailey FA, Williams BR, Woodby LL, et al. Intervention to improve care at life's end in inpatient settings: The BEACON trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(6):836-843.
2. Burling S. Yogurt a solution to hospital infection? Philadelphia Inquirer website. December 10, 2013. Available at: http://articles.philly.com/2013-12-10/news/44946926_1_holy-redeemer-probiotics-yogurt. Accessed June 5, 2014.
3. Landelle C, Verachten M, Legrand P, Girou E, Barbut F, Buisson CB. Contamination of healthcare workers’ hands with Clostridium difficile spores after caring for patients with C. difficile infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35(1):10-15.
4. Lewis K, Walker C. Development and application of information technology solutions to improve the quality and availability of discharge summaries. Journal of Hospital Medicine RIV abstracts website. Available at: http://www.shmabstracts.com/abstract.asp?MeetingID=793&id=104276&meeting=JHM201305. Published May 2013. Accessed June 14, 2014.
5. Snow V, Beck D, Budnitz T, et al. Transitions of Care Consensus Policy Statement. American College of Physicians; Society of General Internal Medicine; Society of Hospital Medicine; American Geriatrics Society; American College of Emergency Physicians; Society of Academic Emergency Medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(8):971-976.
6. American Hospital Association: Uncompensated hospital care cost fact sheet. January 2014. Available at: http://www.aha.org/content/14/14uncompensatedcare.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2014.

The State of Hospital Medicine Report is the authoritative source for hospitalists to compare and contrast their staffing, productivity, and compensation with other HM groups across the country. SHM publishes the State of Hospital Medicine every two years. SHM is accepting pre-orders now. For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/sohm.

The State of Hospital Medicine Report is the authoritative source for hospitalists to compare and contrast their staffing, productivity, and compensation with other HM groups across the country. SHM publishes the State of Hospital Medicine every two years. SHM is accepting pre-orders now. For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/sohm.

The State of Hospital Medicine Report is the authoritative source for hospitalists to compare and contrast their staffing, productivity, and compensation with other HM groups across the country. SHM publishes the State of Hospital Medicine every two years. SHM is accepting pre-orders now. For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/sohm.

Looking for ways to make your HM group run better? SHM is introducing new tools and information to keep you ahead of the curve.

CODE-H Interactive is an industry first: an interactive tool to help hospitalist groups code effectively and efficiently. CODE-H Interactive allows users to validate documentation against coding criteria and provides a guided tour through clinical documentation, allowing users to ensure they are choosing the correct billing code while providing a conceptual framework that enables the user to easily “connect the dots” between clinical documentation and the applicable CPT coding.

CODE-H Interactive includes two modules: one that reviews three admission notes and a second that reviews three daily notes. It also enables users to assess other E/M codes, such as consultations and ED visits. To get started, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/CODEHI.

Looking for ways to make your HM group run better? SHM is introducing new tools and information to keep you ahead of the curve.

CODE-H Interactive is an industry first: an interactive tool to help hospitalist groups code effectively and efficiently. CODE-H Interactive allows users to validate documentation against coding criteria and provides a guided tour through clinical documentation, allowing users to ensure they are choosing the correct billing code while providing a conceptual framework that enables the user to easily “connect the dots” between clinical documentation and the applicable CPT coding.

CODE-H Interactive includes two modules: one that reviews three admission notes and a second that reviews three daily notes. It also enables users to assess other E/M codes, such as consultations and ED visits. To get started, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/CODEHI.

Looking for ways to make your HM group run better? SHM is introducing new tools and information to keep you ahead of the curve.

CODE-H Interactive is an industry first: an interactive tool to help hospitalist groups code effectively and efficiently. CODE-H Interactive allows users to validate documentation against coding criteria and provides a guided tour through clinical documentation, allowing users to ensure they are choosing the correct billing code while providing a conceptual framework that enables the user to easily “connect the dots” between clinical documentation and the applicable CPT coding.

CODE-H Interactive includes two modules: one that reviews three admission notes and a second that reviews three daily notes. It also enables users to assess other E/M codes, such as consultations and ED visits. To get started, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/CODEHI.

When she presents information to hospitalists about the little-known revision to Medicare’s condition of participation for discharge planning by hospitals, most hospitalists have no idea what Amy Boutwell, MD, MPP, is talking about. Even hospitalists who are active in their institutions’ efforts to improve transitions of care out of the hospital setting are unaware of the change, which was published in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Transmittal 87 and became effective July 19, 2013.

“I just don’t hear hospital professionals talking about it,” says Dr. Boutwell, a hospitalist at Newton-Wellesley Hospital and president of Collaborative Healthcare Strategies in Lexington, Mass. “When I say, ‘There are new rules of the road for discharge planning and evaluation,’ many are not aware of it.”

The revised condition states that the hospital must have a discharge planning process that applies to all patients—not just Medicare beneficiaries. Not every patient needs to have a written discharge plan—although this is recommended—but all patients should be screened and, if indicated, evaluated at an early stage of their hospitalization for risk of adverse post-discharge outcomes. Observation patients are not included in this requirement.

The discharge plan is different from a discharge summary document, which must be completed by the inpatient attending physician, not the hospital, and is not directly addressed in the regulation. The regulation does address the need for transfer of essential information to the next provider of care and says the hospital should have a written policy and procedure in place for discharge planning. The policy and procedure should be developed with input from medical staff and approved by the hospital’s governing body.

Any hospitalist participating with a hospital QI team involved in Project BOOST is helping their hospital comply with this condition of participation.

—Mark Williams, MD, FACP, SFHM, principal investigator of SHM’s Project BOOST

Transmittal 87 represents the first major update of the discharge planning regulation (Standard 482.43) and accompanying interpretive guidelines in more than a decade, Dr. Boutwell says. It consolidates and reorganizes 24 “tags” of regulatory language down to 13 and contains blue advisory boxes recommending best practices in discharge planning, drawn from the suggestions of a technical expert panel convened by CMS.

That panel included many of the country’s recognized thought leaders on improving care transitions, such as Mark Williams, MD, FACP, SFHM, principal investigator of SHM’s Project BOOST; Eric Coleman, MD, MPH, head of the University of Colorado’s division of health care policy and research and creator of the widely-adopted Care Transitions Program (caretransitions.org), and Dr. Boutwell, co-founder of the STAAR initiative (www.ihi.org/engage/Initiatives/completed/STAAR).

The new condition raises baseline expectations for discharge planning and elevates care transitions efforts from a quality improvement issue to the realm of regulatory compliance, Dr. Boutwell says.

“This goes way beyond case review,” she adds. “It represents an evolution from discharge planning case by case to a system for improving transitions of care [for the hospital]. I’m impressed.”

The recommendations are consistent with best practices promoted by Project BOOST, STAAR, Project RED [Re-Engineered Discharge], and other national quality initiatives for improving care transitions.

“Any hospitalist participating with a hospital QI team involved in Project BOOST is helping their hospital comply with this condition of participation,” Dr. Williams says.

In the Byzantine structure of federal regulations, Medicare’s conditions of participation are the regulations providers must meet in order to participate in the Medicare program and bill for their services. Condition-level citations, if not resolved, can cause hospitals to be decertified from Medicare. The accompanying interpretive guidelines, with survey protocols, are the playbook to help state auditors and providers know how to interpret and apply the language of the regulations. The suggestions and examples of best practices contained in the new condition are not required of hospitals but, if followed, could increase their likelihood of achieving better patient outcomes and staying in compliance with the regulations on surveys.

“If hospitals were to actually implement all of the CMS advisory practice recommendations contained in this 35-page document, they’d be in really good shape for effectively managing transitions of care,” says Teresa L. Hamblin, RN, MS, a CMS consultant with Joint Commission Resources. “The government has provided robust practice recommendations that are a model for what hospitals can do. I’d advise doing your best to implement these recommendations. Check your current processes using this detailed document for reference.”

Discharge planning starts at admission, Hamblin says. If the hospitalist assumes that responsibility, it becomes easier to leave a paper trail in the patient’s chart. Other important lessons for hospitalists include participation in a multidisciplinary approach to discharge planning (i.e., interdisciplinary rounding) and development of policies and procedures in this area.

“If the hospital has not elected to do a discharge plan on every patient, request this for your own patients and recommend it as a policy,” Hamblin says. “Go the extra mile, making follow-up appointments for your patients, filling prescriptions in house, and calling the patient 24 to 72 hours after discharge.”

Weekend coverage, when case managers typically are not present, is a particular challenge in care transitions.

“Encourage your hospital to provide reliable weekend coverage for discharge planning. Involve the nurses,” Hamblin says. “Anything the hospitalist can do to help the hospital close this gap is important.”

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Alameda, Calif.

When she presents information to hospitalists about the little-known revision to Medicare’s condition of participation for discharge planning by hospitals, most hospitalists have no idea what Amy Boutwell, MD, MPP, is talking about. Even hospitalists who are active in their institutions’ efforts to improve transitions of care out of the hospital setting are unaware of the change, which was published in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Transmittal 87 and became effective July 19, 2013.

“I just don’t hear hospital professionals talking about it,” says Dr. Boutwell, a hospitalist at Newton-Wellesley Hospital and president of Collaborative Healthcare Strategies in Lexington, Mass. “When I say, ‘There are new rules of the road for discharge planning and evaluation,’ many are not aware of it.”

The revised condition states that the hospital must have a discharge planning process that applies to all patients—not just Medicare beneficiaries. Not every patient needs to have a written discharge plan—although this is recommended—but all patients should be screened and, if indicated, evaluated at an early stage of their hospitalization for risk of adverse post-discharge outcomes. Observation patients are not included in this requirement.

