Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

still_one

(92,108 posts)
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 05:18 PM Aug 2019

Docs Brace for Medicare 'Appropriate' Imaging Rule

With deadline just 4 months away, fears of unreadiness and unintended consequences abound


by Nicole Lou, Contributing Writer, MedPage Today
August 23, 2019

As the medical community braces for implementation of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act (PAMA) by the Jan. 1, 2020 deadline, some wonder if it's even feasible or if another program delay is on the horizon.
The policy, aimed at reducing unnecessary testing, mandates that all advanced diagnostic imaging orders go through an algorithm that provides key confirmation codes required when Medicare is billed later on for the service.

Dubbed a "clinical decision support mechanism" (CDSM), this software processes each CT, MRI, nuclear medicine, and PET order before spitting out its verdict to the ordering professional: "appropriate," "maybe appropriate," or "rarely appropriate," according to a certain set of appropriate use criteria (AUC).
Essentially, the CDSM confirmation code provides proof that the ordering physician consulted AUC. Eventually, Medicare will not pay claims or advanced imaging without these codes.

Essentially, the CDSM confirmation code provides proof that the ordering physician consulted AUC. Eventually, Medicare will not pay claims or advanced imaging without these codes.
The program has been delayed several times, and the 2020 deadline equates to a "soft launch," as improper imaging claims won't be rejected until the following year, with no firm deadline for additional penalties beyond that. Still, many physician organizations have raised concerns about the policy.
"To be clear, we are all for AUC. We want to apply the AUC but not in this fashion," cardiologist Rami Doukky, MD, MSc, of Cook County Health and Hospitals System in Chicago, who also sits on the board of directors of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology (ASNC), said in an interview. "The way PAMA requires AUC to be implemented is very prescriptive, very limiting to physicians, with the potential for unintended consequences."
Doukky said he and the ASNC are asking that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) postpone PAMA implementation "until we come up with an alternative way to apply AUC and practice value-based imaging."

The ASNC is one of more than two dozen medical societies that have asked CMS to loosen the AUC program requirements.
An Uncertain Road Ahead
For now, CMS has identified eight priority areas (suspected coronary artery disease, suspected pulmonary embolism, headache, hip pain, low back pain, shoulder pain, lung cancer, and cervical or neck pain) that flag outlier physicians who order too many inappropriate tests.
These outliers may become subject to prior authorization if they demonstrate a pattern of non-compliant orders.
But what happens to individuals who do not correctly report their CDSM codes? How will clinicians be scored on their adherence to AUC? How are claims even processed?


Specific instructions for PAMA have not yet been released, and CMS hasn't decided when penalties that force the worst offenders to get prior approval will begin.
Only after the program has its concrete plans laid out can the "tremendous amount of provider education" take place, Doukky suggested.
Early PAMA adopters are currently in a voluntary reporting period that ends in December. Once January 2020 hits, the program officially starts with a 1-year "educational and operations testing" grace period, the American College of Radiology (ACR) explains on its website, during which physicians are not penalized for incorrect reporting.
The formal start date is Jan. 1, 2021; after that, Medicare will reject noncompliant claims.
"This program is, to my knowledge, unique in the history of health informatics in creating a nationwide regulatory requirement for implementation of something -- comprehensive imaging clinical decision support -- that no one has yet done successfully," complained radiologist John Mongan, MD, PhD, of the University of California San Francisco Medical Center.

Recently, a randomized trial of providers at Wisconsin's Aurora Health Care showed that their CDSM resulted in a 6% drop in targeted imaging orders, but no change in total number of high- or low-cost scans.
"The literature contains examples of successes and failures of narrowly targeted imaging decision support, as well as failures of comprehensive imaging decision support -- notably, the Medicare Imaging Demonstration, but no examples of successful comprehensive imaging decision support," Mongan told MedPage Today.
"This puts imaging providers in the position of either implementing systems that have been shown to be ineffective to meet a regulatory requirement, or doing R&D under a regulatory deadline to try to be among the first to achieve a challenging goal in health informatics," he continued.
Implementing CDSM -- whether through a separate program or embedded into the electronic health record (EHR) -- can certainly be a challenge for a safety net hospital like Doukky's institution.
"We have a lot of competing priorities and unfortunately we have to spend a lot of time, energy, and money to deploy a CDSM that doesn't work so well," he said.

