Globe1234
  • HOME
  • Specialists
  • Medicare
  • Salt etc.
  • More

Hospitals' Experience

9/15/2020

0 Comments

 
If you want to find which hospitals have the most experience with each procedure, you need to download a spreadsheet of codes used at hospitals. These Diagnostic Related Groups (DRG) cover major types of hospital treatment. (or click for experienced doctors):
  1. Download and open the spreadsheet of codes used at hospitals, Globe1234.org/hosp.xlsx
  2. After it opens, click "Enable editing" at the top, if it asks
  3. Click the B at the top of column B to highlight the whole column of procedure names
  4. Press Ctrl and F at the same time, or click Home/Find, or View/Find, or Menu/Find
  5. Type a search word in the Find box, like knee, and click "Find All." Use up and down arrows to see all the choices in the file.
  6. Note the codes and search before and after them for related work. For example a search on "knee" gives 10 codes between 466 and 489. Looking at this range you will see 469 and 470 are "Major Joint Replacement Or Reattachment Of Lower Extremity." That covers knee and hip replacements even though they don't use either word.
  7. They use abbreviations such as: Exc-except, Mcc-major complications and comorbidities (defined here), Mv-mechanical Ventilation, Pdx-principal diagnosis, W-with, W/O-without
  8. Copy down any codes you want
 
Download a detailed file of hospitals' experience, the Inpatient Charge Data at:
cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/Medicare-Provider-Charge-Data/Inpatient2014.html
  1. Download the latest Detailed Excel data on that page.
  2. Double-click the downloaded zip file.
  3. Double-click the xlsx file inside it.
  4. Save it so you don't have to download it again: Click File/Save As and put it somewhere you can find it, like the desktop.
  5. Near the top of column A, click the small triangle to see the choices in that column
  6. Unclick "Select All" or click "Clear"
  7. Click one or more categories you need, such as 469 and 470
  8. Click OK if asked
  9. At the top of Column i - Total Discharges, click the small triangle and click "Sort Largest to Smallest"
  10. Now the highest volume hospitals are at the top
  11. You can also see the average amount Medicare allowed for each procedure, and the average charges each hospital submitted for the procedure.  These costs do not include the doctor bills, which you would need to find on the Specialists page.
0 Comments

Citations

9/15/2020

0 Comments

 
  • Payments to doctors and hospitals for reducing care under Medicare
  • Readmission penalties (detailed calculations)
  • Penalties at each hospital
  • Exemptions for military and Maryland hospitals, people under 65, without part B, etc.
  • Advocates to advise and represent patients
  • Dropping Part B
  • Checkbook.org and Center for the Study of Services, Guide to Health Plans
  • Alternative ways to cut Medicare costs or raise revenue

  • Readmissions cutting number of patients treated, and raising death rates
  • American College of Surgeons letter on penalties
  • 5 studies on lower readmissions, correlated with more deaths
  • 3 studies on palliative care, DNRs, and quicker deaths

  • Medicare 2012 and 2013 concern about "morbidity and mortality"
  • Recommendations from MedPAC in 2012 and Medicare in 2013 for nursing home penalty
  • Medicare 2009 endorsement of "end-of-life/palliative care programs" to cut costs and increase bonuses to doctors and hospitals
  • Medicare 3-5% adjustment for pre-existing patient sickness in 2008
  • MedPAC 2012 recommendation of hospice to decrease rehospitalizations
  • MedPAC 2007 report, on 2005 study of readmissions, using experimental software
  • Calculate chances of readmission for patients
  • 20%-55% reductions in care, with minimal quality control, from bonuses for reduced costs
  • 2009 Medicare estimate of "minimal" savings from first bonus program
  • CBO estimate of small cost savings from readmission penalties ($1.1 to $1.5 billion)

  • Am.Coll.of Physicians primers on medical studies (free)
  • British J of Medicine primers on medical studies (more detail, needs subscription)
0 Comments

Timing of Penalties

9/10/2020

0 Comments

 
Penalties on heart failure, heart attacks and pneumonia have been paid since October 2012, based on readmissions back to July 2008. Penalties on emphysema, chronic bronchitis (COPD), knee and hip replacements will be paid starting October 2014, based on readmissions back to July 2010.

Medicare calculates new penalties each fiscal year:
Picture
Penalties charged in any one year are based on readmissions in three years ending 15 months earlier.
0 Comments

Exclusions from Penalties

9/5/2020

0 Comments

 
 Generally these have other ways of controlling costs:
  • Long term hospitals
  • Veterans Affairs hospitals do not pay penalties, but a stay there, within 30 days after an initial treatment elsewhere, does earn a penalty for the first hospital.
  • Department of Defense hospitals (Federal Register 19 August 2013 pp.50524). Members of Congress can receive care at Walter Reed.
  • Rehabilitation hospitals
  • Children's hospitals
  • Cancer hospitals
  • Psychiatric hospitals
  • Religious nonmedical health care institutions
  • Hospitals in Puerto Rico (which encourages medical tourism) and abroad
  • Hospitals in Maryland have had an annual exemption so far, depending on state programs to restrict readmissions.
  1. In August 2013 Medicare said Maryland would have to submit "an annual report to the Secretary describing how a similar program to reduce hospital readmissions in that State achieves or surpasses the measured results in terms of health outcomes and cost savings" (p.50665). 
  2. 39 of the 47 Maryland hospitals have excess readmissions and would face Medicare penalties if they were not exempt. 
  3. In 2014, Medicare changed the rules, no longer requiring the annual achievements. "Subsequent to our FY 2014 rulemaking, the State of Maryland entered into an agreement with CMS, effective January 1, 2014, to participate in CMS’ new Maryland All-Payer Model, a 5-year hospital payment model" (p.28001). They will try to reach national levels by 2019. 
  4. Medicare's head office is in Maryland, so retirees and family members there do not face Medicare's readmission penalties.
  • Critical access hospitals
  • Medicare advantage plans, HMO or PPO, may control costs by referring to hospice instead of treating, and lack appeal rights
  • Patients under 65 (e.g. disabilities or on dialysis, (Federal Register 19 August 2013 pp.50658)
  • Patients who do not have Medicare parts A and B for 12 months before the initial hospital stay and 30 days after (Federal Register 19 August 2013 pp.50671, 2016...Specifications Report p.11)
  • Scheduled admissions (like cancer treatments)
0 Comments

Explanations of Medicare Terms

8/30/2020

0 Comments

 
NIH says heart failure means a weak heart. They say an alternate name is congestive heart failure.

NIH says knee or hip arthroplasty (Medicare term) means replacement.

NIH says COPD means emphysema or chronic bronchitis.

NIH says AMI, acute myocardial infarction, means heart attack.

NIH defines comfort care as symptom relief at the end of life, along with mental and spiritual comfort for terminal patients, so when doctors mention comfort care, they do not mean cure.

NIH says palliative care includes many treatments at any stage of illness, but they immediately discuss advance directives, DNR, and refusal of life-sustaining treatment. They also consider palliative care part of the same research field as end of life. While they say palliative care does not mean intent to die or forgo treatment, the message is very mixed, which is why many doctors and HealthGrades ratings of hospitals think it signals less treatment. Often it causes drowsiness, so patients participate less in decisions.

Critical Access Hospitals, designated state by state, are generally rural with less than 25 beds, average stays under 4 days, and 35 miles from other hospitals. (42cfr485.601 to 647). They are marked in our "Combined list" of hospitals, and are identified by "13" in the middle of the hospital Id number. They get extra payments to support better care than small hospitals otherwise could give.

Accountable Care Organizations (ACO) are groups of health providers who get paid more if they lower Medicare costs for the patients they see and meet minimum quality standards, including reducing admissions and readmissions (pp.10-13). Readmissions do not count against them if the patient dies within 30 days of initial discharge, and deaths do not count at all. Patients do not sign up. Medicare tracks which patients get most of their care from the ACO, and then rewards the ACO if Medicare saves money on these patients.

0 Comments

Research on Readmissions, Death Rates, Minorities

8/15/2020

0 Comments

 
A 2018 JAMA summary of research says, "there is now independently corroborated evidence that the HRRP [hospital readmissions reduction program] was associated with increased postdischarge mortality among patients with heart failure and new evidence that the HRRP was associated with increased mortality among patients hospitalized for pneumonia. In light of these findings, it is incumbent upon Congress and CMS to initiate an expeditious reconsideration and revision of this policy."

There is also a 2017 summary in Modern Healthcare.

Higher Deaths after the Readmission Penalties Started

A 2015 CDC study found higher death rates from heart failure after the readmission penalties started. Their data cover both hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients, so they include the effect of less hospital treatment for heart failure, driven by penalties.

A 2017 American College of Cardiology editorial said, "in 2014 alone, an estimated 5,008 excess [Heart Failure] patient deaths were associated with [readmissions program] implementation."
​
A 2018 JAMA study found higher death rates after the readmission penalties started, primarily in heart failure patients, and to some extent in pneumonia patients treated in hospitals. The paper's findings are strong, but the summary hides those findings: The paper says, "45-Day Postadmission Mortality... HRRP announcement was significantly associated with an increase in mortality" but the summary says, "Given the study design and the lack of significant association of
the HRRP with mortality within 45 days of admission, further 
research is needed." Then they refuse to say what kind of research would be more conclusive than the research so far. I asked, "Would you support removing penalties for a large random sample of hospitals for 20 years? Something else?" and they were silent.

Correlation between Low Readmissions and High Death Rates

Heidenreich et al. pubmed.gov/20650356
(2010) Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 56(5), 362-368. 
  • In a study of 50,000 patients at Veterans Affairs hospitals over 5 years, "Heart failure admission rates remained constant at about 5 per 1,000 veterans. Mortality at 30 days decreased (7.1% to 5.0%, p < 0.0001), whereas rehospitalization for heart failure at 30 days increased (5.6% to 6.1%, p = 0.11)" italics added

Gorodeski, et al. pubmed.gov/20647209
(2010) New England Journal of Medicine, 363(3), 297-298.
  • "A higher occurrence of readmissions after index admissions for heart failure was associated with lower risk-adjusted 30-day mortality."

American Hospital Association aha.org/research/reports/tw/11sep-tw-readmissions.pdf
(2011) Trendwatch September 2011
  • "analysis using Hospital Compare data conducted by the Greater New York Hospital Association also concluded that mortality is inversely related to readmissions. (Chart 3)"
Picture
  • Chart shows that states with lowest mortality, MA, CT, DC, DE, MN, NJ, IL, OH, MI, PA, all have above average readmissions, and all but two of these states are in the 70th percentile of readmissions or higher.

Krumholz et al. pubmed.gov/23403683
(2013) Journal of the American Medical Association. 2013 Feb.13; 309(6): 587–593.
  • They find 17% correlation between lower readmissions and higher deaths among heart failure patients. These are the same Yale authors who develop Medicare's official readmission data:
  • "The analyses included ... 4767 hospitals for HF [heart failure] ... The correlations ... [of mortality and readmission rates] were ...−0.17" for heart failure.

Gilman et al. pubmed.gov/25092831
(2014) Health Affairs, 33, no.8 (2014):1314-1322
  • "safety-net hospitals were more likely than other hospitals to be penalized under the... Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program... 
  • "[M]ortality outcomes in safety-net hospitals were better than those in other hospitals for patients with acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia. 
  • "Third, the adjusted cost per Medicare discharge was virtually identical at safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals. 
  • "Taken together, these results indicate that safety-net hospitals provided better health outcomes than other hospitals at a similar cost level yet were more likely to be penalized under programs that are intended to improve and reward high performance."

Deaths Caused by a Program to Avoid Readmissions:

Fan et al. pubmed.gov/22586006
(2012) Annals of Internal Medicine 2012 May 15; 156(10):673-83
  • 20 Veterans Affairs hospitals measured a "comprehensive care management program" for emphysema and chronic bronchitis (COPD). "Improving a patient's ability to self-monitor and manage changes"
  • "data monitoring committee terminated the intervention before the trial's planned completion... There were 28 deaths from all causes in the intervention group versus 10 in the usual care group"

Minorities

Joynt et al. pubmed.gov/21325183
(2011) Journal of the American Medical Association. 2011 Feb 16;305(7):675-81
  • "black patients were more likely to be readmitted after hospitalization"

Rodriguez et al. pubmed.gov/21835285
(2011) American Heart Journal. 2011 Aug;162(2):254-261.e3
  • "Elderly Hispanic patients are more likely to be readmitted for HF and AMI [heart failure and heart attack] than whites"

Joynt et al. pubmed.gov/23340629
(2013) Journal of the American Medical Association. 2013 Jan 23;309(4):342-3
  • "We found that large hospitals, teaching hospitals, and SNHs [safety net hospitals] are more likely to receive payment cuts under the HRRP [readmissions penalties]. It is unclear exactly why these hospitals have higher readmission rates than their smaller, nonteaching, non-SNH counterparts, but prior research suggests that differences between hospitals are likely related to both case mix (medical complexity) and socioeconomic mix of the patient population.2-3 There is less evidence that differences in readmissions are related to measured hospital quality.6"

Interviews

Dr Ashish Jha, of Harvard's School of Public Health, told PBS, "If you look at, for instance, the U.S. News [and World Report] publishes its list of top 50 hospitals. Those hospitals tend to have very low infection rates, very low mortality rates, very low death rates. Guess what? They tend to have very high readmission rates, because they do such a good job of keeping their patients alive that many of them are readmitted."

Dr. Sunil Kripalani, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center told Fox News, "Among patients with heart failure, hospitals that have higher readmission rates actually have lower mortality rates. So, which would we rather have -- a hospital readmission or a death?"
0 Comments

MedPAC Recommendations

8/10/2020

0 Comments

 
1. MedPAC - Medical Payment Advisory Commission, bipartisan appointed by Congress

MedPAC, Report to Congress: Promoting Greater Efficiency in Medicare. June 2007
  • 17.6% of Medicare hospital patients readmitted within 30 days in 2005 (p.107)
  • 13.3% of Medicare hospital patients had "potentially preventable" (according to 3M software) readmissions within 30 days in 2005, costing $12 billion (p.107)
  • So "76 percent of 30-day readmissions were flagged as potentially preventable." (p.108)
  • The 3M software was not named, and is described as, "Researchers with 3M have also developed algorithms for a wide range of conditions that identify related readmissions within 7 days to 30 days of the initial admission. Florida is proposing to use this product for reporting purposes." (p.108)
  • They only give four examples of preventable readmissions (p.109) so it is not possible to judge the general reliability of the software or what it would have taken to prevent all the readmissions:
  1. diabetes after heart attack
  2. angina after angioplasty (PTCA)
  3. appendectomy after abdominal pain
  4. angioplasty after arterial bypass graft (CABG)
  • They note two other approaches which they did not use, (p.108)
  1. "UnitedHealthcare counts all readmissions to the same major diagnostic category or for infections in disclosing readmission rates for hospitals in California.
  2. "Physicians with the Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania agreed not to be paid for certain readmissions within 90 days of nonemergency coronary artery bypass graft surgery. These types of readmissions include
  1. acute myocardial infarction;
  2. atrial fibrillation;
  3. venous thrombosis;
  4. infections due to an internal prosthetic device, implant, or graft; and
  5. postoperative infections."