The discharge plan is different from a discharge summary document, which must be completed by the inpatient attending physician, not the hospital, and is not directly addressed in the regulation. The regulation does address the need for transfer of essential information to the next provider of care and says the hospital should have a written policy and procedure in place for discharge planning. The policy and procedure should be developed with input from medical staff and approved by the hospital’s governing body.

Any hospitalist participating with a hospital QI team involved in Project BOOST is helping their hospital comply with this condition of participation.

—Mark Williams, MD, FACP, SFHM, principal investigator of SHM’s Project BOOST

Transmittal 87 represents the first major update of the discharge planning regulation (Standard 482.43) and accompanying interpretive guidelines in more than a decade, Dr. Boutwell says. It consolidates and reorganizes 24 “tags” of regulatory language down to 13 and contains blue advisory boxes recommending best practices in discharge planning, drawn from the suggestions of a technical expert panel convened by CMS.

That panel included many of the country’s recognized thought leaders on improving care transitions, such as Mark Williams, MD, FACP, SFHM, principal investigator of SHM’s Project BOOST; Eric Coleman, MD, MPH, head of the University of Colorado’s division of health care policy and research and creator of the widely-adopted Care Transitions Program (caretransitions.org), and Dr. Boutwell, co-founder of the STAAR initiative (www.ihi.org/engage/Initiatives/completed/STAAR).

The new condition raises baseline expectations for discharge planning and elevates care transitions efforts from a quality improvement issue to the realm of regulatory compliance, Dr. Boutwell says.

“This goes way beyond case review,” she adds. “It represents an evolution from discharge planning case by case to a system for improving transitions of care [for the hospital]. I’m impressed.”

The recommendations are consistent with best practices promoted by Project BOOST, STAAR, Project RED [Re-Engineered Discharge], and other national quality initiatives for improving care transitions.

“Any hospitalist participating with a hospital QI team involved in Project BOOST is helping their hospital comply with this condition of participation,” Dr. Williams says.

In the Byzantine structure of federal regulations, Medicare’s conditions of participation are the regulations providers must meet in order to participate in the Medicare program and bill for their services. Condition-level citations, if not resolved, can cause hospitals to be decertified from Medicare. The accompanying interpretive guidelines, with survey protocols, are the playbook to help state auditors and providers know how to interpret and apply the language of the regulations. The suggestions and examples of best practices contained in the new condition are not required of hospitals but, if followed, could increase their likelihood of achieving better patient outcomes and staying in compliance with the regulations on surveys.

“If hospitals were to actually implement all of the CMS advisory practice recommendations contained in this 35-page document, they’d be in really good shape for effectively managing transitions of care,” says Teresa L. Hamblin, RN, MS, a CMS consultant with Joint Commission Resources. “The government has provided robust practice recommendations that are a model for what hospitals can do. I’d advise doing your best to implement these recommendations. Check your current processes using this detailed document for reference.”

Discharge planning starts at admission, Hamblin says. If the hospitalist assumes that responsibility, it becomes easier to leave a paper trail in the patient’s chart. Other important lessons for hospitalists include participation in a multidisciplinary approach to discharge planning (i.e., interdisciplinary rounding) and development of policies and procedures in this area.

“If the hospital has not elected to do a discharge plan on every patient, request this for your own patients and recommend it as a policy,” Hamblin says. “Go the extra mile, making follow-up appointments for your patients, filling prescriptions in house, and calling the patient 24 to 72 hours after discharge.”

Weekend coverage, when case managers typically are not present, is a particular challenge in care transitions.

“Encourage your hospital to provide reliable weekend coverage for discharge planning. Involve the nurses,” Hamblin says. “Anything the hospitalist can do to help the hospital close this gap is important.”

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Alameda, Calif.

When she presents information to hospitalists about the little-known revision to Medicare’s condition of participation for discharge planning by hospitals, most hospitalists have no idea what Amy Boutwell, MD, MPP, is talking about. Even hospitalists who are active in their institutions’ efforts to improve transitions of care out of the hospital setting are unaware of the change, which was published in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Transmittal 87 and became effective July 19, 2013.

“I just don’t hear hospital professionals talking about it,” says Dr. Boutwell, a hospitalist at Newton-Wellesley Hospital and president of Collaborative Healthcare Strategies in Lexington, Mass. “When I say, ‘There are new rules of the road for discharge planning and evaluation,’ many are not aware of it.”

The revised condition states that the hospital must have a discharge planning process that applies to all patients—not just Medicare beneficiaries. Not every patient needs to have a written discharge plan—although this is recommended—but all patients should be screened and, if indicated, evaluated at an early stage of their hospitalization for risk of adverse post-discharge outcomes. Observation patients are not included in this requirement.

The discharge plan is different from a discharge summary document, which must be completed by the inpatient attending physician, not the hospital, and is not directly addressed in the regulation. The regulation does address the need for transfer of essential information to the next provider of care and says the hospital should have a written policy and procedure in place for discharge planning. The policy and procedure should be developed with input from medical staff and approved by the hospital’s governing body.

Any hospitalist participating with a hospital QI team involved in Project BOOST is helping their hospital comply with this condition of participation.

—Mark Williams, MD, FACP, SFHM, principal investigator of SHM’s Project BOOST

Transmittal 87 represents the first major update of the discharge planning regulation (Standard 482.43) and accompanying interpretive guidelines in more than a decade, Dr. Boutwell says. It consolidates and reorganizes 24 “tags” of regulatory language down to 13 and contains blue advisory boxes recommending best practices in discharge planning, drawn from the suggestions of a technical expert panel convened by CMS.

That panel included many of the country’s recognized thought leaders on improving care transitions, such as Mark Williams, MD, FACP, SFHM, principal investigator of SHM’s Project BOOST; Eric Coleman, MD, MPH, head of the University of Colorado’s division of health care policy and research and creator of the widely-adopted Care Transitions Program (caretransitions.org), and Dr. Boutwell, co-founder of the STAAR initiative (www.ihi.org/engage/Initiatives/completed/STAAR).

The new condition raises baseline expectations for discharge planning and elevates care transitions efforts from a quality improvement issue to the realm of regulatory compliance, Dr. Boutwell says.

“This goes way beyond case review,” she adds. “It represents an evolution from discharge planning case by case to a system for improving transitions of care [for the hospital]. I’m impressed.”

The recommendations are consistent with best practices promoted by Project BOOST, STAAR, Project RED [Re-Engineered Discharge], and other national quality initiatives for improving care transitions.

“Any hospitalist participating with a hospital QI team involved in Project BOOST is helping their hospital comply with this condition of participation,” Dr. Williams says.

In the Byzantine structure of federal regulations, Medicare’s conditions of participation are the regulations providers must meet in order to participate in the Medicare program and bill for their services. Condition-level citations, if not resolved, can cause hospitals to be decertified from Medicare. The accompanying interpretive guidelines, with survey protocols, are the playbook to help state auditors and providers know how to interpret and apply the language of the regulations. The suggestions and examples of best practices contained in the new condition are not required of hospitals but, if followed, could increase their likelihood of achieving better patient outcomes and staying in compliance with the regulations on surveys.

“If hospitals were to actually implement all of the CMS advisory practice recommendations contained in this 35-page document, they’d be in really good shape for effectively managing transitions of care,” says Teresa L. Hamblin, RN, MS, a CMS consultant with Joint Commission Resources. “The government has provided robust practice recommendations that are a model for what hospitals can do. I’d advise doing your best to implement these recommendations. Check your current processes using this detailed document for reference.”

Discharge planning starts at admission, Hamblin says. If the hospitalist assumes that responsibility, it becomes easier to leave a paper trail in the patient’s chart. Other important lessons for hospitalists include participation in a multidisciplinary approach to discharge planning (i.e., interdisciplinary rounding) and development of policies and procedures in this area.

“If the hospital has not elected to do a discharge plan on every patient, request this for your own patients and recommend it as a policy,” Hamblin says. “Go the extra mile, making follow-up appointments for your patients, filling prescriptions in house, and calling the patient 24 to 72 hours after discharge.”

Weekend coverage, when case managers typically are not present, is a particular challenge in care transitions.

“Encourage your hospital to provide reliable weekend coverage for discharge planning. Involve the nurses,” Hamblin says. “Anything the hospitalist can do to help the hospital close this gap is important.”

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Alameda, Calif.

Dr. Lenchus

Congress has once again delayed implementation of draconian Medicare cuts tied to the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula. It was the 17th temporary patch applied to the ailing physician reimbursement program, so the decision caused little surprise.

But with the same legislation—the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014—being used to delay the long-awaited debut of ICD-10, many hospitalists and physicians couldn’t help but wonder whether billing and coding would now be as much of a political football as the SGR fix.¹

The upshot: It doesn’t seem that way.

“I think it’s two separate issues,” says Phyllis “PJ” Floyd, RN, BSN, MBA, NE-BC, CCA, director of health information services and clinical documentation improvement at Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) in Charleston, S.C. “The fact that it was all in one bill, I don’t know that it was well thought out as much as it was, ‘Let’s put the ICD-10 in here at the same time.’

“It was just a few sentences, and then it wasn’t even brought up in the discussion on the floor.”

Four policy wonks interviewed by The Hospitalist concurred that while tying the ICD-10 delay to the SGR issue was an unexpected and frustrating development, the coding system likely will be implemented in the relative short term. Meanwhile, a long-term resolution of the SGR dilemma remains much more elusive.