Several Kinks to Iron Out
PAMA was signed into law in 2014 and its rollout was delayed several times.
Cindy Moran, executive vice president of government relations and health policy at the ACR, which has developed its own appropriate use criteria for imaging, said her group does not anticipate the deadline to be extended any longer.
"The AUC approach reduces low-value imaging and costs without delaying care or interfering in doctor-patient decision making," Moran said. "Thousands of facilities nationwide are already using AUC as an imaging management tool. The provider community, most of whom supported the AUC Mandate when passed, have had several years to prepare."
Notably, ACR is one medical society that has not asked to delay the policy.
Mongan of UCSF sees it differently: "I expect this will be a difficult transition. Although the go-live deadline has been pushed back several times, many institutions will struggle to have a compliant system in place by the regulatory deadline."
For example, transitioning to PAMA compliance will be particularly difficult in situations where the ordering professional is not part of the same integrated health system as the imaging center.
"In these circumstances, the ordering professional will have to use an ordering workflow or decision support that is outside of their usual EHR and/or arrange for transmission of the documentation of decision support consultation along with the order. In the absence of extensive work to electronically integrate systems across institutional boundaries, transmission of documentation of decision support consultation may involve manual transcription of lengthy code numbers," according to Mongan.
"This drives us back 20 years to faxing codes. It's very time-consuming," said Doukky. "And even if the test is performed in the same system, it requires serious hard-wiring of information technology."
Then there is the issue of the hospital choosing AUCs differing from those physicians currently recognize.
Doukky said that he had been consulting AUC provided by cardiovascular societies like the American College of Cardiology and the ASNC for over a decade -- when his hospital decided to implement CDSM utilizing AUC from a different organization.
"I'm already well-educated, well-aware of AUC, and now all of a sudden I'm using AUC that I'm not familiar with, and sometimes at odds with those developed by the cardiovascular societies," he said. "In an ideal world, you'd like physicians to use the AUC they are comfortable with."
He cited a study showing that different criteria may lead to different yields in testing. "You could use one set of AUC and the test would be appropriate; use another set and get an inappropriate test determination."
Things are different in the University of California system, where leaders are creating their own AUC under a Qualified Provider Led Entity certification from CMS.
"We are working from the principle of having the system be invisible as much as possible, interacting with the ordering professional only when the system has evidence-based, actionable advice to provide," according to Mongan.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/radiology/diagnosticradiology/81781

20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Docs Brace for Medicare 'Appropriate' Imaging Rule (Original Post) still_one Aug 2019 OP
So much for insurance not getting in the way between patients and doctors MichMan Aug 2019 #1
People will die because someone will rule that an imaging test is not necessary still_one Aug 2019 #2
There will also be providers who will use diagnosis to meet criteria dixiegrrrrl Aug 2019 #6
Sure, for inappropriate tests, but as you said, who is determining what is an inappropriate test or still_one Aug 2019 #7
"too many imaging tests are being ordered by that physician. " dixiegrrrrl Aug 2019 #11
Ok, but even then the same doctor may be ordering imaging tests on the same patient still_one Aug 2019 #14
Somebody explain to me why this was signed by Obama in 2014? House of Roberts Aug 2019 #3
That is an excellent question. This is trying to take the decision making process for certain still_one Aug 2019 #4
You are right Rebl2 Aug 2019 #5
The slow whittling away of the ACA by the republicans is also making it much more expensive in still_one Aug 2019 #9
Because there is rampant fraud on Medicare Trenzalore Aug 2019 #16
This is the kind of thinking that insurance companies PoindexterOglethorpe Aug 2019 #8
Exactly. Every patient is different still_one Aug 2019 #10
Insurance phased out inpatient sub. abuse treatment. dixiegrrrrl Aug 2019 #19
Aaaaaaaand...we're supposed to be afraid of Canadian-style health care? Aristus Aug 2019 #12
Fee for service created the need for this KentuckyWoman Aug 2019 #13
Colonoscopies, mammograms are not necessary? Making statements like that is irresponsible still_one Aug 2019 #15
Necessary Or Not RobinA Aug 2019 #17
Absolutely, which is why we need to be our own advocates, and try to make the best informed still_one Aug 2019 #18
This message was self-deleted by its author KentuckyWoman Aug 2019 #20