MedPAC, Report to the Congress: Reforming the Delivery System. June 2008

  • "Congress should direct the Secretary to reduce payments to hospitals with relatively high readmission rates for select conditions" (p.8) unanimous vote by commission 16-0

MedPAC, Report to Congress, Medicare Payment Policy. March 2012

  • "Congress should direct the Secretary to reduce payments to skilled nursing facilities with relatively high risk-adjusted rates of rehospitalization" (p.199).
  • This will lessen their current "incentive to rehospitalize high-cost patients as a way to shift costs they would otherwise incur onto hospitals" (p.194).
  • Rehospitalizations occur for many reasons (Mor et al. 2010). Some of these factors are within a SNF’s control; others are not. Influences at least partly within a facility’s control include:...
    • hospice use and the presence of advance directives (Grabowski et al. 2008, Mor and Grabowski 2008)." (pp.194-195)

MedPAC, Report to Congress, Medicare Payment Policy. March 2013

  • "We have recommended readmission policies for hospitals (now in place) and SNFs [skilled nursing facilities], and we are working on similar policies for home health care and IRFs [inpatient rehabilitation facilities)" (p.153)

MedPAC, Medicare ACO Update, April 2013, Glass & Stensland

MedPAC, Report to Congress, Medicare & the Healthcare Delivery System. June 2013

MedPAC, Data Book. June 2013


MedPAC Report to Congress, Medicare Payment Policy, March 2014
  • "About 46.7 percent of Medicare beneficiaries who died in 2012 used hospice, up from 45.2 percent in 2011 and 22.9 percent in 2000" (p.300)

2. See also Medicare Recommendations
0 Comments

Medicare Texts: Budget, Rules, Methods

8/10/2020

0 Comments

 
1. Readmission Rules

42 CFR 412.154 - Regulations for the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.

Medicare's summary web page and separate page of information for FY 2016

August 4, 2014 Final Rule for Fiscal Year 2015 (which starts October 2014) 

May 15, 2014 Proposal for Fiscal Year 2015 (which starts October 2014) or individual sections
  • "we estimate that the reduction to a hospital's base operating DRG payment amount to account for excess readmissions of selected applicable conditions under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program will result in a 0.2 percent decrease in payments to hospitals for FY 2015 relative to FY 2014." Note they do not estimate dollars or numbers, as they did in 2013 below.

August 19, 2013 Final Rule for Fiscal Year 2014 (which starts October 2013) or individual sections
  • "We recognize that performance-based payment programs may have the potential for unintended consequences. We are committed to monitoring the COPD measure and assessing unintended consequences over time, such as the inappropriate shifting of care, increased patient morbidity and mortality, and other negative unintended consequences for patients." (p.50650)
  • "we will monitor the THA/TKA readmissions measure closely for any unintended
    consequences that may arise from implementation of this measure, and adjust the
    Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, accordingly." (p.50664)
  • "In this final rule, we estimate that 2,225 hospitals will have their base operating DRG payments reduced by their hospital-specific readmissions adjustment, resulting in a 0.2 percent decrease, or approximately $227 million, in payments to hospitals overall for FY 2014 relative to no provision." (p.51020)

May 10, 2013 Proposal for Fiscal Year 2014 (which starts October 2013) or individual sections
  • "In this proposed rule, we estimate that the reduction to a hospital's base operating DRG payment amount to account for excess readmissions of selected applicable conditions under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program will result in a 0.2 percent decrease, or approximately −$175 million, in payments to hospitals for FY 2014." (p.27497)
  • Proposal to cover knee and hip replacements (arthroplasty)
  • Proposal to cover emphysema and chronic bronchitis (COPD)

August 31, 2012 Final Rule for Fiscal Year 2013 (which started October 2012) or individual sections
  • "we estimate that the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program will result in a 0.3 percent decrease, or approximately $280 million, in payments to hospitals." (p.53268)
  • "We recognize that performance-based payment penalty or incentive programs may have the potential for unintended consequences. We are committed to monitoring the measures and assessing unintended consequences over time, such as the inappropriate shifting of care, increased patient morbidity and mortality, and other negative unintended consequences for patients." (p.53376)

2. Methodology for Counting Readmissions
  • Their equations explain 3% of the variation (R-squared) in readmissions among heart failures (p.30), 5% for heart attacks (p.30) and pneumonia (p.29). These percents date from 2008 and have not been updated.
  • Medicare now shows c-statistics between 0.61 and 0.66. The c-statistic has a scale of 0.5 to 1, where 0.5 means their equations do no better than chance, and 1 means their equations are perfect. "Models are typically considered reasonable when the C-statistic is higher than 0.7 and strong when C exceeds 0.8 (Hosmer & Lemeshow, 2000; Hosmer & Lemeshow, 1989)." So none of their equations is "reasonable," and they still rate hospitals with them. 

3. Medicare Budget

President, The Budget for Fiscal Year 2014, April 2013
  • "The Budget encourages appropriate use of inpatient rehabilitation hospitals and adjusts SNF payments to reduce unnecessary hospital readmissions, saving almost $5 billion over 10 years." (p.38)

Dept. of Health and Human Services 2014 Budget in Brief, April 2013
  • asks Congress to reduce "payments by up to three percent for SNFs with high rates of care-sensitive, preventable hospital readmissions, beginning in 2017" (p.54).
  • These penalties would be based on patients starting in July 2012, so nursing homes already need to think about filtering the people they accept.

Dept. of Health and Human Services 2014 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, April(?) 2013
  • "the goal of a three-year, 20% national reduction in readmissions within 30 days of hospital discharge." (p.227)
  • "The Partnership for Patients [public-private partnership] has set two ambitious goals for all U.S. hospitals by the end of 2013: 1) reduce preventable all-cause harm by 40 percent, and 2) reduce hospital readmissions by 20 percent." (p.292)

Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds 2013 Annual Report, April 2013

Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds 2012 Annual Report, April 2012

Earlier Trustee Reports

Congressional Budget Office, Letter to Majority Leader, November 2009
"Estimate of Effects on Direct Spending and Revenues for Non-Coverage Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act By fiscal year, in billions of dollars.
...                                    2013  2014  2015  2016   2017  2018  2019  2010-2019
Hospital Readmissions    -0.1    -0.3    -1.1    -1.3    -1.3    -1.4    -1.5       -7.1
Reduction Program" (p.26)

4. Accountable Care Organizations

42 CFR Part 425 - Medicare Shared Savings Program

December 21, 2012 ACO 2013 Program Analysis Quality Performance Standards Narrative Measure Specifications

November 2, 2011 Final Rule for ACOs

2011 Pioneer ACO Request for Application

2009 Physician Group Practice Demonstration Evaluation Report (PGP)
  • "The PGPs have reported implementing or enhancing a variety of care management programs that focus on improving the efficiency and quality of health care. These programs include ... end-of-life/palliative care programs" (p.6)
  • "Since most of the savings are returned to the sites as performance payments, the net savings to the Medicare Trust funds in the first two years of the Demonstration were minimal when expressed as a percentage of all Target Expenditures." (pp.9, 45)

5. See also list of reports from MedPAC, a Congressional Agency

0 Comments

Payments

8/5/2020

0 Comments

 
Hospital bills for 100 most common diagnoses, 2011 and 2012, for US and each hospital.

Explanation of General Medicare Payment Formula for Hospitals

The explanation is based on information from
  • CMS factsheet
  • CMS web page
  • CMS regulations
  • Hartstein, Institute of Medicine
  • Dalton+Slifkin, U of North Carolina
  • Oklahoma Hospital Association factsheet

Many numbers change each year. There are links to Medicare's "home page" of each year at the bottom of the main CMS readmission page.
  • From that home page follow the links for Tables (discussed below).
  • There is also a link for Data Files which include the
  1. Impact File (names of hospitals, size, categories, cost factors), 
  2. Standardizing File (cost factors), 
  3. Wage Index File, and 
  4. Readmissions Supplemental File (numbers of readmissions).

DRG weight
  • Each patient's hospital stay is put in one diagnosis-related group (DRG), which has a payment weight (Table 5), reflecting its relative cost, compared to other diagnoses. Weights are updated every year.

Hospital operating base or "Specific standardized amounts"
  • The base for operating costs is $5-6,000 (Table 1), divided into labor-related $3-4,000) and nonlabor ($1-2,000) shares. The labor-related share of operations is multiplied by the wage index (Table 4 and Impact File) applicable to the area where the hospital is located, and in Alaska and Hawaii the nonlabor share of operations is multiplied by a cost of living factor (in Federal Register).

Hospital capital base
  • The base for capital costs is $420-440 (Table 1D), multiplied by the capital wage index which is also called the capital geographic adjustment factor-GAF (Table 4 and Impact File) applicable to the area where the hospital is located. In Alaska and Hawaii the capital base is also multiplied  by the cost of living factor.

Both hospital bases are multiplied by the DRG weight (Table 5).

Readmission reduction for "excess" readmissions in past years, based on operating costs plus payments for new technology, but excluding capital, and adjusted for transfers.

DSH for poor people
  • If the hospital treats a high-percentage of low-income patients (under either of two statutory formulas), the disproportionate share hospital (DSH) adjustment, provides for a percentage increase in Medicare payment. The DSH is about $12 billion per year, so it averages 12% of all inpatient payments in all hospitals.

IME for teaching
  • If the hospital is an approved teaching hospital the indirect medical education (IME) adjustment for operating costs depends on the ratio of residents-to-beds, and for capital depends on the ratio of residents-to-average daily census. The IME is about $6 billion per year, so it averages 6% of all inpatient payments in all hospitals.

Outlier payments for very costly hospital stays cover 80% of hospital losses over $23,000 (90% for burns). These total about $16 billion per year and they average about 2.9% of payments for most procedures, including the procedures subject to readmission penalties. They are higher on a few other procedures.

Summary inpatient costs released by Medicare include DRG amount (operating + capital), disproportionate share, teaching, and outlier payments. Operating cost (the base for readmission penalties) is about 73% of these summary costs.

Transfers after short stay get lower payment

New technology add-on payment (NTAP) added if applicable

Large Urban Areas get extra factor, meaning Metro Statistical Areas over 1 million people and New England County Metro Areas over 970,000.

Organ acquisition is paid separately

Value-based purchasing VBP has adjustments, based on operating costs, not capital.

Sole community hospitals (SCH) are paid by other formulas if higher

Medicare dependent hospitals (MDH) are paid by another formula if higher

Low volume hospitals get more, by formula

Qualifying hospitals are in the bottom quartile of counties on Medicare spending per enrollee, and get more

Hospitals not reporting quality data get reduction


0 Comments

Medicare Data and More

7/25/2020

0 Comments

 
General sites:
  • https://data.cms.gov/provider-data/
  • https://www.medicare.gov/care-compare/
  • https://www.medicare.gov/procedure-price-lookup/ National averages
  • https://www.medicare.gov/medicare-and-you) Medicare Handbook
 1. Hospital data

Financial data are on a separate page

Medicare has a summary page for each year since 2013, and links to a "home page" for hospital data each year since 2012 (called IPPS Rule) at the bottom of the main CMS readmission page (and the bottom of the left navigation menu, which is often the only link for the coming year).
  • From that home page follow the links for Tables (discussed below and on Payments page).
  • There is also a link for Data Files which include the
  1. Impact File (names of hospitals, size, categories),
  2. Standardizing File (cost factors),
  3. Wage Index File
  4. Readmissions Supplemental File or Readmissions PUF (numbers of readmissions, PUF=Public Use File)

Item 4, the Readmissions file, is the source of "Number" and "Readmit Rate" for each of the 5 medical categories in our "Combined list" of all hospitals (methods). The file also shows the number of patients set aside from the data for various reasons (transfers, deaths, etc.), and the total DRG weights of readmitted patients (reflecting their costs).

Item 1, the Impact file, is the source of the price and wage adjustments in our Combined List.

Files of death rates and other quality measures for hospital and other patients. These ignore deaths of people who have been in hospice any time in the past year. (methods)

Medicare has data each year, called tables, on:
  • item 1, table 1, Hospital payment bases
  • item 3, table 5, Disease payment weights (DRG)
  • item 5, table 6, Codes for comorbidities worsening the diseases
  • item 6, table 7, Number of patients, by disease

Hospital bills for 100 most common diagnoses, each year from 2011 on.

Medicare gives away software to calculate readmission risk. It focuses attention on the frailest patients who are most likely to be readmitted in spite of better care, so are natural targets to promote hospice, comfort care and DNR, even if their condition is treatable.

Data on hospitals' use of Electronic Health Records are on a separate Medicare page.

2. Nursing Home data are on another page

3. Patient and beneficiary data

Medicare has counts for each year since 1985, more detailed in the most recent years.

File of interviews and spending for representative sample of 13,000 Medicare patients living in the community, 2013-2017 (free, 50 megabytes/year)
Medicare Advantage Plans (Part C) encounters with patients.
File of 15,000,000 hospitalized Medicare patients ($3,700 per year, on DVD)
Other data


National Center for Health Statistics has surveys of people and institutions

4. Doctor and treatment data
Medicare has counts and costs for the procedures and tests billed by each doctor and other provider in 2012.


Data on doctors' use of Electronic Health Records are on a separate Medicare page.

5. Drug Use and Costs
are on another page.

6. Medical Equipment

Medicare lists doctors who prescribe medical equipment and supplies, by type of equipment, showing numbers and costs, but the file is not organized by provider, so you cannot compare prices at different providers. The goal seems to be to press doctors to prescribe less, rather than help patients or doctors find the best or popular providers.

7. Other sources

Topics are also covered in the MedPAC, Data Book. June 2013


The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has data on costs and disease.

Medicare shows, by state or county, number of beneficiaries, as well as users and providers of ambulances, labs, home health, skilled nursing facilities, and hospices.
0 Comments

Comfort Care Research and Advocacy

7/20/2020

0 Comments

 

TOPICS
1. Research: Do Palliative Care, DNR & Hospice Help Patients Live Longer?
2. Advocates on Using Hospice and Palliative Care to Cut Hospital Stays
3. Ethics & Politics
4. Pain and Palliative Doctors Compared
5. Location and Size of Hospice Organizations

Comfort care means different things to different doctors, so it is important to probe its meaning. It usually means stopping curative treatment and using palliative doctors to control pain, though they have less training at that than pain doctors.

Comfort care's main justification is to provide a more enjoyable life for seriously ill patients 
than a life of treatment. However advocates also say it can extend life and save money. The sections below address these ideas.

There seem to be only 2 short, small, random studies of palliative care's effect on extending life. Both have almost complete overlap between the confidence intervals on length of life in palliative and control groups, which suggests little significant difference in survival.

The bigger study finds shorter life for palliative patients, and is ambiguous about its significance. The smaller, narrower study, of one disease in one hospital, claims significantly longer life for palliative patients, and only a bio-statistician can evaluate that claim.  Both studies are described below.