“For about 12 hours, I felt relief about the ICD-10 [being delayed], and then I just realized, it’s still coming, presumably,” says John Nelson, MD, MHM, a co-founder and past president of SHM and medical director of the hospitalist practice at Overlake Hospital Medical Center in Bellevue, Wash. “[It’s] like a patient who needs surgery and finds out it’s canceled for the day and he’ll have it tomorrow. Well, that’s good for right now, but [he] still has to face this eventually.”

“Doc-Pay” Fix Near?

Congress’ recent decision to delay both an SGR fix and the ICD-10 are troubling to some hospitalists and others for different reasons.

The SGR extension through this year’s end means that physicians do not face a 24% cut to physician payments under Medicare. SHM has long lobbied against temporary patches to the SGR, repeatedly backing legislation that would once and for all scrap the formula and replace it with something sustainable.

The SGR formula was first crafted in 1997, but the now often-delayed cuts were a byproduct of the federal sequester that was included in the Budget Control Act of 2011. At the time, the massive reduction to Medicare payments was tied to political brinksmanship over the country’s debt ceiling. The cuts were implemented as a doomsday scenario that was never likely to actually happen, but despite negotiations over the past three years, no long-term compromise can be found. Paying for the reform remains the main stumbling block.

“I think, this year, Congress was as close as it’s been in a long time to enacting a serious fix, aided by the agreement of major professional societies like the American College of Physicians and American College of Surgeons,” says David Howard, PhD, an associate professor in the department of health policy and management at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University in Atlanta. “They were all on board with this solution. ... Who knows, maybe if the economic situation continues to improve [and] tax revenues continue to go up...that will create a more favorable environment for compromise.”

Dr. Howard adds that while Congress might be close to a solution in theory, agreement on how to offset the roughly $100 billion in costs “is just very difficult.” That is why the healthcare professor is pessimistic that a long-term fix is truly at hand.

“The places where Congress might have looked for savings to offset the cost of the doc fix, such as hospital reimbursement rates or payment rates to Medicare Advantage plans—those are exactly the areas that the Affordable Care Act is targeting to pay for insurance expansion,” Dr. Howard adds. “So those areas of savings are not going to be available to offset the cost of the doc fix.”

ICD-10 Delays “Unfair”

Dr. Lenchus

The medical coding conundrum presents a different set of issues. The delay in transitioning healthcare providers from the ICD-9 medical coding classification system to the more complicated ICD-10 means the upgraded system is now against an Oct. 1, 2015, deadline. This comes after the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already pushed back the original implementation date for ICD-10 by one year.

SHM Public Policy Committee member Joshua Lenchus, DO, RPh, FACP, SFHM, says he thinks most doctors are content with the delay, particularly in light of some estimates that show that only about 20% of physicians “have actually initiated the ICD-10 transition.” But he also notes that it’s unfair to the health systems that have prepared for ICD-10.

“ICD-9 has a little more than 14,000 diagnostic codes and nearly 4,000 procedural codes. That is to be contrasted to ICD-10, which has more than 68,000 diagnostic codes ... and over 72,000 procedural codes,” Dr. Lenchus says. “So, it is not surprising that many take solace in the delay.”

Dr. Nelson says the level of frustration for hospitalists is growing; however, the level of disruption for hospitals and health systems is reaching a boiling point.

“Of course, in some places, hospitalists may be the physician lead on ICD-10 efforts, so [they are] very much wrapped up in the problem of ‘What do we do now?’”

The answer, at least to the Coalition for ICD-10, a group of medical/technology trade groups, is to fight to ensure that the delays go no further. In an April letter to CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner, the coalition made that case, noting that in 2012, “CMS estimated the cost to the healthcare industry of a one-year delay to be as much as $6.6 billion, or approximately 30% of the $22 billion that CMS estimated had been invested or budgeted for ICD-10 implementation.”²

The letter went on to explain that the disruption and cost will grow each time the ICD-10 deadline is pushed.

“Furthermore, as CMS stated in 2012, implementation costs will continue to increase considerably with every year of a delay,” according to the letter. “The lost opportunity costs of failing to move to a more effective code set also continue to climb every year.”

Stay Engaged, Switch Gears

One of Floyd’s biggest concerns is that the ICD-10 implementation delays will affect physician engagement. The hospitalist groups at MUSC began training for ICD-10 in January 2013; however, the preparation and training were geared toward a 2014 implementation.

“You have to switch gears a little bit,” she says. “What we plan to do now is begin to do heavy auditing, and then from those audits we can give real-time feedback on what we’re doing well and what we’re not doing well. So I think that will be a method for engagement.”

She urges hospitalists, practice leaders, and informatics professionals to discuss ICD-10 not as a theoretical application, but as one tied to reimbursement that will have major impact in the years ahead. To that end, the American Health Information Management Association highlights the fact that the new coding system will result in higher-quality data that can improve performance measures, provide “increased sensitivity” to reimbursement methodologies, and help with stronger public health surveillance.³

“A lot of physicians see this as a hospital issue, and I think that’s why they shy away,” Floyd says. “Now there are some physicians who are interested in how well the hospital does, but the other piece is that it does affect things like [reduced] risk of mortality [and] comparison of data worldwide—those are things that we just have to continue to reiterate … and give them real examples.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

References

1. Govtrack. H.R. 4302: Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr4302. Accessed June 5, 2014.
2. Coalition for ICD. Letter to CMS Administrator Tavenner, April 11, 2014. http://coalitionforicd10.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/letter-from-the-coalition-for-icd-10. Accessed June 5, 2014.
3. American Health Information Management Association. ICD-10-CM/PCS Transition: Planning and Preparation Checklist. http://journal.ahima.org/wp-content/uploads/ICD10-checklist.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2014.

Dr. Lenchus

Congress has once again delayed implementation of draconian Medicare cuts tied to the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula. It was the 17th temporary patch applied to the ailing physician reimbursement program, so the decision caused little surprise.

But with the same legislation—the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014—being used to delay the long-awaited debut of ICD-10, many hospitalists and physicians couldn’t help but wonder whether billing and coding would now be as much of a political football as the SGR fix.¹

The upshot: It doesn’t seem that way.

“I think it’s two separate issues,” says Phyllis “PJ” Floyd, RN, BSN, MBA, NE-BC, CCA, director of health information services and clinical documentation improvement at Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) in Charleston, S.C. “The fact that it was all in one bill, I don’t know that it was well thought out as much as it was, ‘Let’s put the ICD-10 in here at the same time.’

“It was just a few sentences, and then it wasn’t even brought up in the discussion on the floor.”

Four policy wonks interviewed by The Hospitalist concurred that while tying the ICD-10 delay to the SGR issue was an unexpected and frustrating development, the coding system likely will be implemented in the relative short term. Meanwhile, a long-term resolution of the SGR dilemma remains much more elusive.

“For about 12 hours, I felt relief about the ICD-10 [being delayed], and then I just realized, it’s still coming, presumably,” says John Nelson, MD, MHM, a co-founder and past president of SHM and medical director of the hospitalist practice at Overlake Hospital Medical Center in Bellevue, Wash. “[It’s] like a patient who needs surgery and finds out it’s canceled for the day and he’ll have it tomorrow. Well, that’s good for right now, but [he] still has to face this eventually.”

“Doc-Pay” Fix Near?

Congress’ recent decision to delay both an SGR fix and the ICD-10 are troubling to some hospitalists and others for different reasons.

The SGR extension through this year’s end means that physicians do not face a 24% cut to physician payments under Medicare. SHM has long lobbied against temporary patches to the SGR, repeatedly backing legislation that would once and for all scrap the formula and replace it with something sustainable.

The SGR formula was first crafted in 1997, but the now often-delayed cuts were a byproduct of the federal sequester that was included in the Budget Control Act of 2011. At the time, the massive reduction to Medicare payments was tied to political brinksmanship over the country’s debt ceiling. The cuts were implemented as a doomsday scenario that was never likely to actually happen, but despite negotiations over the past three years, no long-term compromise can be found. Paying for the reform remains the main stumbling block.

“I think, this year, Congress was as close as it’s been in a long time to enacting a serious fix, aided by the agreement of major professional societies like the American College of Physicians and American College of Surgeons,” says David Howard, PhD, an associate professor in the department of health policy and management at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University in Atlanta. “They were all on board with this solution. ... Who knows, maybe if the economic situation continues to improve [and] tax revenues continue to go up...that will create a more favorable environment for compromise.”

Dr. Howard adds that while Congress might be close to a solution in theory, agreement on how to offset the roughly $100 billion in costs “is just very difficult.” That is why the healthcare professor is pessimistic that a long-term fix is truly at hand.

“The places where Congress might have looked for savings to offset the cost of the doc fix, such as hospital reimbursement rates or payment rates to Medicare Advantage plans—those are exactly the areas that the Affordable Care Act is targeting to pay for insurance expansion,” Dr. Howard adds. “So those areas of savings are not going to be available to offset the cost of the doc fix.”

ICD-10 Delays “Unfair”

Dr. Lenchus

The medical coding conundrum presents a different set of issues. The delay in transitioning healthcare providers from the ICD-9 medical coding classification system to the more complicated ICD-10 means the upgraded system is now against an Oct. 1, 2015, deadline. This comes after the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already pushed back the original implementation date for ICD-10 by one year.

SHM Public Policy Committee member Joshua Lenchus, DO, RPh, FACP, SFHM, says he thinks most doctors are content with the delay, particularly in light of some estimates that show that only about 20% of physicians “have actually initiated the ICD-10 transition.” But he also notes that it’s unfair to the health systems that have prepared for ICD-10.