MichMan

(11,899 posts)
1. So much for insurance not getting in the way between patients and doctors
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 05:23 PM
Aug 2019

How many people will get sicker waiting for authorization from bureaucrats?

still_one

(92,108 posts)
2. People will die because someone will rule that an imaging test is not necessary
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 05:24 PM
Aug 2019

I think a lot of folks are unaware of things like this happening, and they need to contact their representatives and Senators

What this will lend itself to is that those that can afford to pay for the diagnostics out of pocket will, and the others will be left out in the cold

dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)
6. There will also be providers who will use diagnosis to meet criteria
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 07:01 PM
Aug 2019

since it appears imaging approval can be based on "rule outs" if I read this correctly.

OTOH, I can see how the plan can reduce inappropriate tests.
However, having funders of health services dictating the levels of services is a definite no win for the patient.
Quite a few years ago, I had Kaiser insurance. AKA Managed Care.
I needed new glasses, the eye doc was very nice, we got to talking. He said that Kaiser only allows for 20 minute exams, which they then pro-rated out for payment.
He explained the obvious reasons that some exams could take longer.
I was lucky, because the patient after me had canceled, I got a thorough exam.

(In contrast, Medicaid was paying health services on minimum of 15 minute intervals, meaning if the doc saw 3 patients in 30 minutes, he could bill for a total of 45 minutes.
Some docs, esp. MH community psychiatrists, made out like bandits, they had an assembly line worked out.)

still_one

(92,108 posts)
7. Sure, for inappropriate tests, but as you said, who is determining what is an inappropriate test or
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 07:18 PM
Aug 2019

not?

I sure don't want a "bean counter" determining that.

While I suspect that Doctors would be able to justify the appropriateness of an imaging procedure, the process may create unecessary delays.

The fact that this was signed in 2014, with many of the public unaware of this rule, and that they have been delaying its implication, and Physicians and major hospitals are having problems with this rule, imply to me there is something flawed about it.t

What is troubling is if I read it correctly, this rules committee may penalize physicians if they believe too many imaging tests are being ordered by that physician.

Wouldn't that depend what the physician is trying to diagnosis, rather than the number?

Also, the article implies the criteria is not well defined




dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)
11. "too many imaging tests are being ordered by that physician. "
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 08:10 PM
Aug 2019


I don't think they are talking how many imaging tests per patient

I think they are talking how many imaging tests per doctor, over some period of time.

But..yes...rationing of service is rearing its ugly head.

still_one

(92,108 posts)
14. Ok, but even then the same doctor may be ordering imaging tests on the same patient
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 08:32 PM
Aug 2019

periodically to monitor progress of treatment or something like that

The whole thing is concerning because what is the criteria

still_one

(92,108 posts)
4. That is an excellent question. This is trying to take the decision making process for certain
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 06:09 PM
Aug 2019

imaging procedures, and pushing them to a decision from some committee, who doesn't know the patient or history.

While it appears the physician may be able to use ways to justify it, it adds another layer of delays for the patient getting appropriate diagnostics done

This won't just affect Medicare either. Insurance companies usually minimally follow what Medicare covers

I am writing my representatives.

This was sure kept quiet, and not made very visible

It is disturbing to say the least


Rebl2

(13,481 posts)
5. You are right
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 07:01 PM
Aug 2019

It will affect those not on Medicare too. They have a tendency to follow what Medicare does. This is one thing that needs to be fixed regarding Obamacare.

still_one

(92,108 posts)
9. The slow whittling away of the ACA by the republicans is also making it much more expensive in
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 07:21 PM
Aug 2019

certain states.