Medicare is pressing hospitals to limit care and promote hospice, comfort care (symptom relief or palliative care), and "do not resuscitate" (DNR) orders, so patients die at home and do not come back to the hospital. 
  • In 2009 Medicare endorsed "end-of-life/palliative care programs" to cut costs and increase bonuses to doctors and hospitals.
  • In 2012 a Congressional agency, MedPAC, recommended "hospice use and the presence of advance directives" to reduce rehospitalizations.
An unrelated study found that hiring a lay staff person to help patients with advance care planning had no effect on mortality, but cut costs and increased patient satisfaction.

Huffington Post found some hospices earning money by enrolling patients who were not ill enough.

1. Research: Do Palliative Care, DNR & Hospice Help Patients Live Longer?
​

1.A Two Random Studies with Opposite Findings:

Kaiser Permanente (2007) Brumley et al, "Increased satisfaction with care and lower costs: results of a randomized trial of in-home palliative care." J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007 Jul;55(7):993-1000. pubmed.gov/17608870
310 patients from 2002-4. followed for 6-24 months. Half the patients were randomly assigned to get palliative home visits and had nurses and doctors on call 24/7. 
Eligible: homebound patients with heart failure, COPD, or cancer, who had a hospital or emergency room visit in the year before enrollment, whose doctors would not be surprised if they died within a year, and with Palliative Performance Scale 70% or less 
Location: Kaiser HMOs in Colorado and Hawaii 
Finding: Shorter lives among patients assigned to get palliative care than patients without that care: Average survival 6.4 vs. 8.0 months after study enrollment.
  • Confidence intervals were 1.1-11.8 and 1.4-14.5 months. They found the differences significant with t tests, P=.03, but not with Kaplan-Meier survival, log rank test=2.98, P=.08 (p.996).
  • 75% died before the study ended. They do not say how or if the other 25% are included in their survival medians. They report no "significant differences" in the survival percent between palliative and control groups, but provide no figures.
  • They omitted from palliative death rates and costs 8 patients who died before getting a palliative visit, but they do not report on or omit any similar early deaths in the control group. They omitted 5 who withdrew: 2 palliative, 3 control.
  • They note that earlier deaths may reflect patients' wishes, "delineating and following patient care preferences ... may have affected survival time" (p.999).
  • Sending the palliative team resulted in $7,600+$5,200 lower cost per patient, and a "strong trend toward shorter survival ... (196 days vs 242 days) after study enrollment" (p.998)
  • Kaiser included administrative data, so they had complete data on costs and deaths, without depending on survey participation.
  •  Study found 12 points more satisfaction among the living at 90 days (93% satisfaction if visited by team v. 81% if not), but they do not report the number alive in each group at that time. Participation in the satisfaction survey declined rapidly in any case, so it became unreliable. At 30, 60, 90, 120 days, the interview sample was 277, 216, 168, 149, 136 patients.
  • Palliative group had more medical attention overall. Palliative teams tracked their patients' symptoms and prescriptions, so they could identify gaps and mistakes in care. The control group had nothing similar.
Massachusetts General Hospital (2010) Temel et al. "Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer." N Engl J Med. 2010 Aug 19;363(8):733-42. pubmed.gov/20818875
151 patients from 2006-2009 followed for 6 to 42 months. Half the patients were randomly assigned to get palliative home visits.
Eligible: metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer  diagnosed in past 8 weeks, fully ambulatory or in bed less than half the day (ECOG 1-2), , and understood English, and not already getting care from the palliative service.
Location:  Massachusetts General Hospital
Findings: Longer life among palliative patients than patients without palliative care: Median time from entry into the study to death or end of the study (whichever came first) was 11.6 months vs. 8.9 months, respectively.
  • Confidence intervals were 6.4-16.9 and 6.3-11.4. The palliative confidence interval contains almost all the control group's interval, and overlap usually means no difference, but they do report significance, "P=.02 with the use of the log-rank test" (p.741).
  • They also report 64% of the palliative group and 76% of the control group died during the study, but do not say if it is a significant difference (data from Supplement without confidence intervals).
  • They say a limitation is that the palliative group had more medical attention overall. The palliative teams tracked their patients' symptoms and prescriptions, so they could identify gaps and mistakes in care. The control group had nothing similar. The authors recommend for future studies, "follow-up investigations should include a control group that receives a similar amount of attention" (p.741).
  • For example a control group could have appointments with nurses, psychologists and/or pain doctors instead of palliative specialists. These are much easier to find than palliative doctors, cost slightly less, and have similar or stronger training in drug, nondrug and psychological methods. The doctor file here shows:
                                     Number of Providers     Appts/Yr.   Avg Cost   Avg Minutes/Appointment

Palliative + Hospice doctors                   500       220,000            $106        36
Pain Management doctors                  3,000    2,800,000              $90        23
Psychologists                                      11,000    4,500,000              $88        47
Licensed Clinical Social Workers
    12,000    3,400,000              $68        48

1.B Comparison of Random Studies​

Both random studies are very short term, lasting only 6 months after the last patients were recruited, so they omit treatment successes which extend lives several years, while they reflect that for those where treatment does not work, the patient might have been better off with palliation. A central research area is how to tell the difference.

If both random studies are true in the 2-3-year periods which they measured, maybe palliation is more life-supporting for the ambulatory lung cancer patients in Massachusetts. Palliative consults for the homebound in Colorado and Hawaii could easily have led them to choose fewer treatments, leading to earlier deaths from acceptance or from depression. Or maybe curative care worked better for the heart failure, COPD and mixed cancer patients in Colorado and Hawaii, keeping them alive longer if they wanted. 

With only 2 small, short random studies, and wide ranges of outcomes in all groups it's easy to say, "it depends."

A big difference between real life and both these random studies is that study doctors knew the palliative care was randomly assigned, so it did not mean patients had given up. Elsewhere doctors reduce curative care for people who choose palliation, because they confuse palliation and hospice (encouraged by the close relations in the field). "Even clinicians, confuse palliative care with end-of-life care or hospice". So palliation outside these studies can be a dangerous signal for patients who want treatment too. They may be safer with pain doctors, whose certification actually includes more on drug, nondrug and psychological alleviation of pain, than palliative certification does.

A related risk is that 60% of US surgeons will not offer a high-risk operation to patients whose advance directives limit follow-up care. Patients with a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order are denied many other treatments too, so patients need to be careful what they wish for.

1.C Non-Random Studies

Mercy Health Center, OK (2009). Kroch et al, "Making hospital mortality measurement more meaningful: incorporating advance directives and palliative care designations." Am J Med Qual. 2010 Jan-Feb;25(1):24-33. pubmed.gov/19966112
"Patients with care-limiting orders have higher mortality than the general in-patient population; nevertheless most DNR patients (65%) still survive the hospital stay, albeit most PC [palliative care] patients (73%) do not ... Observed mortality rates for DNR and PC patients are generally higher than those expected from patient risk factors" (p.28)

Mercy Health Center, OK (2009). Kroch et al, "Making hospital mortality measurement more meaningful: incorporating advance directives and palliative care designations." Am J Med Qual. 2010 Jan-Feb;25(1):24-33. pubmed.gov/19966112
9,100 patients from 2005-2006, analyzing hospital records retrospectively. Included 995 with DNR, of which 311 had Palliative care.
Eligible: Hospital discharges and deaths Nov.'05-Oct.'06
Location: Mercy Health Center (hospital), Oklahoma City
Findings: Death rates during the current hospital stay were abnormally high for patients who had palliative care and/or DNR orders:

Hospital    Expected...  ...(Expectation Based on Patients' Condition)
  Death        Death
   Rate          Rate
   73%           31%       Palliative care patients
   35%           16%       DNR patients

This correlational study does not show if:
  1. Lack of curative treatment caused the death rates to be so much higher than expected (expected rates take into account the history of the disease and other conditions, see below)
  2. Counseling and acceptance of the end (or giving up) caused the death rates to be so high
  3. These palliative and DNR patients would have died sooner without those orders, or later
  4. There were any reasons why so few palliative patients went home to die
 
  • Mercy's other patients had lower death rates than expected (p.25, they gave no figures)
  • Most palliative care patients did not get to die at home (73%)
  • This hospital considers both DNR and palliative care as "care-limiting" orders (p.24). 
  • They frequently assign patients to palliative care whose disease is irreversible and leading to death, though death is not necessarily expected during the hospital stay, and "maintaining the patient's comfort during the dying process is the primary objective" (p.25) 
  • "[G]eneral hypothesis that DNR designation identifies otherwise unobserved risk that is revealed over time during the hospital episode" (p.30) 
  • Expected death rates are calculated by the CareScience method which controls for "age, sex, race, income, relative distance traveled, principal diagnosis, comorbidity-adjusted complication risk score, defining diagnosis, cancer status, chronic disease and disease history, valid procedures, admission source, admission type, payer class, and facility type" in each of "142 different disease groupings (ie. 142 distinct regression equations)" (p.26)
  • The CareScience method is fairly good at predicting which patients will die during a particular hospital stay. It explains 30% to 54% of the variation in death rates (p.30)

National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, US (2007). Connor et al, "Comparing hospice and nonhospice patient survival among patients who die within a three-year window." (J Pain+Symptom Manage. 2007 Mar;33(3):238-46. pubmed.gov/17349493
4,493 patients from 1998-2002, analyzing Medicare records retrospectively
Eligible: Patients with CHF and cancers of lung, pancreas, prostate, colon and breast who had a major progression in their disease ("indicative date") in 1999, but not 1998, who died between 15 days and 3 years after that major progression. There are detailed criteria for each disease (see below).
Location: US patients with Medicare Part B (optional doctor coverage)
Findings: Longer life for hospice patients with lung cancer or heart failure. This correlational study does not show if:
  1. Longer-lived patients had more time to think about and sign up for hospice, or
  2. Giving up curative treatment helped patients live longer,  or
  3. Hospice's better coordination of care helped patients live longer, or
  4. Other factors caused both longer lives and more hospice, such as better doctors and hospitals, health knowledge, other health experience, etc.
Significant Differences in Survival (days):
  • Lung cancer 279 vs. 240, P<.00001
  • Pancreatic cancer 210 vs. 189 P=.0102
Not Significant (over .05):
  • Heart failure 402 vs. 321, P=.0540
  • Colon cancer 414 vs. 381 P=.0792
  • Breast cancer 422 vs. 410 P=.6136
  • Prostate cancer 514 vs. 510 P=.8266
Potential Biases:
  1. They omitted patients whose immediate treatment or lack of it led to death in the first 15 days. A majority of these omitted short lives could be patients who chose hospice, declined treatment, and died quickly, in accordance with their wishes.
  2. They omitted patients whose treatment or hospice care carried them beyond 3 years. A majority of these omitted long lives could be non-hospice patients  with successful treatment.
  3. They used detailed criteria for each disease, and they note their lung cancer criteria risked getting sicker patients into the control group than into the hospice group, since survival was measured from the last date in the records when lung patients switched chemotherapy drugs. Hospice patients stopped drugs, so stopped switching, while the control group kept switching, so their last switch date would be closer to death, and survival would be shorter in the control group. Breast cancer had the same bias, but still did not show a significant difference.

Healthgrades (2013) "Hospital Report Cards™ Mortality and Complications Outcomes 2013 Methodology"
"Top Five Risk Factors by Procedure or Diagnosis ... [p.45]
  • Diabetic Acidosis and Coma ... DO NOT RESUSCITATE STATUS ... [p.46]
  • Heart Failure ... DO NOT RESUSCITATE STATUS ... [p.47]
  • Diagnosis code V49.86 (DO NOT RESUSCITATE STATUS) ... Healthgrades included this diagnosis as a risk factor in its regression analyses for all non-surgical cohorts where mortality was the outcome being assessed. It was only considered to be a risk factor when ... present on admission. This diagnosis was statistically significant in the logistic regression model for each of these cohorts." [p.50]

2. Advocates on Using Hospice and Palliative Care to Cut Hospital Stays

Hospice (even a strategic temporary signup) can provide more home care when needed, or reduce care that patients dislike. However it can also be pushed as a way to cut costs for the hospital or medical system:

American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine
(2011) "When patients enroll in hospice care, their days of hospitalization might be expected to go down, thanks to hospice’s 24-hour on-call capacity ... and the shift in goals of care."

DAI Palliative Care Group (2011) "Hospices and their palliative medicine specialists have proven, several studies have shown, to be effective at reducing use of hospitals for their patients... Hospitals will likely look to post-acute care networks to assist in managing the care of at-risk (for rehospitalization) patients. Should we consider deployment of palliative care specialists (physicians and nurse practitioners) by these networks to visit patients in their homes"?

New Jersey Hospital Association (2011) "Planning for 2012-2015..:
  • Reductions in hospital readmission rates and penalties... More effective use of hospice
  • Accountable care organizations and bundled payment... Home health and hospice have leading roles" (p.69)

Senior Housing News (2012) "Hospitals’ reimbursements will start getting docked under healthcare reform depending on 30-day readmission rates, so communities where many residents use hospice services rather than going to a hospital could be potentially benefit. [sic]"

National Quality Forum (2012) "For both Hospice and Palliative Care... treating ... symptoms ... has the strongest evidence base and helps avoid unwanted treatments and hospital/emergency department (ED) admissions and readmissions." (p.9)

Florida Hospital Association (2013) says one method they used to reduce readmissions 15% was "Evaluating the patient’s end-of-life care wishes" (p.8)

"Bon Secours [2014] already has reduced its readmission rates, improved palliative care for terminally ill patients..."

Southern California Public Radio (2014) " 'One of the major issues that we face is really trying to enhance end-of-life care,' Cedars-Sinai's Dr. Glenn Braunstein tells KPCC... He also noted that it's partially to help cut expenses, as the last month of someone's life in particular can be tremendously expensive."

3. Ethics & Politics

Lawyers Dubler and Sabatino (1991) "system of allocation implemented inconspicuously by private institutions and practitioners. This sort of rationing will be difficult to uncover and even more difficult to prove and prevent. It will respond to implied regulatory messages from Medicare and Medicaid; it will react to reimbursement formulas and market reward. Most worrisome, it will couch personal and institutional prejudice in the language of medical and quasiscientific criteria." p. 116, "Age-based Rationing and the Law" chapter in Binstock et al, Too old for health care? : controversies in medicine, law, economics, and ethics, Johns Hopkins University Press

Jeffrey Birnbaum, (May 12, 1997), FORTUNE Magazine
  • “AARP struggles to decide which of its members to put first: those who are already retired or the growing number who are still gainfully employed…
  • has subtly begun to focus more on boomers by shifting the emphasis of AARP's publications and products to its nonretired members…
  • Today its finances remain robust, anchored in health insurance as well as royalty-producing businesses that range from annuities to prescription drugs…
  • would countenance other curtailments, primarily payment cuts to hospitals and physicians, in order to keep Medicare's hospital trust fund afloat…
  • now AARP has competition on the left from the militant, five-million-plus-member National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and from the labor-backed National Council of Senior Citizens. On the right are newer, free-market groups like 60 Plus, United Seniors, and the Seniors Coalition, all small but growing…
  • AARP must transform itself into something unusual--an oldsters' lobby that serves people of a wide variety of interests and ages… Some AARP executives even talk about renaming the magazine. After all, what young-at-heart boomer wants to read something called Modern Maturity?" [renamed AARP-The Magazine]

Alliance for Aging Research (2003) "Drawing upon scores of scientific studies, this important report shows how systemic bias against the elderly hurts older patients in the U.S.--highlighting ways in which the healthcare system fails older Americans. The report cites serious short-comings in medical training and prevention screening, and outlines treatment patterns that disadvantage older patients."