“ICD-9 has a little more than 14,000 diagnostic codes and nearly 4,000 procedural codes. That is to be contrasted to ICD-10, which has more than 68,000 diagnostic codes ... and over 72,000 procedural codes,” Dr. Lenchus says. “So, it is not surprising that many take solace in the delay.”

Dr. Nelson says the level of frustration for hospitalists is growing; however, the level of disruption for hospitals and health systems is reaching a boiling point.

“Of course, in some places, hospitalists may be the physician lead on ICD-10 efforts, so [they are] very much wrapped up in the problem of ‘What do we do now?’”

The answer, at least to the Coalition for ICD-10, a group of medical/technology trade groups, is to fight to ensure that the delays go no further. In an April letter to CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner, the coalition made that case, noting that in 2012, “CMS estimated the cost to the healthcare industry of a one-year delay to be as much as $6.6 billion, or approximately 30% of the $22 billion that CMS estimated had been invested or budgeted for ICD-10 implementation.”²

The letter went on to explain that the disruption and cost will grow each time the ICD-10 deadline is pushed.

“Furthermore, as CMS stated in 2012, implementation costs will continue to increase considerably with every year of a delay,” according to the letter. “The lost opportunity costs of failing to move to a more effective code set also continue to climb every year.”

Stay Engaged, Switch Gears

One of Floyd’s biggest concerns is that the ICD-10 implementation delays will affect physician engagement. The hospitalist groups at MUSC began training for ICD-10 in January 2013; however, the preparation and training were geared toward a 2014 implementation.

“You have to switch gears a little bit,” she says. “What we plan to do now is begin to do heavy auditing, and then from those audits we can give real-time feedback on what we’re doing well and what we’re not doing well. So I think that will be a method for engagement.”

She urges hospitalists, practice leaders, and informatics professionals to discuss ICD-10 not as a theoretical application, but as one tied to reimbursement that will have major impact in the years ahead. To that end, the American Health Information Management Association highlights the fact that the new coding system will result in higher-quality data that can improve performance measures, provide “increased sensitivity” to reimbursement methodologies, and help with stronger public health surveillance.³

“A lot of physicians see this as a hospital issue, and I think that’s why they shy away,” Floyd says. “Now there are some physicians who are interested in how well the hospital does, but the other piece is that it does affect things like [reduced] risk of mortality [and] comparison of data worldwide—those are things that we just have to continue to reiterate … and give them real examples.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

References

1. Govtrack. H.R. 4302: Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr4302. Accessed June 5, 2014.
2. Coalition for ICD. Letter to CMS Administrator Tavenner, April 11, 2014. http://coalitionforicd10.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/letter-from-the-coalition-for-icd-10. Accessed June 5, 2014.
3. American Health Information Management Association. ICD-10-CM/PCS Transition: Planning and Preparation Checklist. http://journal.ahima.org/wp-content/uploads/ICD10-checklist.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2014.

Dr. Lenchus

Congress has once again delayed implementation of draconian Medicare cuts tied to the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula. It was the 17th temporary patch applied to the ailing physician reimbursement program, so the decision caused little surprise.

But with the same legislation—the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014—being used to delay the long-awaited debut of ICD-10, many hospitalists and physicians couldn’t help but wonder whether billing and coding would now be as much of a political football as the SGR fix.¹

The upshot: It doesn’t seem that way.

“I think it’s two separate issues,” says Phyllis “PJ” Floyd, RN, BSN, MBA, NE-BC, CCA, director of health information services and clinical documentation improvement at Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) in Charleston, S.C. “The fact that it was all in one bill, I don’t know that it was well thought out as much as it was, ‘Let’s put the ICD-10 in here at the same time.’

“It was just a few sentences, and then it wasn’t even brought up in the discussion on the floor.”

Four policy wonks interviewed by The Hospitalist concurred that while tying the ICD-10 delay to the SGR issue was an unexpected and frustrating development, the coding system likely will be implemented in the relative short term. Meanwhile, a long-term resolution of the SGR dilemma remains much more elusive.

“For about 12 hours, I felt relief about the ICD-10 [being delayed], and then I just realized, it’s still coming, presumably,” says John Nelson, MD, MHM, a co-founder and past president of SHM and medical director of the hospitalist practice at Overlake Hospital Medical Center in Bellevue, Wash. “[It’s] like a patient who needs surgery and finds out it’s canceled for the day and he’ll have it tomorrow. Well, that’s good for right now, but [he] still has to face this eventually.”

“Doc-Pay” Fix Near?

Congress’ recent decision to delay both an SGR fix and the ICD-10 are troubling to some hospitalists and others for different reasons.

The SGR extension through this year’s end means that physicians do not face a 24% cut to physician payments under Medicare. SHM has long lobbied against temporary patches to the SGR, repeatedly backing legislation that would once and for all scrap the formula and replace it with something sustainable.

The SGR formula was first crafted in 1997, but the now often-delayed cuts were a byproduct of the federal sequester that was included in the Budget Control Act of 2011. At the time, the massive reduction to Medicare payments was tied to political brinksmanship over the country’s debt ceiling. The cuts were implemented as a doomsday scenario that was never likely to actually happen, but despite negotiations over the past three years, no long-term compromise can be found. Paying for the reform remains the main stumbling block.

“I think, this year, Congress was as close as it’s been in a long time to enacting a serious fix, aided by the agreement of major professional societies like the American College of Physicians and American College of Surgeons,” says David Howard, PhD, an associate professor in the department of health policy and management at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University in Atlanta. “They were all on board with this solution. ... Who knows, maybe if the economic situation continues to improve [and] tax revenues continue to go up...that will create a more favorable environment for compromise.”

Dr. Howard adds that while Congress might be close to a solution in theory, agreement on how to offset the roughly $100 billion in costs “is just very difficult.” That is why the healthcare professor is pessimistic that a long-term fix is truly at hand.

“The places where Congress might have looked for savings to offset the cost of the doc fix, such as hospital reimbursement rates or payment rates to Medicare Advantage plans—those are exactly the areas that the Affordable Care Act is targeting to pay for insurance expansion,” Dr. Howard adds. “So those areas of savings are not going to be available to offset the cost of the doc fix.”

ICD-10 Delays “Unfair”

Dr. Lenchus

The medical coding conundrum presents a different set of issues. The delay in transitioning healthcare providers from the ICD-9 medical coding classification system to the more complicated ICD-10 means the upgraded system is now against an Oct. 1, 2015, deadline. This comes after the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already pushed back the original implementation date for ICD-10 by one year.

SHM Public Policy Committee member Joshua Lenchus, DO, RPh, FACP, SFHM, says he thinks most doctors are content with the delay, particularly in light of some estimates that show that only about 20% of physicians “have actually initiated the ICD-10 transition.” But he also notes that it’s unfair to the health systems that have prepared for ICD-10.

“ICD-9 has a little more than 14,000 diagnostic codes and nearly 4,000 procedural codes. That is to be contrasted to ICD-10, which has more than 68,000 diagnostic codes ... and over 72,000 procedural codes,” Dr. Lenchus says. “So, it is not surprising that many take solace in the delay.”

Dr. Nelson says the level of frustration for hospitalists is growing; however, the level of disruption for hospitals and health systems is reaching a boiling point.

“Of course, in some places, hospitalists may be the physician lead on ICD-10 efforts, so [they are] very much wrapped up in the problem of ‘What do we do now?’”

The answer, at least to the Coalition for ICD-10, a group of medical/technology trade groups, is to fight to ensure that the delays go no further. In an April letter to CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner, the coalition made that case, noting that in 2012, “CMS estimated the cost to the healthcare industry of a one-year delay to be as much as $6.6 billion, or approximately 30% of the $22 billion that CMS estimated had been invested or budgeted for ICD-10 implementation.”²

The letter went on to explain that the disruption and cost will grow each time the ICD-10 deadline is pushed.

“Furthermore, as CMS stated in 2012, implementation costs will continue to increase considerably with every year of a delay,” according to the letter. “The lost opportunity costs of failing to move to a more effective code set also continue to climb every year.”

Stay Engaged, Switch Gears

One of Floyd’s biggest concerns is that the ICD-10 implementation delays will affect physician engagement. The hospitalist groups at MUSC began training for ICD-10 in January 2013; however, the preparation and training were geared toward a 2014 implementation.

“You have to switch gears a little bit,” she says. “What we plan to do now is begin to do heavy auditing, and then from those audits we can give real-time feedback on what we’re doing well and what we’re not doing well. So I think that will be a method for engagement.”

She urges hospitalists, practice leaders, and informatics professionals to discuss ICD-10 not as a theoretical application, but as one tied to reimbursement that will have major impact in the years ahead. To that end, the American Health Information Management Association highlights the fact that the new coding system will result in higher-quality data that can improve performance measures, provide “increased sensitivity” to reimbursement methodologies, and help with stronger public health surveillance.³

“A lot of physicians see this as a hospital issue, and I think that’s why they shy away,” Floyd says. “Now there are some physicians who are interested in how well the hospital does, but the other piece is that it does affect things like [reduced] risk of mortality [and] comparison of data worldwide—those are things that we just have to continue to reiterate … and give them real examples.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

References

1. Govtrack. H.R. 4302: Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr4302. Accessed June 5, 2014.
2. Coalition for ICD. Letter to CMS Administrator Tavenner, April 11, 2014. http://coalitionforicd10.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/letter-from-the-coalition-for-icd-10. Accessed June 5, 2014.
3. American Health Information Management Association. ICD-10-CM/PCS Transition: Planning and Preparation Checklist. http://journal.ahima.org/wp-content/uploads/ICD10-checklist.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2014.