2020 is so critical right now


Trenzalore

(2,331 posts)
16. Because there is rampant fraud on Medicare
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 09:09 PM
Aug 2019

Not saying this prescription cures the illness but there is a lot of fraud with Medicare.

PoindexterOglethorpe

(25,839 posts)
8. This is the kind of thinking that insurance companies
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 07:19 PM
Aug 2019

used when they looked at average length of hospital stays for various procedures or conditions, and then stopped paying for any days longer than the average. Meaning people get kicked out when they may not be fully recovered or ready to be at home. And then they'll cut another day off the time they're willing to pay for.

It's why childbirth has practically become a walk in, squat, deliver the baby, go home an hour later. Yeah, it's not necessary for very many women to remain in hospital for a week or more as used to be the case, but sometimes they need just a little more time to recover, even if it wasn't a complicated birth.

dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)
19. Insurance phased out inpatient sub. abuse treatment.
Mon Aug 26, 2019, 01:05 AM
Aug 2019

I was on the front lines of that impact, working for an inpatient facility.
The standard was 28 days inpatient, with outpatient follow up for 6 months.

Insurance cut coverage from 28 to 21 days, then a year later to 14 days.
Never mind that effective treatment protocols were for 28 days.
Never mind that it took a week to 12 days for most patients just to recover/withdraw from heavy alcohol use.

After 3 years of that crap. I started working at outpatient facilities, which were limited to 6 months.

Insurance failed substance abuse people, totally.

Aristus

(66,307 posts)
12. Aaaaaaaand...we're supposed to be afraid of Canadian-style health care?
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 08:18 PM
Aug 2019


I can hear them now:

"Well you know, everyone in the Canadian health care system dies. You know that, right?"

"I hear it take thirty-eight years to get a primary care appointment..."

"Canadians hate their health care system. Just ask one of them..."

Meanwhile, this shit keeps getting worse...

KentuckyWoman

(6,679 posts)
13. Fee for service created the need for this
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 08:30 PM
Aug 2019

I have said before, I will say again - Kaiser Permanente never exposed us to unnecessary tests or medical care. They didn't withhold care to make a buck either. They are non-profit.

That's where the trouble comes in. Here in Ohio I've already fired 3 doctors who decided to hold my cardiac meds hostage until whatever fancy test got done for totally unrelated "preventative" diagnostics. Like mammogram, colonoscopy etc.

I don't even need a full physical anymore. Just treat what I complain about, suggest something based on my personal medical history and i'm good with that. But the rest is just putting me through shit I don't need so someone can make a buck.

Geezers are a prime target for this crap. Medicare needs to get a handle on it somehow.

still_one

(92,108 posts)
15. Colonoscopies, mammograms are not necessary? Making statements like that is irresponsible
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 08:49 PM
Aug 2019

There are criteria and evidence based studies to support that criteria

If you are outside that Demographic, fine, but generalized statements what is or is not necessary is not helpful.

As you said it depends on the person being evaluated. One size does not fit all

Mammograms and colonoscopies have saved people’s lives I know

and for those concerned about costs, it is much more cost effective to treat something early than later

No one is forced to have a diagnostics

Also, Kaiser isn’t the only non-profit, there are a lot of them

All the university hospitals as an example are non-profit

but I understand the point you are making

In the end we have to be our own advocates




RobinA

(9,886 posts)
17. Necessary Or Not
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 10:12 PM
Aug 2019

they should be up to the person and other parts of a person’s treatment should not be held hostage pending their completion, as the poster suggested was happening to her. Disgusting.

still_one

(92,108 posts)
18. Absolutely, which is why we need to be our own advocates, and try to make the best informed
Sun Aug 25, 2019, 10:16 PM
Aug 2019

decision that is right for us

Response to still_one (Reply #15)

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Docs Brace for Medicare '...