A 2007 study at Ohio State, Duke and other hospitals found that doctors and nurses "overestimate the risk of death," so they may limit care even among patients who have low risk of readmission and death.

Brown Professor Ackerman (2012) Doctors " 'keep a portion of the savings.' This arrangement obviously provides a financial incentive to withhold expensive life-prolonging treatment from Medicare patients whose quality of life is deemed low... Whose life is it, anyway? This slogan is conventionally used to support the right to die. It applies just as much to a sick old person who wants to stay alive. Such a person deserves better than to have well-schooled manipulators coax his family into signing his death warrant."

Neurologist Robert Weinmann (2012) "The days of searching out rare and unusual diseases to care for are over: these unfortunates will be obliged to find  whatever comfort is available under the nearest bus... Quietly, with as little fanfare as possible, physicians and hospitals will be encouraged to avoid the sickest, oldest, and most complicated patients."

Gastroenterologist Michael Kirsch (2013) "This is but a single example of how the medical profession is being forced to game the system to comply with a punitive financial penalty system that is poorly disguised as a medical quality initiative."

Cardiologist Walton-Shirley (2013) "palliative care has been birthed, ... of patients labeled as "frequent fliers" at high risk for budget-busting bounce-backs... a small part of me that worries that patients who need readmission will be held captive at home or in palliative-care programs or even become ensnared in a hospice-type situation when in fact there might have been help for them"

Medicare also researches how hospices spend Medicare's money: spending is higher early in a patient's participation in hospice, and just before death.
0 Comments

Board Certifications

7/15/2020

0 Comments

 

4. Pain and Palliative Doctors Compared

Patients can learn some of the differences between pain doctors and palliative doctors by reading the topics included in exams for board certifications. The following are summaries, with more details of each topic in the links given.

The Board Certification for "Pain Management" devotes far more time to assessment and treatment of pain, both drug and non-drug, and a little more time to psychological issues. The Palliative and Hospice subspecialty devotes more time to communication and death. Both devote similar time to legal and ethical issues.

Pain Management Certification
More detailed list is on their website

Hospice and Palliative Medicine Certification
There is no exam or board subspecialty in Palliative medicine by itself. More detailed list is in their booklet.

Pain Assessment 14%
Diagnostic Testing 11%
Pain Assessment 4.5%
Types of Pain 12%
Pharmacology 16%
Pain Management 10.5%
Other Pain Topics 5%
Palliative Sedation <2%
Other Topics in Medical Management <2%
Pain Medicine Therapies (Nonpharmacology) 15%
Additional Management Strategies (mostly nondrug) 2.5%

Psychological/Behavioral Aspects of Pain 10%
Psychosocial and Spiritual Considerations 11%
(of which 7% is psychosocial)
Compensation/Disability and Medical‐Legal Issues 7%
Ethical and Legal Decision Making 7%
Anatomy and Physiology 15%
Approach to Care 9%
Communication and Teamwork 6%
Other Common Conditions (other than pain) 15%
Urgent Medical Conditions 5%
Prognostication and Natural History of Serious Illness 8%
Impending Death 9%
Grief and Bereavement 5% 
Discontinuation of Technological Support (breathing, dialysis, etc.) 1.5%
0 Comments

Referrals and Apps

7/10/2020

0 Comments

 

Telehealth Companies 

Major telehealth companies include American Well, Doctor on Demand, and MDLive. If you want a consultation by telephone or skype, the rules and insurance coverage are constantly changing, so ask. Veterans hospitals have permission for any VA doctor to treat any VA patient, regardless of state licensing rules. Insurance and Medicaid may cover telehealth. Medicare has decided to do so too from 2019 on. A telehealth association has a 2019 report.

​All states now allow doctors to see patients by telehealth even from the first appointment, if they have the right license, but distant doctors refer too rarely to other local specialists, since they don't know them, so patients need to ask.

"Affordable teletherapy, such as Open Path Psychotherapy Collective, National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) HelpLine or apps like Talkspace or Betterhelp. Your state may offer options too (New York state has a Covid-19 Emotional Support Helpline)."

Concierge and luxury medicine are on a separate page

Software Apps

A Commonwealth Fund study gives examples of what to watch for in deciding if an app is safe to use. FDA has some legal guidance on apps and an overview.

Some apps will call a doctor to give you a home visit, or you can use lists here to find doctors who visit homes and assisted living, and call them directly to build a relationship with the same doctor over time.
There are many health apps (some say over 100,000, others say over 1,000) competing to offer personalized service.  A commercial site with practicing doctors on its staff reviews many apps. The reviews are often specific and helpful. They also include articles written by or for advertisers. Each reviewer must tell the editors about potential conflicts of interest, and the editors decide what to reveal to the public.

Some computer systems go through your symptoms and tell you possible diagnoses. 19 systems ranged from 5% to 50% "right" on a 2014 test of 45 vignettes (sets of symptoms, 18 computer systems and one paper system), published in 2015. "Right" means the single diagnosis which the authors of the vignettes expected. No one checked if the other diagnoses offered were also fully consistent with the symptoms given, or perhaps even more consistent.

A long list of other systems use the same algorithms and would have had the same results. Many nurse help telephone lines use the same algorithms and would have about the same results, except when accuracy is changed by the nurses' own judgment.

When the systems were asked for the 3 most likely diagnoses, they included the "right" diagnosis as one of these 3 from 29% to 71% of the time, depending on system. Researchers at Harvard and 3 Boston Hospitals did the test. In 2016 they tested 234 doctors, who identified the "right" diagnosis 72% of the time and got it in their top 3 possibilities 84% of the time. Researchers did not report the range of accuracy from doctor to doctor, as they did for computer systems, but success did not vary much by level of training (intern, resident, attending doctor).
Picture
A study found poor quality in dermatology consultations based on sending photos through the internet. A RAND study of claims said that pharyngitis patients went out to get strep tests after 3% of Teladoc consults, compared to getting them (usually in the same visit) after 50% of office visits. RAND said bronchitis patients got (inappropriate) antibiotics after 83% of Teladoc consults, compared to 72% of office visits. Since the study was based on claims, it is not clear how many patients were told to get a strep test or antibiotic, and did not bother to go out and do so. 

​Amazon and Google are expected to expand into health care.

Referral Services  

Referral sites generally give you no choice of provider, and you know which one they selected only after paying the referral fee. If you have time to search the Specialists tab above, you can find the experience and cost of different providers and negotiate directly.

Referral services may give local or distant referrals.

ZendyHealth refers you to a local provider based on how much you want to pay ($49 referral fee). They cover only a few procedures, primarily imaging, tests, counseling, dental extractions or implants, cosmetic procedures. For these and other procedures they also refer you for a free consultation. More details are on the Costs page.

PinnacleCare charges $650 to set up a consultation with a specialist and transfer medical records. 

GrandRounds.com (formerly ConsultingMD.com) refers patients to local or distant doctors for initial care or second opinions and transfers medical records to them. They charge $200 to arrange an initial office visit with a local doctor in the "top" 3% or 10% of local doctors, or $7,500 for a remote expert opinion from a doctor in the "top" 0.1%. They also charge $7,500 for "STAT," an emergency telephone consult with the best doctor they can find at short notice.
  • The first time you use their services they need time to collect your health records from your doctors and hospitals, and (with your permission) provide them to the doctors they refer you to. They do not say whether your health records are encrypted while stored in their offices. 
  • They offer their telephone consult ("STAT") 24/7, but don't say how many hours it may take to find a relevant expert. They're ambiguous whether the expert talks to the patient/family or the treating doctor. If you cite both those links to them, you can insist they talk to both.
  • The emergency STAT service is expensive, and is based on the idea that Grand Rounds has pre-identified doctors willing to consult by phone, which you would have trouble finding in an emergency. Dr. Kussin recommends that when you know what health conditions you have, make an annual appointment with a top specialist for a checkup, so you can call him/her as an existing patient in any emergency (p.206).
  • The non-emergency $7,500 expert opinion seems aimed at big spenders. They warn you that the expert will not have "information that would be obtained by examining you in person and observing your physical condition." Without spending that much you can identify the top national experts in the Specialists tab above, and in your $20 subscription to UpToDate from Wolters Kluwer, call for an appointment, and go see them in person. 
  • Their $200 fee to recommend and set up a local office visit is reasonable. You pay them to research doctors and transfer records instead of doing it yourself. You and your insurance will still have to pay for the visit itself. 
  • A problem with Grand Rounds is that the terms of service require you to pay their legal bills for any problems which arise: "You agree to indemnify, defend and hold the Company and its directors, officers, employees, agents and contractors harmless from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, costs (including without limitation reasonable attorneys’ fees) or other expenses that arise directly or indirectly out of or from (i) your breach of any provision of these Terms, or (ii) your activities in connection with this Site." They don't provide any examples, but perhaps this would protect them if they misuse your information.
  • Grand Rounds does not reveal its algorithm to identify top doctors, but says it includes: "Institution (is the physician associated with a top-quality one?), Training (where did the physician study?), Research (does the physician publish in his or her area of study?), Reputation (what do the physician’s peers think?)" Another page adds, "procedure volumes; and clinical outcomes." Another page says that the doctors' "success rates are well above national averages and that they follow state-of-the-art care practices." They say these top 10% doctors have "15% lower hospital readmission rates. 30% – 40% lower mortality rates, 20% – 25% lower complication rates, but again no information on how these differences were found, over what time frame, comparability of patients, etc. They describe their service as doing some of the same analysis this website describes, on procedure volumes, doctors rating other doctors, and researchers. They simplify the process, while hiding the details. 

PinnacleCare and Private Health Management help wealthy clients navigate the health-care system, for $16,000 per year or more, plus the cost of care. 
0 Comments

Concierge Medicine and Luxury Medicine

7/6/2020

0 Comments

 

Concierge

Between 1% and 6% of doctors refuse insurance and/or charge concierge subscriptions starting at $600 per adult per year and $120 per child, or more typically $1,500 per adult. 10% of Texas doctors do not take insurance, and instead charge for each office visit, starting at $50 per visit.

​Industry sources include Concierge Medicine Today, Direct Primary Care Journal, and Direct Primary Care Coalition.

​​PinnacleCare and Private Health Management help wealthy clients navigate the health-care system, for $16,000 per year or more, plus the cost of care. 

Screening Hospital Patients for Wealth

A 2016 survey found 76% of hospitals have  programs to get donations  from grateful patients (p.14), usually involving screening patients online to find those with wealth:
  • 82% of these hospitals ask doctors and nurses to identify hospital patients with enough gratitude and money to donate (p.15), though these staff are not trained to do this, and have varying comfort with it. 34% of the hospitals track the doctors' referrals (p.11). 21% send solicitation letters signed by doctors (p.16) 69% plan to increase "focus on physician/clinical staff engagement in patient referrals" (p.19).
  • 57% screen inpatients for wealth by sending their identities to data brokers; all but 3% of the rest screen later; 44% flag VIPs and donors in their electronic health records; 13% also screen people with outpatient appointments (p.15). 
  • A quarter gave care coordination services and medical concierge services to patients they identified as potential significant donors or who joined a formal donor program; 43% gave non-clinical benefits, like a parking pass (p.16).
  • Over 40% had hospital executives and fundraisers visit the patients in their hospital rooms (p.16), to build a relationship with the patient, not to ask for money initially. Patients would not necessarily know the hospital had screened them online to identify their wealth.
  • To find rich people, they have to send all patients' IDs to the data brokers, revealing that all these people (rich and poor alike) have been patients in that hospital system. Data brokers know what the illnesses are by the patients' search and web-browsing histories, and maybe their prescription histories.

Luxury Hospital Rooms 

​Many hospitals offer amenity rooms, typically on a separate floor, with extra service and space for an extra $250 to $5,100 per night. They often say the medical care is the same, but facilities for doctors and nurses are also presumably less crowded and more comfortable on these floors, so care could be better. If someone knows of a list, or effective way to search for them, please email it.

Below is a list compiled from news reports, sorted by city. Dates are given, since prices may have risen and services changed. Costs shown are for luxury rooms, in addition to regular room charge. Click list to see sources.
List of hospital luxury rooms, click for html version

List of Sources

The following list shows the sources above, and some others, especially on other countries:
2019 www.enherts-tr.nhs.uk/patients-visitors/our-services/maternity/amenity-rooms/  £195 per day
2018 
economist.com/britain/2018/04/26/delivering-a-prince-in-britain-costs-less-than-the-average-american-birth £5,670 per 24 hours
2016 capitalandmain.com/healthcare-versus-wealthcare-uncovering-ucla-vip-medical-program-0913 $12,000/year
2016 forbesmiddleeast.com/the-luxury-hospital-a-new-niche
2016 bu.edu/research/articles/luxury-hospital-rooms/ Boston Univ. School of Hospitality Administration says many patients willing to spend $100s more for better hospital rooms
2014 money.cnn.com/2014/10/02/luxury/luxury-hospital-suites/ $250-$5,100
2014 therichest.com/luxury/the-10-most-luxurious-hospital-rooms-in-the-world incl. Washington Hospital Ctr, Mt. Sinai, Cedars-Sinai
2014 youtu.be/z6dmAs2H_DI CBS says luxury leads to lower readmission and 1/3 the cost for some procedures
2012 nytimes.com/2012/01/22/nyregion/chefs-butlers-and-marble-baths-not-your-average-hospital-room.html "no people in training — only the best of the best."
2012 articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-02-26/health/fl-hk-hospital-luxury-suite-20120226_1_hospitals-offer-south-florida-hospital-community-hospitals $150-$800/night
2012 nydailynews.com/new-york/class-ward-lenox-hill-hospital-article-1.1186213 $850-$2,400/night. Nurse overwork on non-luxury floor.
2007 denverpost.com/news/ci_7746964  "bring revenue into the hospital, that foster relationships" $250-$1,000/night "society that is naturally stratified by income," said Uwe Reinhardt, a health economist at Princeton University in New Jersey.
2006 forbes.com/2006/12/11/luxury-hospitals-health-forbeslife-cx_avd_1212hospital_slide.html
2005 utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050904/news_1n4hospital.html  (associated press)
2003 forbes.com/2003/07/08/cx_ns_0708healthintro.html#3afbcd9d4153 "for every Big Shot who checks into a high-end unit there's a regular Joe who splurged for his comfort."
nd parents.com/pregnancy/giving-birth/labor-and-delivery/labor-and-delivery-most-luxurious-birthing-suites
nd dujour.com/lifestyle/luxury-hospital-accommodations/  They comment, "unclear whether hospitals are actually turning a profit from this enterprise. What they are doing, however, is cultivating future donors"
0 Comments
0 Comments

Medical Companies Influence Doctors

7/5/2020

0 Comments

 
Direct Payments which doctors get from major medical companies (Medicare's site) and drug companies (ProPublica's site) show which doctors have strong bonds with the companies. Patients need to decide if these affect their care. The sites do not reveal profits from doctors' own businesses. Consumer Reports says that when a doctor orders X-rays or other scans, "ask whether he is financially affiliated with" the radiology clinic, since "studies have found that physicians who own scanners or are part owners of radiology clinics use imaging substantially more than others." 