Dr. Scheurer

By now, most hospitalists are at least familiar with the Choosing Wisely campaign, which has been widely published and embraced by numerous medical societies, including the Society of Hospital Medicine.¹ This campaign was conceived in 2009 by the National Physicians Alliance, which developed simple lists for three primary care specialties—internal medicine, pediatrics, and family medicine—to help them become more effective in utilizing specific resources.

The effort was first published in the Archives of Internal Medicine in 2011 by the “Good Stewardship Working Group,” which outlined the five most overutilized types of care by the three groups, including items such as routinely ordering complete blood counts or electrocardiograms, prescribing brand name versus generic statin drugs, and prescribing antibiotics for pediatric pharyngitis. From this small list alone, they found incredible variability among primary care practices, with utilization of these services ranging from 1% to 56% and resulting in an estimated annual cost of $6.8 billion. Although this first pilot found simple reductions in utilization can have a powerful impact on cost, the group estimated that this overutilization in primary care is only a very small fraction of overutilization cost in the U.S. As such, they called upon other specialties outside of primary care to identify their own sets of targets to reduce unnecessary utilization of low-value services.

Many specialty groups heeded this call to action, which resulted in the Choosing Wisely campaign, launched in April 2012. In just two short years, this simple effort has expanded to published recommendations about resource use in more than 60 specialty societies.² Like the original primary care list, most recommendations have focused on overutilization of diagnostic testing (imaging, cardiac testing, labs, pathology) and medication use. Later this year, the campaign will expand to include non-physician provider organizations, including the American Dental Association, the American Physical Therapy Association, and the American Academy of Nursing.

The Next Phase

The program has evolved from asking specialty groups to develop consensus and abide by their lists to targeting patients and their families so that they can understand and abide by those same lists. In fact, one of the major aims of the campaign is empowering patients to insist on care that is evidence based, necessary, not duplicative, and more beneficial than harmful. To do this, Consumer Reports has partnered up with the Choosing Wisely campaign to develop patient-friendly educational materials and with multiple consumer groups to help these materials reach their target audience. Major funding for the project has been provided by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). So far, they have awarded 21 projects.

These grants have been awarded to medical societies (see “SHM Choosing Wisely Case Study Competition,” p. 4), regional health organizations, and consumer advocate groups. Many of the tactics will include educational campaigns to teach practitioners about the content of the recommendations, programs aimed to enhance physician communication skills geared toward practicing physicians, other educational campaigns geared toward patients and families, and the establishment of a learning network to assist practices in quickly and effectively learning from one another how to implement the various recommendations.³

The three major assets of the Choosing Wisely campaign are:

• It attacks a core issue within the medical industry: Healthcare costs are higher here than in any other industrialized nation in the world, without clear evidence of higher quality to justify that cost;
• The lists are created by those who are responsible for most of the spending; and
• The campaign is spending resources to get information to the patients and their families so that there will be bilateral exchange and acceptance of the recommendations.

Without widespread patient education, overutilization will likely continue; a recent survey sponsored by the Choosing Wisely campaign found about half of physicians admitted they would order a test they know is unnecessary if the patient is insistent.⁴

Variable Outcomes

While there are many reasons to celebrate the success of the campaign, there is some concern that the Choosing Wisely campaign may have unintended consequences. Although a major driver in the success of the program is the fact that the lists have been created and endorsed by physician societies, a sort of “self-governance,” with no influence or impact from payers, critics of the program note the variability that each list has on the actual practice or revenue of the physician groups enacting the lists.

For example, a recent New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) essay notes that the list produced by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons does not include procedures that are high volume and variably valuable (such as knee arthoplasty) but does include over-the-counter medication use and low-volume procedures (such as needle lavage for knee osteoarthritis).5 Some societies list specialty services that need to be curbed but neglect to mention their own.

And, although the campaign specifically states on its website that the “recommendations should not be used to establish coverage decisions or exclusions,” some are legitimately concerned that these Choosing Wisely lists might very well be used by payers and/or quality reporting bodies to determine payments. This is undeniably tempting: How can practitioners argue against public display and reimbursement schemes being tightly tethered to their performance on metrics that they themselves have deemed unnecessary? As the NEJM editorial summarizes, these efforts should be embraced as long as there is thoughtful discussion about inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, and measurement beforehand.⁵

In Sum

Despite concerns, the impact of the Choosing Wisely campaign has been widespread and impressive. The full extent to which this will have an impact on utilization and healthcare cost remains to be seen, but this yeoman’s attempt to reduce waste by providers is long overdue. Whether the program will be used for unintended purposes, such as public reporting, financial penalties, or incentives for performance, is still unknown, but physician groups should be paying close attention to the lists that we can impact, and we should pledge to be good stewards of the finite healthcare resources available to our patients.

Dr. Scheurer is a hospitalist and chief quality officer at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. She is physician editor of The Hospitalist. Email her at scheured@musc.edu.

References

1. Choosing Wisely Campaign. Available at: http://www.choosingwisely.org. Accessed May 11, 2014.
2. Choosing Wisely Consumer Partners. Available at: http://www.choosingwisely.org/partners. Access May 11, 2014.
3. Choosing Wisely Grantees. Available at: http://www.choosingwisely.org/grantees. Accessed May 11, 2014.
4. Choosing Wisely & Consumer Reports. Available at: http://consumerhealthchoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ChoosingWiselyAndConsumerHealthChoices.pdf. Accessed May 11, 2014.
5. Morden ME, Colla CH, Sequist TD, Rosenthal MB. Choosing Wisely—the politics and economics of labeling low-value services. Available at: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1314965. Accessed May 11, 2014.

Dr. Scheurer

By now, most hospitalists are at least familiar with the Choosing Wisely campaign, which has been widely published and embraced by numerous medical societies, including the Society of Hospital Medicine.¹ This campaign was conceived in 2009 by the National Physicians Alliance, which developed simple lists for three primary care specialties—internal medicine, pediatrics, and family medicine—to help them become more effective in utilizing specific resources.

The effort was first published in the Archives of Internal Medicine in 2011 by the “Good Stewardship Working Group,” which outlined the five most overutilized types of care by the three groups, including items such as routinely ordering complete blood counts or electrocardiograms, prescribing brand name versus generic statin drugs, and prescribing antibiotics for pediatric pharyngitis. From this small list alone, they found incredible variability among primary care practices, with utilization of these services ranging from 1% to 56% and resulting in an estimated annual cost of $6.8 billion. Although this first pilot found simple reductions in utilization can have a powerful impact on cost, the group estimated that this overutilization in primary care is only a very small fraction of overutilization cost in the U.S. As such, they called upon other specialties outside of primary care to identify their own sets of targets to reduce unnecessary utilization of low-value services.

Many specialty groups heeded this call to action, which resulted in the Choosing Wisely campaign, launched in April 2012. In just two short years, this simple effort has expanded to published recommendations about resource use in more than 60 specialty societies.² Like the original primary care list, most recommendations have focused on overutilization of diagnostic testing (imaging, cardiac testing, labs, pathology) and medication use. Later this year, the campaign will expand to include non-physician provider organizations, including the American Dental Association, the American Physical Therapy Association, and the American Academy of Nursing.

The Next Phase

The program has evolved from asking specialty groups to develop consensus and abide by their lists to targeting patients and their families so that they can understand and abide by those same lists. In fact, one of the major aims of the campaign is empowering patients to insist on care that is evidence based, necessary, not duplicative, and more beneficial than harmful. To do this, Consumer Reports has partnered up with the Choosing Wisely campaign to develop patient-friendly educational materials and with multiple consumer groups to help these materials reach their target audience. Major funding for the project has been provided by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). So far, they have awarded 21 projects.

These grants have been awarded to medical societies (see “SHM Choosing Wisely Case Study Competition,” p. 4), regional health organizations, and consumer advocate groups. Many of the tactics will include educational campaigns to teach practitioners about the content of the recommendations, programs aimed to enhance physician communication skills geared toward practicing physicians, other educational campaigns geared toward patients and families, and the establishment of a learning network to assist practices in quickly and effectively learning from one another how to implement the various recommendations.³

The three major assets of the Choosing Wisely campaign are:

• It attacks a core issue within the medical industry: Healthcare costs are higher here than in any other industrialized nation in the world, without clear evidence of higher quality to justify that cost;
• The lists are created by those who are responsible for most of the spending; and
• The campaign is spending resources to get information to the patients and their families so that there will be bilateral exchange and acceptance of the recommendations.

Without widespread patient education, overutilization will likely continue; a recent survey sponsored by the Choosing Wisely campaign found about half of physicians admitted they would order a test they know is unnecessary if the patient is insistent.⁴

Variable Outcomes

While there are many reasons to celebrate the success of the campaign, there is some concern that the Choosing Wisely campaign may have unintended consequences. Although a major driver in the success of the program is the fact that the lists have been created and endorsed by physician societies, a sort of “self-governance,” with no influence or impact from payers, critics of the program note the variability that each list has on the actual practice or revenue of the physician groups enacting the lists.

For example, a recent New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) essay notes that the list produced by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons does not include procedures that are high volume and variably valuable (such as knee arthoplasty) but does include over-the-counter medication use and low-volume procedures (such as needle lavage for knee osteoarthritis).5 Some societies list specialty services that need to be curbed but neglect to mention their own.