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) May 2 2017 summarizes a lot of research on how payments from drug and equipment companies affect doctors' decisions, usually sub-consciously.  Where policies change or payments stop or start, average prescribing practices then change. Public Citizen has a less detailed November 2017 update.

A 2021 study found that dental research supported by companies found larger effects of treatment than independent research.

Nurses also get payments and meals from drug companies, but only Massachusetts tracks these payments.

Drug companies also have constant access to doctors and give them biased information. A 2012 summary found (emphasis in the original):
  • 61% of physicians reported that their own behavior was immune to influence by industry, but only 16% thought that other physicians’ behavior was equally secure
  • sometimes the suggestion that such influence exists can be infuriating to them
  • The frequency of meetings with pharmaceutical representatives varied across specialties, ranging from two per month for anesthesiologists to 16 per month for family practitioners
  • representatives presented only selected, usually positive, information about their products
  • In one of the few studies of specific [training] content, 11% of statements in formal lunch presentations by pharmaceutical representatives were found to be inaccurate, all favorable toward the promoted drug, yet only 26% of medical residents attending those presentations recalled hearing any false statement. All statements about competing drugs were accurate, but none favorable
  • research supported by industry is more likely to report positive results—3.6 times as likely, according to one meta-analysis
  • One study of industry-sponsored review articles and Cochrane [academic] reviews on the same medications found that all of the former recommended the drug in question whereas none of the latter did
  • 85% of [US medical students] who thought that accepting a small gift or lunch was inappropriate reported accepting them anyway. This may be partially explained by the fact that 93% of the students had been asked or required by a faculty member to attend a sponsored lunch
  •  In one survey of internal medicine residents, 100% of those who thought interactions with industry were inappropriate accepted at least a lunch or a pen
  • In a random sample of physicians in six specialties in the United States, 94% reported some relationship with industry (18). Eighty-three percent reported receiving food or beverages in the workplace; 78% received samples
  • Clinicians often describe the role of samples as helping those who cannot afford medications to receive treatment... Physicians themselves report that samples influence them to prescribe drugs that differ from their preferred choices (32). Although the initial reason may be to avoid cost to the patient, most samples are of the newest and most expensive medications, which patients may not be able to afford after their samples run out. Further, the side effects of newer medications are usually less well established
0 Comments

Life Expectancy

6/21/2020

1 Comment

 


Life Expectancy, by Age

Doctors see frail old people, and sometimes assume they have few remaining days left, and comfort is most important. However at every age we have 8 or more months left, and up to 112 we have over a year of life expectancy left. Those with good minds may want to enjoy that time. With each additional year we live, our life expectancy extends by 9 or 10 months, and with good care and luck we keep living. The data are prepared by the Social Security Administration.
 
CDC has instructions to doctors on filling out death certificates, but there are weaknesses and errors, especially for the minority of patients who die without a recent doctor visit.

An example of under-treating old people is for cancer care, even though most cancer patients are old.

Average Years of Life Remaining, at Each Age, US Population, 2014
graph from 4.43 years remaining at age 90, to  1.29 years at age 109

Doctors' Inaccurate Predictions of Life Expectancy

Doctors use many versions of the Charlson Comorbidity Index to estimate life expectancy for patients, depending on their age and illnesses (comorbidities). Many versions are little better than chance in predicting life expectancy.

The C statistic is an estimate, from a research project on particular patients, how often an index is more accurate than chance. Values range from 0.50 (no better than chance) to 1.00 (always right). C statistics for different groups of patients are in supplementary tables 1-4 of Yurkovich et al. (2015) Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. v.68(1):3–14. "A systematic review identifies valid comorbidity indices derived from administrative health data." Details of how big the errors are may be found in the original studies, listed by Yurkovich et al.

An older study is Sharabiani et al. (2012 Dec) Medical Care. v.50(12):1109-18. "Systematic review of comorbidity indices for administrative data." . doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31825f64d0 pubmed.gov/22929993


​US Life Expectancy Stopped Improving 

Picture
US life expectancy overall, and specifically for people over 65 was improving similarly to other rich countries before the 1980s. It kept improving at a slower rate until around 2011. Since then it has been flat (Bloomberg, and CDC p.116, table 15).

Life Expectancy by Location

Graph shows counties with highest and lowest life expectancy
JAMA Internal Medicine identified life expectancy for each US county from 1980 to 2014, with an article discussing it. The counties with highest life expectancy often have high income, and often a lot of outdoor recreation.

Life expectancy is a good summary of health in the area, since it is a summary of death rates at all ages in each county. It is not a prediction for babies born in the county, since their lifetimes will depend on future death rates, not current or past ones.

Associated Press has a map of life expectancy for each US Census tract (smaller than counties) for 2017 from the National Center for Health Statistics, with an article discussing it.

​US News & World Report has maps and data for each county on many health measures.

CountyHealthRankings.org has 
detail on each county's health. West Virginia University analyzed it nationally, and found the top-ranked counties have less of the following problems (pages 83-85):
  • ​lack of sleep and exercise
  • physical and mental distress
  • diabetes
  • obesity
  • Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and sexually transmitted diseases
  • segregation
  • air particulates
  • smoking
  • drunk-driving (but no difference in drinking overall)
  • drug and car deaths
  • violent crime
Presumably some of these are causes and some are results of overall population health. Some are norms which can persist for a long time.
​
Local life expectancy is persistent for at least 34 years, 1980-2014. The lowest counties stayed below average and the highest counties stayed above average.  Average US life expectancy rose 5 years, from 74 to 79, and most of the lowest counties rose a bit more, getting closer to average, which is encouraging. However the most common rise was 4 years, and 71% of counties rose 3, 4 or 5 years, so they mostly stayed close to where they were 34 years before.
Graph compares county life expectancy 1980-2014
Life expectancy is higher in richer countries, and in formerly communist countries, which emphasized access to food and health care (teaching notes).
Picture

Life Added by Hospital Treatment

Researchers at Columbia and Yale found that even an extra day of hospital treatment for pneumonia or heart attack saves thousands of lives (Table H). So reducing access to hospital treatment will be deadly.

T
able H. Lives Saved by More Hospital Treatment
Picture
1 Comment

Effects of Readmission Penalties on Hospital Admissions and Mortality

6/20/2020

1 Comment

 

Heart Failure


Starting in 2013, US hospitals are treating fewer patients for heart failure, and US death rates from heart failure are rising. Starting at the end of 2012, Medicare began penalizing hospitals for heart failure patients who were re-hospitalized (readmitted) within 30 days. Hospitals cannot always prevent readmissions, so the most effective way to avoid penalties has been to cut the number of Medicare patients they admit for heart failure.
 
Hospitals treated 60,000 fewer patients for heart failure in mid 2012-mid 2015, than in mid 2008-mid 2011, or 20,000 fewer patients during a year, compared to four years earlier, before the penalties.
(Source, column CZ of: globe1234.org/hospitals1216.xls)

CDC says in the US:
  • Death rates from heart failure fell every year from 2000 to 2012,
  • Death rates from heart failure rose in 2013 and 2014.
  • Source: cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db231.pdf, CDC instructions on defining causes of death: cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/hb_cod.pdf
The higher death rates in 2013 and 2014 mean 7,200 and 9,600 more people died from heart failure in these years than would have died if the 2012 death rate had continued.

A 2017 editorial from the American College of Cardiology (ACC) said, "in 2014 alone, an estimated 5,008 excess [Heart Failure] patient deaths were associated with [readmissions program] implementation." pubmed.gov/28982507 

A 2020 analysis, also from ACC, "presented the pros and cons that argued for a modified policy, which would not reduce safety in hospitals and put greater weight on mortality and patient-reported outcomes as opposed to readmission." pubmed.gov/31606360

A 2018 paper from ACC said to count separately Type 1 heart attacks caused by athersclerosis and Type 2 heart attacks caused by "embolism, vasospasm, and spontaneous coronary artery dissection." pubmed.gov/30165988
​
The term "heart failure" is also called "congestive heart failure" or cardiomyopathy. It refers to weak pumping because of muscle deterioration, stiffness, leaking valves, etc. It is not the same as a heart attack or heart stopping.
 
These are the latest figures which cover hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients, but many other studies of hospitalized patients also find that hospitals which had fewer readmissions had more deaths, especially among heart failure patients.
(Source: globe1234.info/medicare/category/research)
 
Medicare said in August 2012, "We are committed to monitoring the measures and assessing unintended consequences over time, such as the inappropriate shifting of care, increased patient morbidity and mortality, and other negative unintended consequences for patients." (p.53376) They have not reported any of these monitoring results in 4 years.
(Source: federalregister.gov/d/2012-19079/p-1799)
 
The penalties apply to patients treated under Medicare Part B. Hospitals which face the readmission penalties now admit 5% fewer Part B patients for heart failure, even though the total number of seniors covered by Part B increased 12% in the same period.
 
Readmission penalties give hospitals incentives to treat fewer seniors. Medicare even gives hospitals an online tool to predict readmission risk for each potential patient.
 
Hospitals can avoid penalties by any mix of the following:
  • Avoid admitting the sickest Medicare patients with heart failure ("There's not much we can do for you. Hospitals are dangerous. You're better off at home.")
  • Treat as many as possible of the least sick outside of hospitals
  • Change diagnosis to "hypervolemia," too much water in the blood, which is not penalized, but risky if caught
  • Improve subsequent care for those admitted, to reduce readmissions

It is easier to give less care than to improve it, though hospitals certainly are doing both. And what we see is that death rates have started to rise.
 
The following hospitals had the biggest drops in heart failure patients admitted, comparing the most recent 3-year period to the 3 years before penalties:
 
St Vincent's Medical Center Riverside, Jacksonville, FL, -871 patients
Northwest Community Hospital 1, Arlington Heights, IL, -779 patients
Baptist Medical Center, San Antonio, TX, -724
Community Medical Center, Toms River, NJ, -570
St Luke's Hospital Bethlehem, PA, -543
King's Daughters' Medical Center, Ashland, KY, -536
Beaumont Hospital - Dearborn, MI, -517
Hackensack University Medical Center, NJ, -504
Vassar Brothers Medical Center, Poughkeepsie, NY, -454 patients
 
On the other hand these hospitals may have unique reasons for their changes, and the real story may be among all the other hospitals with smaller drops in heart failure patients. Changes at all hospitals are in a spreadsheet (in column CZ; changes in Part B enrollment are in column DL):
globe1234.org/hospitals1216.xls
 
I counted hospital admissions in July 2012-June 2015, compared to July 2008-June 2011. These are the newest and oldest comparable data available. Medicare released the older data in a comparable form in May 2013. It released the newer data in August 2016.

Hospitals face readmission penalties when they treat Medicare patients for heart failure. Each hospital pays a penalty if more of their heart failure patients than the US average need another hospital stay within a month. So hospitals know they have a 50% chance of a penalty, since about half the hospitals will have readmission rates above average each year. 

Other Penalties

Meanwhile for heart attacks, admissions fell 0.2% in the same time period (column DB of the same spreadsheet mentioned linked above), even though Part B beneficiaries increased 12%. I haven't found death rates from heart attacks, and it seems that all survivors who reach a hospital would be admitted. Have heart attack admissions really stayed stable while the population grew? Are more people dying before they reach a hospital? Or is something else driving down hospital admission rates for heart attacks?

A study in the US and Norway found that care for the oldest heart attack victims in 2010-2015 was much less than for younger victims and less than evidence shows is worthwhile. Even inexpensive treatment, like statins, was not provided. "The less frequent treatment of the oldest of the old, without even use of basic medications, suggests potential age-related bias and a disconnect with the evidence on treatment value. Hospital organization and payment in both countries should incentivize greater equity in treatment use across ages." Any effect of readmission penalties is unclear, since penalties started in 2012, in the middle of the study period, and the authors did not show separate results by year.
 
For pneumonia, which is the other of the three original readmission penalties, a 2018 JAMA study found higher deaths within 30 days after the readmission penalties started, though no significant change in deaths within 45 days.

​In the pneumonia data we have to compare 3 year periods ending June 2014 and June 2011, since Medicare expanded the pneumonia categories counted in later periods. Pneumonia admissions fell 4% over that period, while the number of Part B beneficiaries rose 9%. Death rates oscillate each year but were on a downward trend from 1999-2012. It looks as if the trend may not have continued in 2013 and 2014, though it is hard to tell.
statista.com/statistics/184574/deaths-by-influenza-and-pneumonia-in-the-us-since-1950
cdc.gov/nchs/data/health_policy/influenza-and-pneumonia-deaths-2008-2015.pdf
 
Readmission penalties are large. Hospitals get $6,000 for treating a Medicare heart failure patient, but pay a $27,000 penalty for each readmission within 30 days, above the national average rate. For other conditions penalties range from $25,000 to $239,000 per readmission above the national average rate. So every hospital tries to be below the average, driving the average down and the risk of penalties up every year. There are also minimal adjustments for the mix of patients each hospital serves. Penalties total $469 million this year.

There are newer penalties for re-hospitalizing patients after coronary bypasses. The penalty is $188,000 for each one above the national average rate; penalties began October 2017. Penalties after elective hip and knee replacements are $239,000 and began October 2014. The penalty calculations are written into the Affordable Care Act. It is too early to see if the number of people treated has fallen, but the  American College of Surgeons warned Medicare that treatment would be cut: "the potential that these hospitals will decrease their care for such patients, thereby creating an access issue."
(Source: regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=CMS-2013-0084-0090&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf)
  
In 67 metro areas, Medicare has a second way to discourage hip and knee replacements, especially for the frailest patients who may need them most: the hospital must pay nearly all medical expenses for 90 days after the hospital stay, though it has no control over these costs. Fewer hip and knee replacements and fewer coronary bypasses, when Medicare patients need them, condemn seniors to reduced activity and faster decline.
(Source: globe1234.info/medicare/publiccomment)
 
For heart attacks and coronary bypasses, Medicare plans the same approach of making hospitals pay 90 days of medical costs, starting July 2017, in 98 metro areas.
federalregister.gov/d/2016-17733/p-3
federalregister.gov/d/2016-17733/p-753

Another page explains some arithmetic behind the readmission penalty calculations, which give hospitals a strong incentive to serve fewer patients.
1 Comment

Arithmetic: The Reason Hospitals Are Treating Fewer Patients

6/20/2020

0 Comments

 

A. Example of One Hospital
B. Cutting Admissions Cuts the Readmission Penalty, for Any or All Hospitals
C. Cutting Readmissions in the Proportion at All Hospitals Leaves All Penalties the Same
D. Cutting Readmissions at Some Hospitals Shifts the Penalty

E. Other Approaches Do Not Cut the National Total of Penalties
F. Formulas
G. Graphs of Heart Failure

Hospitals have cut admissions for the diagnoses which face readmission penalties. Most publicity has been about cutting the readmission rate, which they have also done, but that just shifts penalties to other hospitals without cutting the total paid across the US. Especially for large hospital chains, they gain nothing from lower penalties at one hospital if that raises penalties at their other hospitals.