And, although the campaign specifically states on its website that the “recommendations should not be used to establish coverage decisions or exclusions,” some are legitimately concerned that these Choosing Wisely lists might very well be used by payers and/or quality reporting bodies to determine payments. This is undeniably tempting: How can practitioners argue against public display and reimbursement schemes being tightly tethered to their performance on metrics that they themselves have deemed unnecessary? As the NEJM editorial summarizes, these efforts should be embraced as long as there is thoughtful discussion about inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, and measurement beforehand.⁵

In Sum

Despite concerns, the impact of the Choosing Wisely campaign has been widespread and impressive. The full extent to which this will have an impact on utilization and healthcare cost remains to be seen, but this yeoman’s attempt to reduce waste by providers is long overdue. Whether the program will be used for unintended purposes, such as public reporting, financial penalties, or incentives for performance, is still unknown, but physician groups should be paying close attention to the lists that we can impact, and we should pledge to be good stewards of the finite healthcare resources available to our patients.

Dr. Scheurer is a hospitalist and chief quality officer at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. She is physician editor of The Hospitalist. Email her at scheured@musc.edu.

References

1. Choosing Wisely Campaign. Available at: http://www.choosingwisely.org. Accessed May 11, 2014.
2. Choosing Wisely Consumer Partners. Available at: http://www.choosingwisely.org/partners. Access May 11, 2014.
3. Choosing Wisely Grantees. Available at: http://www.choosingwisely.org/grantees. Accessed May 11, 2014.
4. Choosing Wisely & Consumer Reports. Available at: http://consumerhealthchoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ChoosingWiselyAndConsumerHealthChoices.pdf. Accessed May 11, 2014.
5. Morden ME, Colla CH, Sequist TD, Rosenthal MB. Choosing Wisely—the politics and economics of labeling low-value services. Available at: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1314965. Accessed May 11, 2014.

Dr. Scheurer

By now, most hospitalists are at least familiar with the Choosing Wisely campaign, which has been widely published and embraced by numerous medical societies, including the Society of Hospital Medicine.¹ This campaign was conceived in 2009 by the National Physicians Alliance, which developed simple lists for three primary care specialties—internal medicine, pediatrics, and family medicine—to help them become more effective in utilizing specific resources.

The effort was first published in the Archives of Internal Medicine in 2011 by the “Good Stewardship Working Group,” which outlined the five most overutilized types of care by the three groups, including items such as routinely ordering complete blood counts or electrocardiograms, prescribing brand name versus generic statin drugs, and prescribing antibiotics for pediatric pharyngitis. From this small list alone, they found incredible variability among primary care practices, with utilization of these services ranging from 1% to 56% and resulting in an estimated annual cost of $6.8 billion. Although this first pilot found simple reductions in utilization can have a powerful impact on cost, the group estimated that this overutilization in primary care is only a very small fraction of overutilization cost in the U.S. As such, they called upon other specialties outside of primary care to identify their own sets of targets to reduce unnecessary utilization of low-value services.

Many specialty groups heeded this call to action, which resulted in the Choosing Wisely campaign, launched in April 2012. In just two short years, this simple effort has expanded to published recommendations about resource use in more than 60 specialty societies.² Like the original primary care list, most recommendations have focused on overutilization of diagnostic testing (imaging, cardiac testing, labs, pathology) and medication use. Later this year, the campaign will expand to include non-physician provider organizations, including the American Dental Association, the American Physical Therapy Association, and the American Academy of Nursing.

The Next Phase

The program has evolved from asking specialty groups to develop consensus and abide by their lists to targeting patients and their families so that they can understand and abide by those same lists. In fact, one of the major aims of the campaign is empowering patients to insist on care that is evidence based, necessary, not duplicative, and more beneficial than harmful. To do this, Consumer Reports has partnered up with the Choosing Wisely campaign to develop patient-friendly educational materials and with multiple consumer groups to help these materials reach their target audience. Major funding for the project has been provided by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). So far, they have awarded 21 projects.

These grants have been awarded to medical societies (see “SHM Choosing Wisely Case Study Competition,” p. 4), regional health organizations, and consumer advocate groups. Many of the tactics will include educational campaigns to teach practitioners about the content of the recommendations, programs aimed to enhance physician communication skills geared toward practicing physicians, other educational campaigns geared toward patients and families, and the establishment of a learning network to assist practices in quickly and effectively learning from one another how to implement the various recommendations.³

The three major assets of the Choosing Wisely campaign are:

• It attacks a core issue within the medical industry: Healthcare costs are higher here than in any other industrialized nation in the world, without clear evidence of higher quality to justify that cost;
• The lists are created by those who are responsible for most of the spending; and
• The campaign is spending resources to get information to the patients and their families so that there will be bilateral exchange and acceptance of the recommendations.

Without widespread patient education, overutilization will likely continue; a recent survey sponsored by the Choosing Wisely campaign found about half of physicians admitted they would order a test they know is unnecessary if the patient is insistent.⁴

Variable Outcomes

While there are many reasons to celebrate the success of the campaign, there is some concern that the Choosing Wisely campaign may have unintended consequences. Although a major driver in the success of the program is the fact that the lists have been created and endorsed by physician societies, a sort of “self-governance,” with no influence or impact from payers, critics of the program note the variability that each list has on the actual practice or revenue of the physician groups enacting the lists.

For example, a recent New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) essay notes that the list produced by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons does not include procedures that are high volume and variably valuable (such as knee arthoplasty) but does include over-the-counter medication use and low-volume procedures (such as needle lavage for knee osteoarthritis).5 Some societies list specialty services that need to be curbed but neglect to mention their own.

And, although the campaign specifically states on its website that the “recommendations should not be used to establish coverage decisions or exclusions,” some are legitimately concerned that these Choosing Wisely lists might very well be used by payers and/or quality reporting bodies to determine payments. This is undeniably tempting: How can practitioners argue against public display and reimbursement schemes being tightly tethered to their performance on metrics that they themselves have deemed unnecessary? As the NEJM editorial summarizes, these efforts should be embraced as long as there is thoughtful discussion about inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, and measurement beforehand.⁵

In Sum

Despite concerns, the impact of the Choosing Wisely campaign has been widespread and impressive. The full extent to which this will have an impact on utilization and healthcare cost remains to be seen, but this yeoman’s attempt to reduce waste by providers is long overdue. Whether the program will be used for unintended purposes, such as public reporting, financial penalties, or incentives for performance, is still unknown, but physician groups should be paying close attention to the lists that we can impact, and we should pledge to be good stewards of the finite healthcare resources available to our patients.

Dr. Scheurer is a hospitalist and chief quality officer at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. She is physician editor of The Hospitalist. Email her at scheured@musc.edu.

References

1. Choosing Wisely Campaign. Available at: http://www.choosingwisely.org. Accessed May 11, 2014.
2. Choosing Wisely Consumer Partners. Available at: http://www.choosingwisely.org/partners. Access May 11, 2014.
3. Choosing Wisely Grantees. Available at: http://www.choosingwisely.org/grantees. Accessed May 11, 2014.
4. Choosing Wisely & Consumer Reports. Available at: http://consumerhealthchoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ChoosingWiselyAndConsumerHealthChoices.pdf. Accessed May 11, 2014.
5. Morden ME, Colla CH, Sequist TD, Rosenthal MB. Choosing Wisely—the politics and economics of labeling low-value services. Available at: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1314965. Accessed May 11, 2014.

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) established the ABIM Foundation to advance professionalism in improving healthcare. The foundation initiated the Choosing Wisely campaign [www.choosingwisely.org] in April 2012 to promote conversations that help physicians guide patients in selecting care that is supported by evidence, not duplicative of other tests or procedures, not harmful, and truly necessary. In order to achieve this, national organizations representing medical specialists were asked to identify five common tests or procedures whose necessity should be questioned.

John Bulger, DO, MBA, SFHM, chief quality officer at Geisinger Health System in Danville, Pa., chaired SHM’s Choosing Wisely recommendations committee. He says the “proximal concern over these tests may be the unnecessary cost of the test itself, [but] there are other unintended consequences.

“False positive or false negative results of unsupported testing may cause unwarranted emotional harm for the patient or may give a false sense of security,” he adds. “The latter may also be true for physicians who may fail to further investigate other ailments based on a previous false negative test. Tests ordered with little evidence tend to lead to more tests ordered with little evidence.”

To date, more than 60 specialty societies and 17 consumer groups have joined the Choosing Wisely effort, citing more than 300 potentially harmful tests and procedures that physicians should discuss with patients. New lists will be published throughout 2014.

—Karen Appold

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) established the ABIM Foundation to advance professionalism in improving healthcare. The foundation initiated the Choosing Wisely campaign [www.choosingwisely.org] in April 2012 to promote conversations that help physicians guide patients in selecting care that is supported by evidence, not duplicative of other tests or procedures, not harmful, and truly necessary. In order to achieve this, national organizations representing medical specialists were asked to identify five common tests or procedures whose necessity should be questioned.

John Bulger, DO, MBA, SFHM, chief quality officer at Geisinger Health System in Danville, Pa., chaired SHM’s Choosing Wisely recommendations committee. He says the “proximal concern over these tests may be the unnecessary cost of the test itself, [but] there are other unintended consequences.

“False positive or false negative results of unsupported testing may cause unwarranted emotional harm for the patient or may give a false sense of security,” he adds. “The latter may also be true for physicians who may fail to further investigate other ailments based on a previous false negative test. Tests ordered with little evidence tend to lead to more tests ordered with little evidence.”

To date, more than 60 specialty societies and 17 consumer groups have joined the Choosing Wisely effort, citing more than 300 potentially harmful tests and procedures that physicians should discuss with patients. New lists will be published throughout 2014.

—Karen Appold

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) established the ABIM Foundation to advance professionalism in improving healthcare. The foundation initiated the Choosing Wisely campaign [www.choosingwisely.org] in April 2012 to promote conversations that help physicians guide patients in selecting care that is supported by evidence, not duplicative of other tests or procedures, not harmful, and truly necessary. In order to achieve this, national organizations representing medical specialists were asked to identify five common tests or procedures whose necessity should be questioned.

John Bulger, DO, MBA, SFHM, chief quality officer at Geisinger Health System in Danville, Pa., chaired SHM’s Choosing Wisely recommendations committee. He says the “proximal concern over these tests may be the unnecessary cost of the test itself, [but] there are other unintended consequences.

“False positive or false negative results of unsupported testing may cause unwarranted emotional harm for the patient or may give a false sense of security,” he adds. “The latter may also be true for physicians who may fail to further investigate other ailments based on a previous false negative test. Tests ordered with little evidence tend to lead to more tests ordered with little evidence.”

To date, more than 60 specialty societies and 17 consumer groups have joined the Choosing Wisely effort, citing more than 300 potentially harmful tests and procedures that physicians should discuss with patients. New lists will be published throughout 2014.

—Karen Appold

Hyperglycemia is associated with poor outcomes in a broad range of hospitalized patients, and several studies demonstrate improved outcomes with improved glycemic control. Hospitalization presents a frequently missed opportunity to diagnose diabetes, identify those at risk for diabetes, and optimize the care of patients with diabetes via education and medical therapy.

Despite authoritative guidelines and effective methods to achieve good glycemic control safely, poor glycemic control, suboptimal medication regimens, incomplete patient education, and uneven communication with outpatient care providers are prevalent problems in medical centers.

SHM is accepting applications to the Fall 2014 Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation (GCMI) Program (www.hospitalmedicine.org/gcmi). Participants will work directly with SHM mentors, benchmark against other participants, and join the Glycemic Control Community to network with peers.

Hyperglycemia is associated with poor outcomes in a broad range of hospitalized patients, and several studies demonstrate improved outcomes with improved glycemic control. Hospitalization presents a frequently missed opportunity to diagnose diabetes, identify those at risk for diabetes, and optimize the care of patients with diabetes via education and medical therapy.

Despite authoritative guidelines and effective methods to achieve good glycemic control safely, poor glycemic control, suboptimal medication regimens, incomplete patient education, and uneven communication with outpatient care providers are prevalent problems in medical centers.

SHM is accepting applications to the Fall 2014 Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation (GCMI) Program (www.hospitalmedicine.org/gcmi). Participants will work directly with SHM mentors, benchmark against other participants, and join the Glycemic Control Community to network with peers.

Hyperglycemia is associated with poor outcomes in a broad range of hospitalized patients, and several studies demonstrate improved outcomes with improved glycemic control. Hospitalization presents a frequently missed opportunity to diagnose diabetes, identify those at risk for diabetes, and optimize the care of patients with diabetes via education and medical therapy.

Despite authoritative guidelines and effective methods to achieve good glycemic control safely, poor glycemic control, suboptimal medication regimens, incomplete patient education, and uneven communication with outpatient care providers are prevalent problems in medical centers.

SHM is accepting applications to the Fall 2014 Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation (GCMI) Program (www.hospitalmedicine.org/gcmi). Participants will work directly with SHM mentors, benchmark against other participants, and join the Glycemic Control Community to network with peers.

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, blogs, webpages, Google+, LinkedIn. What do all of these social media outlets have in common? Each can get physicians in trouble under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), state privacy laws, and state medical laws, to name a few. It seems that all too often, news outlets are reporting data breaches generated in the medical community, many of which arise out of physicians’ use of social media, and most of which could have been avoided.

Physicians should be aware of the intersection of social media—both for personal and professional use—and HIPAA and state laws. Even an inadvertent, seemingly innocuous disclosure of a patient’s protected health information (PHI) through social media can be problematic.

PHI is defined under HIPAA, in part, as health information that (i) is created or received by a physician, (ii) relates to the health or condition of an individual, (iii) identifies the individual (or with respect to which there is a reasonable basis to believe the information can be used to identify the individual), and (iv) is transmitted by or maintained in electronic media, or transmitted or maintained in another form or medium. Under HIPAA, a physician may use and disclose PHI for “treatment, payment, or healthcare operations.” Generally, using or disclosing PHI through social media does not qualify as treatment, payment, or healthcare operations. If a physician were to use or disclose a patient’s PHI without permission, this would be a violation of HIPAA—and likely state law as well.

In order to use or disclose a patient’s PHI without obtaining the patient’s consent, a physician must de-identify the information so that the information does not identify the patient and there is no reasonable basis to believe that the information can be used to identify the patient. One option under HIPAA is to retain an expert to determine “that the risk is very small that the information could be used, alone or in combination with other reasonably available information, by an anticipated recipient to identify an individual who is the subject of the information.” Alternatively, and more commonly, a physician seeking to use or disclose patient PHI can remove the following identifiers from the PHI:

1. Names;
2. Geographic information;
3. Dates (e.g. birth date, admission date, discharge date, date of death);
4. Telephone numbers;
5. Fax numbers;
6. E-mail addresses;
7. Social Security numbers;
8. Medical record numbers;
9. Health plan beneficiary numbers;
10. Account numbers;
11. Certificate/license numbers;
12. Vehicle identifiers and serial numbers, including license plate numbers;
13. Device identifiers and serial numbers;
14. URLs;
15. IP address numbers;
16. Biometric identifiers (e.g. finger and voice prints);
17. Full-face photographic images and any comparable images; and
18. Other unique identifying numbers, characteristics, or codes.

Identifier #18 is the most difficult to comply with in light of the significant amount of personal information available on the Internet, particularly through search engines like Google. Inputting even a small amount of information into a search engine will generate relevant “hits” that make it increasingly difficult to comply with the de-identification standards under HIPAA. Even if the first 17 identifiers are carefully removed, the broadness of #18 can turn a seemingly harmless post on social media into a patient privacy violation.

Do not let the following examples be you:

Example 1: An ED physician in Rhode Island was fired, lost her hospital medical staff privileges, and was reprimanded by the Rhode Island Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline for posting information about a trauma patient on her personal Facebook page. According to the Rhode Island Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline, “[She] did not use patient names and had no intention to reveal any confidential patient information. However, because of the nature of one person’s injury … the patient was identified by unauthorized third parties. As soon as it was brought to [her] attention that this had occurred, [she] deleted her Facebook account.” Despite the physician leaving out all information she thought might make the patient identifiable, she apparently did not omit enough.

Example 2: An OB-GYN in St. Louis took to Facebook to complain about her frustration with a patient: “So I have a patient who has chosen to either no-show or be late (sometimes hours) for all of her prenatal visits, ultrasounds, and NSTs. She is now 3 hours late for her induction. May I show up late to her delivery?” Another physician then commented on this post: “If it’s elective, it’d be canceled!” The OB-GYN at issue then responded: “Here is the explanation why I have put up with it/not cancelled induction: prior stillbirth.”

Although the OB-GYN did not reveal the patient’s name, controversy erupted after someone posted a screenshot of the post and response comments to the hospital’s Facebook page. The hospital issued a statement indicating that its privacy compliance staff did not find the posting to be a breach of privacy, but the hospital added it would use this opportunity to educate its staff about the appropriate use of social media. Many believe this physician got off too easy.

The penalties for patient privacy violations (or even alleged patient privacy violations) are multifaceted. Not only can the federal government impose civil and criminal sanctions under HIPAA on the physician and his/her affiliated parties (e.g. physician’s employer), but states can also impose penalties. State-imposed penalties for patient privacy violations vary from state to state. Additionally, the patient may sue the violating physician and his/her affiliated parties for privacy violations. Although HIPAA does not afford patients the right to bring a private cause of action against a physician, state law often does grant patients such a right. Also, state medical boards often have the right to impose penalties, monetary and non-monetary, on a physician for privacy violations. These can include suspension or termination of medical licensure.

Recent reports indicate that people who “like,” “share,” “re-tweet,” or comment on inappropriate social media posts are also getting reprimanded. Finally, the reputational harm associated with an inappropriate post on social media is immeasurable, especially in light of the availability of information on the Internet. Unfortunately, when the physicians described above enter their names in a search engine, they do not see their professional accomplishments and prestigious educations; instead, their top hits are news articles reporting on their inappropriate posts.

Post with caution.

Steven M. Harris, Esq., is a nationally recognized healthcare attorney and a member of the law firm McDonald Hopkins LLC in Chicago. Write to him at sharris@mcdonaldhopkins.com.

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, blogs, webpages, Google+, LinkedIn. What do all of these social media outlets have in common? Each can get physicians in trouble under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), state privacy laws, and state medical laws, to name a few. It seems that all too often, news outlets are reporting data breaches generated in the medical community, many of which arise out of physicians’ use of social media, and most of which could have been avoided.

Physicians should be aware of the intersection of social media—both for personal and professional use—and HIPAA and state laws. Even an inadvertent, seemingly innocuous disclosure of a patient’s protected health information (PHI) through social media can be problematic.

PHI is defined under HIPAA, in part, as health information that (i) is created or received by a physician, (ii) relates to the health or condition of an individual, (iii) identifies the individual (or with respect to which there is a reasonable basis to believe the information can be used to identify the individual), and (iv) is transmitted by or maintained in electronic media, or transmitted or maintained in another form or medium. Under HIPAA, a physician may use and disclose PHI for “treatment, payment, or healthcare operations.” Generally, using or disclosing PHI through social media does not qualify as treatment, payment, or healthcare operations. If a physician were to use or disclose a patient’s PHI without permission, this would be a violation of HIPAA—and likely state law as well.