The only way hospitals overall can reduce the national total of penalties they pay is by treating fewer patients. The arithmetic behind this statement is explained here.

The national total of penalties mathematically equals the penalty per excess readmission, times the number of excess readmissions. Excess means above the national average readmission rate.

A. Example of One Hospital

Consider a hospital with a patient mix similar to the national average (adjustments for patient mix are small, so most hospitals end up like the national average). Suppose this hospital admits 500 patients for one of the treatments subject to readmission penalties.

If the hospital readmits 125 patients, it has a 25% readmission rate.

Suppose the national readmission rate is 20%. At this hospital that national rate would have meant 100 readmissions expected.

The hospital has 25 excess readmissions (= 125 ~ 100).

Since readmission rates are fairly well spread above and below the average, close to half of patients are in hospitals with below-average readmission rates, and half are in hospitals with above-average readmission rates. The latter thus have excess readmissions and pay penalties on them. These hospitals face choices described below,

B. Cutting Admissions Cuts the Penalty, for Any or All Hospitals

Suppose the example hospital cuts admissions 4% without changing its 25% readmission rate:

When a hospital cuts admissions (from 500 to 480) while keeping a similar readmission rate (25%) in that smaller pool of admissions, it reduces four important counts:
  • admissions (to 480),
  • readmissions (to 120 = 25% of 480),
  • expected readmissions (to 96, which is 20% of 480), and
  • excess readmissions (to 24, which is 120 ~ 96).
Thus they reduce their excess admissions from 25 to 24, cutting their own penalties and the national total of penalties.

If all hospitals cut admissions similarly, they all cut their penalties, even when their readmission rates do not fall.

Data show hospitals have reduced admissions for heart failure, heart attack and pneumonia, and thus reduced the total national penalties.

C. Cutting Readmissions in the Same Way at All Hospitals Leaves All Penalties the Same

Suppose all hospitals, on average, cut readmissions four percent (from 20% to 19.2%) without cutting admissions. They get no benefit, because the penalty per excess readmission goes up; it is controlled by another formula:

The penalty per excess readmission equals the cost of initial treatment divided by the national readmission rate (MedPac June'13 p.99).

For example suppose the initial treatment averages $6,000. A national readmission rate of 20% means a penalty of $6,000 / 0.2 = $30,000. But when the national readmission rate drops to 19.2%, the penalty becomes $6,000 / 0.192 = $31,250.

Suppose the hospital in the example above cuts readmissions 4% (same as the nation) from 125 to 120, without cutting admissions. Now it faces expected readmissions of 96 (= 500 x .192), and has 24 excess readmissions. Its penalty was $750,000 (= 25 x $30,000), and still is $750,000 (= 24 x $31,250).

When admissions stay the same and the national readmission rate goes down, the penalty per excess readmission goes up, and every hospital which manages to cut at the same rate as the nation keeps the same penalty.

D. Cutting Readmissions at Some Hospitals Shifts the Penalty

Hospitals shift the penalty to other hospitals when they cut readmissions. Suppose a hospital cuts its readmission rate by 4% instead of cutting admissions:

If other hospitals on average don't cut their readmission rates, so the national average stays at 20%, the example hospital's expected readmissions do not change (100 = 500 x 20%). The hospital's total readmissions fall from 125 to 120, so excess readmissions drop from 25 to 20, and the hospital's penalty drops 20%.

Now think nationally, where many hospitals cut readmissions. Think of a million patients with 200,000 readmissions (20%).
  • (a) 500,000 patients were at hospitals with readmissions below average, and
  • (b) 500,000 were at hospitals with readmissions above average. 
  • 300,000 each of groups (a) and (b) are at hospitals which cut their readmission rates by an average of 1% of admissions (such as from 25% to 24% of admissions at a particular hospital, or or 19% to 18%), so 6,000 admissions are no longer readmitted.
  • 200,000 patients remain at hospitals with excess readmissions which on average make no change in their excess readmissions (some rise a little, some fall a little)
  • Hospitals in group (b) which cut readmissions (call them "cutters") saved penalties on 3,000 excess readmissions
  • National readmission rate will drop by 6,000 or 0.6% of the million admissions, from 200,000 to 194,000, which is from 20% to 19.4%
  • All hospitals face an expected readmission rate which has dropped by 0.6 percentage points (readmissions as percent of admissions at each hospital)
  • 500,000 patients at hospitals with readmissions above average (including cutter hospitals) face a lower cutoff for excess readmissions. The cutoff used to be 20% or 100,000, now it is 19.4% or 97,000, which adds 3,000 new excess readmissions, 1,800 at the cutter hospitals, 1,200 at the non-cutter hospitals
  • Cutter hospitals cut their net excess readmissions by 1,200, not 3,000
  • Penalty per excess readmission will rise from $30,000 to $30,928 (= $6,000 / .194)
  • Cutter hospitals pay the higher penalty on all their other excess readmissions. If their 300,000 patients averaged 21% readmissions, which are now down to 20% readmissions, they had excess readmissions 21% ~ 20% = 3,000, and now have 20% ~ 19.4% = 1,800. So penalties dropped by $34 million, from $90 million to $56 million
  • If the 200,000 patients at non-cutter hospitals also averaged 21% readmissions, they had excess 21% ~ 20% = 2,000 and now have 21% ~ 19.4% = 3,200, so penalties rose by $39 million, from $60 million to $99 million
  • An unknown number of the 500,000 patients are at hospitals with readmissions between 19.4% and 20% which now also have excess readmissions and pay penalties.

Cutting readmissions at some hospitals reduces their penalties, and shifts the penalties to hospitals which did not reduce readmissions as much. Whether the shifting is exact depends on the detailed distribution of readmission rates among the hospitals

E. Other Approaches Do Not Cut the National Total of Penalties

The penalty and national total of penalties could theoretically be reduced by cutting the cost of initial treatment, but Medicare already cuts it as much as they think they can.

Arithmetically the only other way to reduce the national total of penalties is to narrow the dispersion of hospitals below the national rate: raising readmissions in hospitals below the national average. This lets more readmissions be in low hospitals than high hospitals. This does not cause the low-rate hospitals a penalty, and it cuts the number of excess readmissions for high-rate hospitals. No one advocates this or is working on it, and hospitals could not count on it as a strategy.

F. Formulas

US Total =
(penalty per excess readmission) x (number of excess readmissions)

Which is:
(initial payment / readmission rate) x (number of excess readmissions)

Which is:
(initial payment / [total readmissions / total admissions] ) x (number of excess readmissions)

Which is:
(initial payment x total admissions / total readmissions) x (number of excess readmissions)

So US Total =
(initial payment) x (total admissions) x (number of excess readmissions / total readmissions)


The last parenthesis, excess over total readmissions, reflects the dispersion of readmission rates. For example a ratio of 0.04 means the average penalized hospital has 4% more readmissions than the national average.

The ratio of excess over total readmissions has risen for pneumonia and dropped for heart conditions:
2012-15    2008-11
4.06%        3.91%        Pneumonia
3.27%        3.70%        Heart Failure
2.94%        4.07%        Heart Attacks
4.77%                           Hip & Knee Replacements
3.58%                           COPD
3.39%                           Coronary Bypasses

G. Graphs of Heart Failure
Picture
The third graph, below, shows excess readmissions. They are the readmissions above the national average rate, between the dark blue and light blue lines in the graph. As discussed at the end of section F, the national total of readmission penalties depends on the ratio of excess to total readmissions. This ratio can be brought down by bringing every hospital's rate closer to the average, as shown with the red dashes. This would mean raising readmission rates at hospitals with below-average rates, which is implausible.

A more plausible alternative of reducing all readmission rates at all hospitals does move down the dark blue and light blue lines, and does not change the ratio of excess to total readmissions, so it does not reduce the national total of readmission penalties.
Picture
0 Comments

Penalty Calculations 

6/15/2020

0 Comments

 
Medicare applies many penalties at many hospitals. The dollar amount of each penalty, at each hospital, is on this site.

The most recent penalties are in the
readmissions spreadsheet, for fiscal year 2017 (10/1/2016 to 9/30/2017).

For other types of penalties, this site has older data, for 2015, in the financial spreadsheet, except Electronic Health Records (EHR, see below). United States and state totals are here. EHR totals by state for 2011-2014 are here.

A. HRRP: HOSPITAL READMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM PENALTY

In the readmissions spreadsheet the dollar penalties for each diagnosis, at each hospital, are estimated by multiplying the number of excess readmissions at each hospital, times the US average penalty adjusted for the local cost level. The US average includes the "Base Operating DRG Payment Amount = Wage-adjusted DRG operating amount + new technology payment, if applicable". DRG stands for Diagnostic Related Groups.

Formal readmissions penalty rules are at 42 CFR 412.152 and 154.

The number of excess readmissions at each hospital, for each diagnosis, derives from two numbers in Medicare's "Readmissions Supplemental File" for the current year:
  1. Medicare provides the ratio of each hospital's own readmission rate, to the national readmission rate (adjusted for patient mix): (readmit@hosp/admit@hosp) / (readmit@US/admit@US)
  2. The readmissions spreadsheet subtracts one from that ratio to get just the excess readmission rate at each hospital (still as fraction of national readmission rate): (excess@hosp/admit@hosp) / (readmit@US/admit@US)
  3. The spreadsheet then multiplies by the national readmission rate (readmit@US/admit@US), to get the hospital's own excess readmission rate:  (excess@hosp/admit@hosp)
  4. The spreadsheet then multiplies by the number of admissions at the hospital (also provided by Medicare, in the same file) to get the number of excess readmissions at the hospital: (excess@hosp)

Medicare's full payment calculation is described in the Payments section. For the local cost level at each hospital, the readmissions spreadsheet calculates a weighted average of 2 numbers, which Medicare provides in the "Impact File" for the current year:
  1. Wage index for labor-related share of operations
  2. Cost of living factor for nonlabor share of operations (1 except in Alaska and Hawaii)

Besides dollar estimates described above, the readmissions spreadsheet also shows penalties as a percent of hospital revenue for each of the 6 diagnoses affected. Section F below explains how this is estimated.

In the financial spreadsheet the total readmission penalty at each hospital is Medicare's Readmissions Adjustment Factor times each hospital's "wage-adjusted DRG operating payment plus any applicable new technology add-on... [including] adjustment for transfers" (42 CFR 412.152), same base as VBP, with a different adjustment factor. Subtotals for the 5 diagnoses are based on the national cost of treatment and each hospital's excess readmissions, as shown in the readmissions spreadsheet.

B. HAC: HOSPITAL ACQUIRED CONDITIONS PENALTY

The HAC penalties in the financial spreadsheet are 1% of Medicare payments to the hospitals. Medicare lists hospitals subject to 1% penalties, and has a Fact Sheet on how the hospitals were scored.

The 1% applies t
o all inpatient payments, including IME, DSH,  outliers, uncompensated care,  remote hospitals, early transfer. HAC penalties are calculated after deducting VBP and readmissions penalties (line 71, worksheet E in Medicare Cost reports, p.85 of the form in file R6P240f, 4 MB).

Formal HAC rules are at 42 CFR 412.170 and 172.

HAC penalties here are the same order of magnitude as found by a hospital software publisher 1/5/2015, with differences in detail, since they did not use Medicare's actual data.

C. VBP: VALUE-BASED PURCHASING PENALTY

The dollar amounts of VBP penalties and bonuses in the financial spreadsheet are estimated by multiplying a VBP Adjustment Factor times Medicare's "wage-adjusted DRG operating payment plus any applicable new technology add-on... [including] adjustment for transfers" (42 CFR 412.160, DRG means Diagnostic Related Groups). Medicare's public financial statements do not separate DRG into operating and capital, so the spreadsheet finds what percent is operating at each hospital, generally 93%.

Medicare provides the Adjustment Factors in .zip files, and calculates them from several measures (pdf item 25). The percent adjustments are scaled so the worst penalty is no more than 1.5% in FY 2015, 1.75% in 2016, 2% in 2017+, and the total bonuses equal the total penalties. After Medicare's correction, the actual range in 2015 was from a 1.24% penalty to a 2.09% bonus.

Formal VBP rules are at 42 CFR 412.160 to 167.

This "Value Based Purchasing" applies to hospitals, and is not the same as the "Value-Based Payment Modifier" also called "Value Modifier," which applies to doctors and doctor groups.

D. IQR: INPATIENT QUALITY REPORTING

About 70 hospitals have an IQR payment cut if they do not "successfully report designated quality measures." Medicare lists the hospitals and measures each year. Payments in FY2015 are based on data from 2013.

The IQR payment cut is half a percent of inpatient payments. It is actually a quarter of the "
increase in the market basket index" 42 CFR 412.64(d)(2)(i)(C). The annual increase in the  market basket is 1.9% to 2.1% per year in FY2015, so a quarter of it is half a percent.

According to 42 U.S.C. 1395ww(b)(3)(B)(i), the IQR cut applies to 1395ww(d) "Inpatient hospital service payments" and 1395ww(j) "inpatient rehabilitation services". The financial spreadsheet therefore multiplies the half percent penalty by the total of inpatient hospital service payments, the same base as HAC above, or line 71 of worksheet E in the Medicare Cost reports.

Medicare says the IQR cut is 2%, which was true in FY 2007-2014:
42 CFR 412.64(d)(2)(i)(B).

Formal IQR rules are at 42 CFR 412.140 and 412.64(d)(2).

E. MU EHR: MEANINGFUL USE OF ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS

 The "Meaningful Use" program to encourage electronic health records offers penalties and incentive payments.

Incentive payments are a fraction of $2 to $6.37 million dollars per hospital, depending on number of patients discharged. The fraction paid in FY2015 is half of Medicare's fraction of the non-charity care (in FY2016 it is a quarter). Medicare has released the 2011-2014 incentive payments for each hospital (bottom of their data page, or see US and state totals). The peak year was 2013, when $4.6 billion went to 3,453 hospitals, an average of $1.3 million per hospital.