In order to use or disclose a patient’s PHI without obtaining the patient’s consent, a physician must de-identify the information so that the information does not identify the patient and there is no reasonable basis to believe that the information can be used to identify the patient. One option under HIPAA is to retain an expert to determine “that the risk is very small that the information could be used, alone or in combination with other reasonably available information, by an anticipated recipient to identify an individual who is the subject of the information.” Alternatively, and more commonly, a physician seeking to use or disclose patient PHI can remove the following identifiers from the PHI:

1. Names;
2. Geographic information;
3. Dates (e.g. birth date, admission date, discharge date, date of death);
4. Telephone numbers;
5. Fax numbers;
6. E-mail addresses;
7. Social Security numbers;
8. Medical record numbers;
9. Health plan beneficiary numbers;
10. Account numbers;
11. Certificate/license numbers;
12. Vehicle identifiers and serial numbers, including license plate numbers;
13. Device identifiers and serial numbers;
14. URLs;
15. IP address numbers;
16. Biometric identifiers (e.g. finger and voice prints);
17. Full-face photographic images and any comparable images; and
18. Other unique identifying numbers, characteristics, or codes.

Identifier #18 is the most difficult to comply with in light of the significant amount of personal information available on the Internet, particularly through search engines like Google. Inputting even a small amount of information into a search engine will generate relevant “hits” that make it increasingly difficult to comply with the de-identification standards under HIPAA. Even if the first 17 identifiers are carefully removed, the broadness of #18 can turn a seemingly harmless post on social media into a patient privacy violation.

Do not let the following examples be you:

Example 1: An ED physician in Rhode Island was fired, lost her hospital medical staff privileges, and was reprimanded by the Rhode Island Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline for posting information about a trauma patient on her personal Facebook page. According to the Rhode Island Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline, “[She] did not use patient names and had no intention to reveal any confidential patient information. However, because of the nature of one person’s injury … the patient was identified by unauthorized third parties. As soon as it was brought to [her] attention that this had occurred, [she] deleted her Facebook account.” Despite the physician leaving out all information she thought might make the patient identifiable, she apparently did not omit enough.

Example 2: An OB-GYN in St. Louis took to Facebook to complain about her frustration with a patient: “So I have a patient who has chosen to either no-show or be late (sometimes hours) for all of her prenatal visits, ultrasounds, and NSTs. She is now 3 hours late for her induction. May I show up late to her delivery?” Another physician then commented on this post: “If it’s elective, it’d be canceled!” The OB-GYN at issue then responded: “Here is the explanation why I have put up with it/not cancelled induction: prior stillbirth.”

Although the OB-GYN did not reveal the patient’s name, controversy erupted after someone posted a screenshot of the post and response comments to the hospital’s Facebook page. The hospital issued a statement indicating that its privacy compliance staff did not find the posting to be a breach of privacy, but the hospital added it would use this opportunity to educate its staff about the appropriate use of social media. Many believe this physician got off too easy.

The penalties for patient privacy violations (or even alleged patient privacy violations) are multifaceted. Not only can the federal government impose civil and criminal sanctions under HIPAA on the physician and his/her affiliated parties (e.g. physician’s employer), but states can also impose penalties. State-imposed penalties for patient privacy violations vary from state to state. Additionally, the patient may sue the violating physician and his/her affiliated parties for privacy violations. Although HIPAA does not afford patients the right to bring a private cause of action against a physician, state law often does grant patients such a right. Also, state medical boards often have the right to impose penalties, monetary and non-monetary, on a physician for privacy violations. These can include suspension or termination of medical licensure.

Recent reports indicate that people who “like,” “share,” “re-tweet,” or comment on inappropriate social media posts are also getting reprimanded. Finally, the reputational harm associated with an inappropriate post on social media is immeasurable, especially in light of the availability of information on the Internet. Unfortunately, when the physicians described above enter their names in a search engine, they do not see their professional accomplishments and prestigious educations; instead, their top hits are news articles reporting on their inappropriate posts.

Post with caution.

Steven M. Harris, Esq., is a nationally recognized healthcare attorney and a member of the law firm McDonald Hopkins LLC in Chicago. Write to him at sharris@mcdonaldhopkins.com.

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, blogs, webpages, Google+, LinkedIn. What do all of these social media outlets have in common? Each can get physicians in trouble under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), state privacy laws, and state medical laws, to name a few. It seems that all too often, news outlets are reporting data breaches generated in the medical community, many of which arise out of physicians’ use of social media, and most of which could have been avoided.

Physicians should be aware of the intersection of social media—both for personal and professional use—and HIPAA and state laws. Even an inadvertent, seemingly innocuous disclosure of a patient’s protected health information (PHI) through social media can be problematic.

PHI is defined under HIPAA, in part, as health information that (i) is created or received by a physician, (ii) relates to the health or condition of an individual, (iii) identifies the individual (or with respect to which there is a reasonable basis to believe the information can be used to identify the individual), and (iv) is transmitted by or maintained in electronic media, or transmitted or maintained in another form or medium. Under HIPAA, a physician may use and disclose PHI for “treatment, payment, or healthcare operations.” Generally, using or disclosing PHI through social media does not qualify as treatment, payment, or healthcare operations. If a physician were to use or disclose a patient’s PHI without permission, this would be a violation of HIPAA—and likely state law as well.

In order to use or disclose a patient’s PHI without obtaining the patient’s consent, a physician must de-identify the information so that the information does not identify the patient and there is no reasonable basis to believe that the information can be used to identify the patient. One option under HIPAA is to retain an expert to determine “that the risk is very small that the information could be used, alone or in combination with other reasonably available information, by an anticipated recipient to identify an individual who is the subject of the information.” Alternatively, and more commonly, a physician seeking to use or disclose patient PHI can remove the following identifiers from the PHI:

1. Names;
2. Geographic information;
3. Dates (e.g. birth date, admission date, discharge date, date of death);
4. Telephone numbers;
5. Fax numbers;
6. E-mail addresses;
7. Social Security numbers;
8. Medical record numbers;
9. Health plan beneficiary numbers;
10. Account numbers;
11. Certificate/license numbers;
12. Vehicle identifiers and serial numbers, including license plate numbers;
13. Device identifiers and serial numbers;
14. URLs;
15. IP address numbers;
16. Biometric identifiers (e.g. finger and voice prints);
17. Full-face photographic images and any comparable images; and
18. Other unique identifying numbers, characteristics, or codes.

Identifier #18 is the most difficult to comply with in light of the significant amount of personal information available on the Internet, particularly through search engines like Google. Inputting even a small amount of information into a search engine will generate relevant “hits” that make it increasingly difficult to comply with the de-identification standards under HIPAA. Even if the first 17 identifiers are carefully removed, the broadness of #18 can turn a seemingly harmless post on social media into a patient privacy violation.

Do not let the following examples be you:

Example 1: An ED physician in Rhode Island was fired, lost her hospital medical staff privileges, and was reprimanded by the Rhode Island Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline for posting information about a trauma patient on her personal Facebook page. According to the Rhode Island Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline, “[She] did not use patient names and had no intention to reveal any confidential patient information. However, because of the nature of one person’s injury … the patient was identified by unauthorized third parties. As soon as it was brought to [her] attention that this had occurred, [she] deleted her Facebook account.” Despite the physician leaving out all information she thought might make the patient identifiable, she apparently did not omit enough.

Example 2: An OB-GYN in St. Louis took to Facebook to complain about her frustration with a patient: “So I have a patient who has chosen to either no-show or be late (sometimes hours) for all of her prenatal visits, ultrasounds, and NSTs. She is now 3 hours late for her induction. May I show up late to her delivery?” Another physician then commented on this post: “If it’s elective, it’d be canceled!” The OB-GYN at issue then responded: “Here is the explanation why I have put up with it/not cancelled induction: prior stillbirth.”

Although the OB-GYN did not reveal the patient’s name, controversy erupted after someone posted a screenshot of the post and response comments to the hospital’s Facebook page. The hospital issued a statement indicating that its privacy compliance staff did not find the posting to be a breach of privacy, but the hospital added it would use this opportunity to educate its staff about the appropriate use of social media. Many believe this physician got off too easy.

The penalties for patient privacy violations (or even alleged patient privacy violations) are multifaceted. Not only can the federal government impose civil and criminal sanctions under HIPAA on the physician and his/her affiliated parties (e.g. physician’s employer), but states can also impose penalties. State-imposed penalties for patient privacy violations vary from state to state. Additionally, the patient may sue the violating physician and his/her affiliated parties for privacy violations. Although HIPAA does not afford patients the right to bring a private cause of action against a physician, state law often does grant patients such a right. Also, state medical boards often have the right to impose penalties, monetary and non-monetary, on a physician for privacy violations. These can include suspension or termination of medical licensure.

Recent reports indicate that people who “like,” “share,” “re-tweet,” or comment on inappropriate social media posts are also getting reprimanded. Finally, the reputational harm associated with an inappropriate post on social media is immeasurable, especially in light of the availability of information on the Internet. Unfortunately, when the physicians described above enter their names in a search engine, they do not see their professional accomplishments and prestigious educations; instead, their top hits are news articles reporting on their inappropriate posts.

Post with caution.

Steven M. Harris, Esq., is a nationally recognized healthcare attorney and a member of the law firm McDonald Hopkins LLC in Chicago. Write to him at sharris@mcdonaldhopkins.com.