Penalties apply starting in 2015 to 200 hospitals
for insufficient use of electronic health records. Medicare provided that number in a press briefing, but Medicare has not provided the list of hospitals with penalties, "
We do not have the list posted publicly and at present do not intend to publicly post it until the appropriate disclosure reviews and analysis of the potential impact are completed" (email 4/9/15). The penalty in FY2015 is half a percent of inpatient payments (1/4 of market basket increase, the same amount as IQR, though on different hospitals): 42 CFR 412.64(d)(3)(i). It will double to half the increase in the market basket in FY2016 and 3/4 in FY2017 and later years (factsheet).

Meaningful Use means reaching 16 objectives with electronic health records. Outsiders have criticized it for perfection: missing any objective earns the full penalty. Outsiders have also criticized electronic records as a recipe for data breaches and impersonal interaction with doctors. In 2015, Medicare drafted changes, which were summarized by Modern Healthcare.


Formal MU EHR rules are at 42 CFR 412.64(d)(3) through (5) and 42 CFR 495 
Electronic health records are problematic, since they have enabled vast breaches of medical privacy for 30,000,000 patients. Great systems are rare, though ideally they would show key information clearly in the way that each clinician needs it. Bad systems are not read by clinicians, are full of errors, generate erroneous prescriptions, and interrupt doctors when listening to patients. (Thoughtful article on referrals and funny video.) Electronic records often send prescriptions to pharmacies electronically, but far fewer can send a cancellation order to correct a mistake or cancel refills. Only a third of prescribers and 40% of pharmacies ​use software certified to handle cancellations, so only about 13% of cancellations can be expected to go through. Pharmacies often generate refills automatically, so patients can get undesired medicine for long periods, thinking their doctor ordered it.

Finding electronic records for a patient is hard, since most names and birth dates are common. Other items like address, phone number, and insurance number can change. All items can have typos. Addresses can be abbreviated many different ways. Some people do not want to give their Social Security numbers, which can have typos too. In the last 100 years, there are only 36,500 unique birth dates. Some names are more common than that, and even names held by just a few thousand people can have common birth dates, since some names were common in some years. Medical systems try to avoid matching you to anyone else's records, so they may not match you to your own records if there is any ambiguity. Study by Pew.

F. READMISSION PENALTY PERCENTAGES

The readmission spreadsheet shows the total dollar readmission penalty for each of the 5 conditions, as a fraction of total dollar revenue from treating that condition. This section explains how the fractions are calculated.

 total  penalty 
 total revenue


By definition, the total penalty is the number of extra readmissions (above the national rate) times the penalty for each. The total revenue is the number of admissions times the payment for each admission:

 total  penalty    =       #extra readmits x [penalty for each]    
 total revenue           #admit x payment for each admission

As MedPAC says, the penalty equals the [payment for each admission, divided by the national readmission rate]

total  penalty  =  #extra readmits x [payment for each admission / US readmission rate]
total revenue                         #admit x payment for each admission

which simplifies to:

 total  penalty  =  ________#extra readmits               
 total revenue            #admit x US readmission rate

That denominator is the number of expected readmissions, since Medicare expects the US rate to apply to every hospital, with a small adjustment for patient mix.

 total  penalty  =   #extra readmits      (adjusted for patient mix)
 total revenue           #expected

If we add 1 we get (adjusted for patient mix):

 total  penalty   + 1 =  #extra readmits + #expected
 total revenue                          #expected

Remember the "extra readmits" means just actual readmits above those expected based on the national rate, so in the numerator, #extra plus #expected are the #actual

 total  penalty   + 1 =    #actual readmits 
 total revenue                   #expected

 total  penalty   =   #actual readmits    −  1
 total revenue              #expected

Medicare provides this last ratio, #actual / #expected, adjusted for patient mix, so the spreadsheet subtracts one, to display total penalty / total revenue. Each calculation is approximate, because of the adjustment for patient mix, but those adjustments are small and average out across the country.
0 Comments

Climate

5/20/2020

0 Comments

 
Health care creates 8.5% of US emissions of greenhouse gases. A high fraction comes from surgery, especially anesthetics which escape to the air and have large warming effects. The University of Michigan has proposals to switch to equally effective anesthetics with less global warming effects.

They also encourage telemedicine, to cut transportation emissions.
0 Comments

Going Abroad for Medical Care

5/6/2020

 
Puerto Rico and Maryland are exempt from readmission penalties, and are still covered by Medicare. Links for Puerto Rico are below. Over a million US residents go abroad for health care each year, mostly to Mexico.

Foreign hospitals and doctors have their own payment systems for their residents, but still have prices for US travelers. They are not covered by Medicare, so hospital stays abroad do not incur readmission penalties, and do not count as costs in Accountable Care Organizations. Some US and international private insurance pays for foreign care. In any case costs are often much less than in the US, and specialized hospitals can give better care. Some of the best offer luxury as well as ordinary care.

Kiplinger (2017) says the book Patients beyond Borders, and its website have reviews of hospitals. I have not seen the book, but the website shows the size of each hospital, and often the total patients treated, though not the number of times doctors do any particular procedure, nor other measures of quality. You may have to ask.

US hospitals open foreign branches with local doctors.
Lists
  • One list of top 10 hospitals, 2014 (bones, cancer, children, hearts, hernias). Best is in Maryland. 7 are abroad:
    Asklepios Klinik Barmbek, Germany: Drugs, Equipment, Laboratory, Heart surgery, Cancer
    Great Ormond Street Hospital, UK:  Children, Children's heart or brain surgery, Children with cancer
    Wooridul Spine Hospital, South Korea: Spine, Joints
    Shouldice Hospital, Canada: Abdominal hernia
    Bumrungrad International Hospital, Thailand: Most specialties
    Anadolu Medical Center, Turkey: Cancer, Bone Marrow Transplant Center, Preventive medicine
    Gleneagles Hospital, Singapore: Orthopedics, Cardiology, Cancer, Obstetrics, Gynecology
  • Deloitte estimated in 2008 that 750,000 US residents went abroad for treatment in 2007, and about 400,000 foreigners came to the US for treatment. 28% of Medicare recipients would consider elective surgery abroad, with higher rates among Asians and Hispanics. Their 2016 report says Thailand and Mexico are the top destinations, and they expect growth in Cuba now (p.15; their footnotes are in a separate file). The 2008 report lists top foreign hospitals with their specialties as
     Bumrungrad, Thailand: Orthopedics, Neurology, Plastic surgery, Dental, Cardiovascular, Cancer, Fertility/sex reassignment
    CIMA, Costa Rica: Orthopedics, Neurology, Plastic surgery, Dental, Cardiovascular, Cancer
    St. Luke's, Philippines: Orthopedics, Neurology, Plastic surgery, Dental, Cardiovascular, Cancer
    Apollo, India: Orthopedics, Neurology, Plastic surgery, Cardiovascular, Cancer
    American, UAE: Orthopedics, Weight loss, Cardiovascular, Cancer, Fertility/sex reassignment
    National Cancer Center, Singapore: Cancer
    Ivo Pitanguy Clinic, Brazil: Plastic Surgery 
  • Awards, 2015 were based only on written applications by the hospitals and €150 fee from each contestant
Referrals
  • International Association for Medical Assistance to Travelers (designed for people who get sick abroad) has a directory (for a small donation) of English-speaking doctors in most countries who will see you for an initial consult of $100. These provide a chance for checking the local reputation of a surgeon you are considering, or treatment of follow-up complications. "majority has received post-graduate training in North America or Europe... IAMAT health care providers will refer you to a specialist in any field, including dentists... Our doctors and mental health practitioners will advocate on your behalf and help you with any issues that may arise during your experience with the health system of your destination country."
  • Subsidiary of Blue Cross (surgery and dental), includes the Costa Rican, Indian, Thai, and Turkish hospitals listed above. See their cost data below.
  • Joint Commission International accredits hospitals abroad, also at worldhospitalsearch.org/. Founded by Joint Commission in US, which is a separate organization.
  • WhatClinic.com has a few reviews worldwide, for example 16 reviews of knee replacements, and 8 of hernia repair (none from any hospital listed above). Reviews can be found with a specific term, like knee replacement, but clinics describe themselves with broad terms like orthopedics, so search both ways. It probably needs to partner with local review sites to get more reviews. Reviews are mostly accepted from people who had previously contacted the clinic through the site. They do not mention a policy on removing reviews. Clinics can list themselves free, or advertise.
  • Medigo.com lists many hospitals and clinics for many conditions in many countries. Among the hospitals recommended above, Medigo only includes Apollo in India. The lists are easy to search and often give prices. They do not rank clinics on quality, and do not describe their criteria for listing clinics. They do not visit all the clinics, and they say when they do. The few patient ratings only appear on each clinic's page, so comparing ratings is a slow process. Terms of use forbid "disparagement" (8.2), and they do not say whether they include all reviews. They charge 0-9% to arrange treatment, depending on country, and various other fees. You can search with their free lists and contact the clinics directly if you don't want Medigo's services, but you'll need to find other measures of quality. They cite news stories, which cover medical tourism, not Medigo. Terms of Use limit their liability, and section 9.6 makes you pay their costs for some lawsuits. They are based in Germany, and the founders are Polish. Suits against them must be in Berlin.
  • Dental Departures (dental referrals and travel agency) visits nearly all their dentists, has questionnaire on sterilization, includes patient reviews, and has dropped 8 dentists for poor quality from its list of 2,500 dentists in 29 countries.
  • Medical Tourism Association (industry association) See their cost data below.
Medical Travel Agencies (listing does not mean recommendation, and you may find others)
  • Patients beyond Borders, lists other articles and questions to ask your doctor
  • Planet Hospital, lists other articles
  • Pilgrimed See their cost data below
  • Healthbase
  • MedRepublic
  • MedRetreat
  • Companion Global Health Care phone number forwards to MMT Global Health Care, which says it is a different company.
Advice
  • Organization for Safety, Asepsis, & Prevention suggests phone questions to ask foreign doctors; has members abroad
  • Aerospace Medical Association, risks of air travel with some medical conditions
  • Centers for Disease Control (advice) says some countries have poor quality drugs, more resistant bacteria, and paid blood donors, without saying which; links to other organizations
  • American Medical Association, 2008 recommendations on foreign care. They say patients should get "physician ... outcome data" (p.6 line 48), which is only sometimes available in US
  • International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery advice; has members abroad
Articles
  • Buzzfeed, 2017, on hundreds of dentists in Mexico near Yuma, and using RV community for referrals
  • US News+World Report, 2012
  • AARP, and US News+World Report, 2014, by same author
  • Economist, 2014
  • Guardian, 2014, on Poland
Other
  • While abroad for treatment, complications or other illness one may need medical or evacuation insurance.
  • While traveling on commercial airlines, the plane's medical kit is minimal (except on ANA-All Nippon Airways  and Lufthansa), so people with medical issues need to bring what they might need. Also, the plane can call a doctor on the ground who handles plane emergencies every day, as well as whatever doctor may be on the flight. Flight attendants are certified in CPR and AED.
  • Puerto Rico 2013, updates: 2014, 2015, 2016, covered by Medicare, exempt from readmission penalties
  • Maryland, covered by Medicare, exempt from readmission penalties, working toward new limits by 2019
MTA Cost Comparisons 2015 have US and 13 foreign countries.  (2011 had 10 foreign countries and an African average)
25% Average: Foreign as % of US
12% Heart Valve Replacement 
15% Heart Bypass 
12% Spinal Fusion 
33% Hip Replacement 
34% Knee Replacement 
30% Angioplasty 
46% Hip Resurfacing 
50% Gastric Bypass 
35% Cornea
64% Gastric Sleeve 
41% Hysterectomy 
66% Lap Band 
49% IVF Treatment 
39% Face Lift 
59% Tummy Tuck 
9% Rhinoplasty 
63% Breast Implants 
47% Liposuction 
63% Lasik 
61% Cataract surgery
51% Dental Implant 

Blue Cross Cost comparisons for:

DaVinci Prostatectomy
Dental Crown
Dental Implant
Dental Veneer

Heart Bypass
Heart Valve Replacement
Hip Replacement
Hysterectomy
Knee Replacement
Root Canal
Spinal Fusion

Pilgrimed Cost comparisons for:

Angioplasty
Breast Implants
Dental Implant
Heart Bypass
Heart Valve Replacement
Hip Replacement
Hip Resurfacing
Hysterectomy
Knee Replacement
Lap Band / Bariatric
Rhinoplasty
Spinal Fusion
NA=US Average not available to calculate percent. See link for costs abroad

Adjustment for Risky Patients

12/21/2018

0 Comments

 
When people compare hospitals and doctors, and "control for the differences among patients," the risk adjustment is pitifully poor.

Since risk adjustment is ineffective, hospitals can improve their results by denying care to the patients with the worst conditions (“We can’t help you…”), giving the hospital a better “success” rate. Attention to outcome measures leads to denial of care to the sickest.
​
  • “the most assiduous work on risk adjustment has produced tools of only moderate power. The prospects for solving this problem with improved risk adjustment are not promising.[4],[5]” http://medicaring.org/2014/12/16/protecting-hospitals/
  • “You can’t get all the right variables on the page” said Berwick, former Medicare Administrator. ​https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673607

As a very professional and problematic example, Medicare’s adjustment of health condition (HCC) is poor. It explains only 2% to 12% of the total variation actually caused by patient mix (p.65 table 3-22, “r-squared” of version 21).
http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Health-Plans/MedicareAdvtgSpecRateStats/downloads/evaluation_risk_adj_model_2011.pdf
​

Medicare’s adjustment of patient mix for readmission penalties is also poor. For example, their equations explain 3% of the variation in readmissions among heart failures (p.30), 5% for heart attacks (p.30) and pneumonia (p.29). These percents date from 2008 and have not been updated.
http://www.globe1234.info/medicare/category/medicare-texts
Medicare now shows c-statistics between 0.61 and 0.66 for readmission penalties,
http://www.qualitynet.org/dcs/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=QnetPublic%2FPage%2FQnetTier4&cid=1219069855841
 The c-statistic has a scale of 0.5 to 1, where 0.5 means their equations do no better than chance, and 1 means their equations are perfect. So some equations are little better than chance, and they still rate hospitals with them. “Models are typically considered reasonable when the C-statistic is higher than 0.7 and strong when C exceeds 0.8”
http://mchp-appserv.cpe.umanitoba.ca/viewDefinition.php?definitionID=104234
​
so none of their equations is “reasonable,” and they still charge hospitals hundreds of millions of dollars of penalties with them each year, driving hospitals to reduce admissions among the sickest.
​
The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) has its own risk adjustment.
  • https://publicreporting.sts.org/chsd-risk-model
  • https://www.sts.org/sites/default/files/documents/Shahian-2018-Risk-Model-Part-1-of-2.pdf
  • https://www.sts.org/sites/default/files/documents/Shahian-%202018%20Risk%20Model-Part%202%20of%202.pdf 
  • https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0003497518303710-mmc1.docx has c-statistics

They give “c-statistics” ranging from 0.616 to 0.826, so some of their equations are not "reasonable," and are little better than chance, but they use them to compare hospitals.

0 Comments

Updates

7/25/2014

 



A reader wanted to know when updates happen, so I will try to list them here, starting July 25, 2014.

2022 Jul 6 - Attorney General letter on FOIA
2022 Jun 19 - linked to CHQPR in doctor quality & cost alternatives. Companies push back against reporting privacy breaches
2022 May 30 - began section on climate warming from health care
2022 May 16 - added bacteriophages for antibiotic-resistant infections
2022 Mar 17 - added tips on searching federal court cases
2022 Mar 9 - added NY health price comparison site
2022 Feb 9 - expanded data on drug costs
2022 Feb 2 - link to checklist of tasks after death
2022 Jan 13 - added review sites for dentists
2022 Jan 10 - added brief info on recruitment of foreign nurses
2021 Dec 21 - added data problems on nursing home sites
2021 Oct 28 - added findings on bad care for Part C and for oldest with heart attacks.
2021 Oct 21 - added SHIP help sites for Medicare coverage
2021 Jun 26 - added organizations of caregivers
2021 Jun 22 - article on US hospital branches abroad.
2021 Mar 9 - added links on Medigap
2021 Feb 21 - added article on Canada's lack of care for disabilities, leading to suicides.
2021 Feb 8 - added glossary of cost terms and info on Medigap
2020 Oct 27 - added research on effective presentation of numbers to About section
2020 Sep 21 - expanded readability resources
2020 Aug 31 - added comparison of Medicare payments and private insurance
2020 Aug 21 - linked to slide show on hospital financial data
​2020 May 6 - added links on patient advocates
​2020 Apr 9 - added more ACC articles on deaths and readmission penalties
​2020 Mar 30 - added maps of fevers
2020 Mar 26 - added ACC estimates of excess deaths from heart failure
​2020 Feb 4 - updated information on errors in prescriptions
2019 Aug 29 - updated health literacy; rearranged ethics guidance, lawyers and feeding tubes
2019 Jun 3 - added drug companies' recriminations on doctors who report adverse events, and simplified pages on advance directives and CPR+DNR
2019 May 9 - added study of hospital costs under private insurance
2019 Apr 20 - updated 4-page pamphlet on DNR choices ​
2019 Feb 25 - added list of hospitals with luxury suites
​2019 Feb 3 - removed forms for medical representative and advance directives, and gave links to state rules on forms
​2019 Jan 13 - updated estimate of mental changes after CPR from better source
​2019 Jan 5 - added 4-page pamphlet on DNR choices and 2018 research on deaths from readmission penalties
​2018 Dec 17 - updated CPR and DNR page with clearer explanations
2018 Dec 6 - added description of CPR and more detail on its organ donation possibilities
2018 Dec 1 - added options for advance directives
2018 Nov 27 - noted that able-bodied people under-estimate quality of life of people with disabilities, and life in a coma.
2018 Oct 29 - added treatment links to drugs page. Updated advance directive form and CPR info.
2018 Oct 5 - added note about 2019 readmission penalties. Updated information on VA hospital quality.
2018 Oct 2 - moved Coma explanations to a new section. Updated AMA guidance on patient-doctor negotiations about end of life care
2018 Sep 12 - updated data and graph on CPR and DNR
2018 Sep 9 - added comparison of ways to let medics reach your emergency information instantly online.
2018 Sep 8 - added deadly results of measuring medical outcomes in Veterans Affairs Medical Centers
2018 Aug 13 - added non-Medicare cost data for drugs and office visits.
2018 Aug 8 - added new guidelines for coma prognosis and videos to page on medical representatives
2018 Aug 1 - updated penalties on nursing homes for sending patients to hospitals too often
2018 Jul 27 - added links on telehealth, nursing home data, and Medicare Advantage data on encounters with beneficiaries
2018 Jul 6 - added links on Medicare premiums and FDA regulation of software apps.
2018 Jun 20 - added to advance directives page: report on Gosport hospital overprescribing painkillers, causing deaths of 456-656 patients, and added to drugs page: complexities of prior authorization
2018 Jun 14 - updated data on specialists 2012-2016
2018 Jun 3 - updated medical travel
​2018 Mar 5 - Added pills advice and international comparisons
​2017 Nov 7 - Added life expectancy adjustments for health status
​2017 Sept 21 - Updated maps
2017 July 14 - Added 2015 map and spreadsheet of appointment lengths for general doctors
2017 June 19 - Added 2015 list of specialist doctors
2017 May 25 - Added Conflict of Interest to doctor ratings page
2017 May 23 - Updated FOIA page and spreadsheet of all agency processing times
2017 May 10 - Updated ACO public information, waivers, odds of a bonus for cutting patient care.
2017 Apr 27 - Added Medical Letter to Drugs page and Eye issues to Specialists page
2017 Apr 15 - FOIA results, response times, fees, settlement negotiations
2017 Mar 10 - Added detail on problems with e-cancellation in Drugs page 
2017 Feb 27 - Rearranged Specialists page, highlighting and expanding Step C - Other Information for Choosing Doctors
​2017 Jan 30 - Wider text, more on costs and referrals
2016 Dec 22 - added header about use of cookies, and noted that federal retirees' price matching to Medicare excludes hospital outpatient charges
2016 Dec 8 - added sites on FOIAs
2016 Nov 23 - estimated 8,000 heart failure deaths per year, caused by readmission penalties
2016 Nov 3 - rearranged penalty calculations and hospital quality. Added NICHE levels of geriatric care
2016 Oct 21 - updated readmission penalties to FY2017, with bypass operations for the first time. Added detail on Healthgrades data about hospitals and doctors
2016 Sep 27 - noted BCBS of NC costs on Specialists page
2016 Sep 18 - new format to name medical representative and noting organ donation.
2016 Sep 7 - updated codes for medical procedures with 2014 costs and volume
2016 Aug 30 - gave links to search for hospitals with the most experience in each procedure
2016 Aug 26 - put specialists on a new page, and re-wrote it with instructions for using Medicare's interactive site to search for specialists.
2016 Aug 23 - corrected patient strategies to note how hard it is to drop Medicare Part A.
2016 Aug 22 - lists of independent doctors and nursing home organizations
2016 Jul 8 - 2012-2014 data on 683,000 doctors & others, to find those who give long appointments & treat you in multiple settings
2016 Jun 10 - Signs and letters written by Medicare, telling patients about ACOs
2016 Apr 2 - Doctor's incomes, hours, satisfaction, discipline
2016 Jan 6 - More info on Drugs
2015 Nov 30 - Renamed Advance Directive Form to emphasize Medical Representative, and updated CPR statistics with success outside hospitals.
2015 Nov 17 - Improved labels in financial data, and added Google sheet of doctors' office hours.
2015 Oct 22 - Improved labels in office hours data, and gave numbers of new patient appointments instead of the ratio between later and new appointments.
2015 Oct 16 - Updated Hospitals.xls+Penalty.xls with minor price changes issued Oct.5. Also corrected total US penalties to exclude Maryland, which is exempt from penalties. Removed blank columns, since sorting is sometimes blocked by blank columns. Reformatted advance directive pdf. Clarified definition of 1st visit with a patient.
2015 Oct 3-6 - Linked to better file to find doctors' phone numbers. Described California's ratings of hospitals. Stressed agent in advance directive. Expanded Excel instructions. Noted new data on types of patients seen by each doctor.
2015 Sep 30 - Added links on selecting medical representative; changed background photos
2015 Sep 2 - Better labels for Doctors, dropped diabetes education (30') to stay under 200 MB
2015 Aug 22 - Clarified doctor files & advance directives; added a Creative Commons license
2015 Aug 9 - Added data on hospitals cutting treatment.
2015 Aug 6 - Slightly better sort of Doctors, added longer patient education, better labels of countries
2015 Aug 5 - Updated readmission penalties to October 2016
2015 July 25-31 - Compiled ratings of doctors on one page 
2015 July 1-9 - Added length+number of appointments for 636,000 generalist doctors. Updated data on 230,000 specialists. Better advance directives.
2015 Jun 12 - Simplified example of advance directives 
2015 Apr 25 - Added percent readmitted for various causes
2015 Apr 7 - Added state totals for each penalty
2015 Mar 20-23 - Added penalties, address, latitude + longitude to Hospital financial statements. Fixed omission of last character of amounts. Expanded description of penalties.
2015 Mar 14 - Added name, address, phone & hospital chain to Hospital financial statements
2015 Mar 4 - Re-ordered columns, and added web links in spreadsheets of doctors
2015 Mar 3 - Added spreadsheets of Hospital financial statements, and highest-volume 25 doctors for each procedure
2015 Mar 2 - Added note on how high-volume doctors get their start
2015 Jan 15-Feb 22 - Article on Advance Directives
2015 Jan 23-26 - Reduced readmission penalty estimates, to omit capital and other costs which are not subject to penalties, and use Medicare's October updates.
2015 Jan 7-14 - Split off sections about unnecessary care, knees, legal searches & patient reviews
2014 Dec 31 - Published article on selecting doctors by experience & other measures
2014 Dec 30 - Updated ACO list with 89 new groups starting in 1/1/2015
2014 Dec 18 - Corrected in my files, errors which Medicare had in 650 doctors' state or zip code.
2014 Dec 1-12 - Added research on doctors' experience
2014 Nov 29 - Added maps of doctors' experience
2014 Nov 26 - Added more complete files on doctors' experience

2014 Sep 8 - Added input on 2015 Dietary Guidelines
2014 Sep 2-5 - Added comments on Medicare ACO rules, an option to create nutrition graphs in USDA file of nutrients, and more comparisons of protein sources, in site & USDA file.
2014 Aug 22 - Re-sorted USDA file of nutrients, added nutrition labels for protein alternatives
2014 Aug 18 - Added Calories in the nutrition labels proposed in the salt section, and identified almond milk with less sodium than average
2014 Aug 7 - Updated readmission rates and penalties with data from p.756 of Medicare's final rule, instead of p.1495. Both tables have the same title and have slightly different numbers. Medicare says p.756 applies to readmissions penalties.
2014 Aug 6 - Added the idea of clearer Explanations of Benefits, as a cost-saving alternative
2014 Aug 4 - Updated readmissions with data released by Medicare today
2014 July 27 - Listed doctors' experience on home page, with files on the Northeast and elsewhere
2014 July 25 - Adjusted readmission penalties at each hospital, for variations in local costs

Disaster Preparedness

12/1/2013

0 Comments

 
​Click for a helpful Checklist for emergencies: It suggests preparing for unexpected sickness by having information ready at hand for your caregivers and advocates to use. For fires, floods and storms it focuses on having copies and backups of your important papers offsite, long before the emergency. It suggests actions to prepare for pandemics, and has notes on quakes, evacuations, chemical and nuclear contamination.
0 Comments

Dialysis Patients

8/16/2013

0 Comments

 
Medicare is trying to cut the cost of serving dialysis patients by paying dialysis centers and kidney doctors for cutting costs, even if the patients die.

91% of dialysis patients do not participate in Accountable Care Organizations, which have their own incentives to cut costs, so Medicare is trying to set up groups just for kidney patients. These are called End Stage Renal Disease seamless care organizations (ESCO). 
Dialysis patients are "1.3% of the Medicare population and accounted for an estimated 7.5% of Medicare spending, totaling over $20 billion in 2010."

ESCOs will receive 50%-75% of Medicare's savings on dialysis patients, compared to baseline costs. "Members must place their fiduciary duty to the ESCO before the interests of any ESCO participant" (Medicare's explanatory slides p.39)

They have 23 quality measures, one of which is the death rate. Medicare has not yet announced the weight to be given each measure, but judging by weighting for Accountable Care quality measures, no one measure will have much weight, including the mortality rate, so ESCOs can meet quality standards without minimizing deaths. Since a death stops all costs, the financial rewards for death are large.

Each "beneficiary’s first visit to a given dialysis facility during a particular period will prospectively match that beneficiary to the dialysis facility, and by extension the ESCO, for the upcoming performance year" (Request for Applications-RFA p.12). So a patient can avoid the incentives by changing to another dialysis facility, not part of the same ESCO. An email from Dr. 
Alefiyah Mesiwala, Medicare's leader for the program, says, "Once a beneficiary is seen by an ESCO facility, they are then matched for the life of the entire model unless the beneficiary dies, has a transplant, or becomes ineligible as stated in the RFA. Once a beneficiary is aligned to a facility, even if that beneficiary visits multiple facilities or providers in a given performance year, all costs associated with that beneficiary will be attributed to the ESCO facility the beneficiary was initially matched to per the matching rules outlined in the RFA" (5/5/2014).

The "first visit" rule gives an incentive for dialysis centers to be unable to find space for high risk patients (old or with multiple sicknesses), so they go to another ESCO at least for the first visit.

When patients find themselves in an ESCO, patients can avoid the cost-cutting incentives by finding a dialysis center which is not part of the same ESCO, and using doctors who are also not part of that ESCO. These other centers and doctors will not face the conflict of interest of being rewarded for cutting costs, so patients are more able to trust their recommendations and treatment decisions.

Dialysis companies and researchers doubt the ESCOs will be successful.
0 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>
    This site does not provide
    legal or medical advice.

    The site does not
    recommend doctors,
    hospitals or anyone. It
    summarizes information,
    mostly from Medicare, so
    you can decide.


    Dates are assigned
    arbitrarily to sort
    the articles.
     Most
    articles have been
    written or updated
    more recently.


    Like: Facebook, Twitter,
    Google+1
    , Reddit

    Pages

    All
    0verview
    1-updates
    About
    Accountable Care Org
    Aco
    Advance Directives
    Advocates
    Alternatives
    App
    Assisted Living
    Boards
    Citations
    Climate
    Comfort Care
    Comment To Medicare
    Concierge
    Contact
    Correlations
    Costs
    Courts
    Data
    Deaths
    Definitions
    Dentists
    Disaster
    Doctors
    Do Not Resuscitate
    Drug Interactions
    Drugs
    Ehr
    Electronic-records
    Emergency
    Ethics-guidance
    Excel
    Exclusions
    Financial
    Foia
    Foreign
    Fragile
    Hac
    Heart Failure
    Home Visits
    Hospice
    Hospital Data
    Hospital Lists
    Hospital Strategies
    Incentives
    IQR
    Kidney
    Lawyers
    Life-expectancy
    Literacy
    Living Will
    Luxury
    Math
    Medical Devices
    Medicare Advantage
    Medicare Data
    Medicare Texts
    Medicare-texts
    Medpac
    Minorities
    Nursing Homes
    Odds
    Overview
    Pain
    Palliative Care
    Part C
    Patient Strategies
    Payments
    Penalties
    Penalty Percent
    Premiums
    Preparedness
    Prescriptions
    Prices
    Privacy Policy
    Public Comment
    Quality
    Readability
    Readmissions
    Reducing Costs
    Referral
    Representative
    Research
    Short Comments
    Sources
    Statistics
    Submissions
    Subsidies
    Telehealth
    Timing Of Penalties
    Tourism
    Vbp
    Waivers

    RSS Feed

Picture
  • HOME
  • Specialists
  • Medicare
  • Salt etc.
  • More