A quarterly review of Company and industry news for Medical Mutual member-policyholders.
About Us » Publications & Announcements
The Advocate
Archive
Commentary: Non-Payment Mandates Require Additional Study, Science
By Terrance J. Sheehan, MD
President & CEO
It is time to back-off, re-evaluate and shorten the list to one set of conditions for all payors that are clearly measurable, fully preventable and within hospitals’ and physicians’ control.
By now many of you have become aware of the decision by the federal government and many insurers to refuse payment for certain adverse health events that occur in hospitals and which are considered to be the result of medical errors or improper care that can reasonably be expected to be averted.
Medicare’s non-payment list includes
eight conditions (see Box 1) while the
insurers’ list includes all or part of 28
serious reportable events (see Box 2)
advanced by the National Quality Forum
(NQF), a voluntary consensus standardsetting
organization for healthcare quality
measurement and reporting.
In addition, in Vermont, all hospitals
have adopted a uniform policy to not
seek payment for eight of the NQF’s 28
events. Maine has created a statute that
addresses hospital non-payment for all
28 NQF events and the New Hampshire
Hospital Association has recently developed
a set of guiding principles for identifying
serious adverse events for which
payment is not expected.
These hospital non-payment decisions
are part of the shift toward pay-for-performance
and are viewed as a necessary
added incentive to improve patient safety.
Medicare’s non-payment policy goes
into effect in October 2008, but they are
already seeking to add nine additional
conditions (see Box 3).
In my opinion, these decisions have
been made without a clear understanding
of the consequences, either intended
or unintended. The list includes, in some
instances, conditions that are not clearly
measurable and not fully preventable or
within the hospital’s control. The May
14, 2008, edition of the Journal of the
American Medical Association contains a
commentary by Pronovost, Goeschel &
Wachter titled, The Wisdom and Justice
of Not Paying for Preventable Conditions.
The authors wisely raise caution flags,
stating that the ability to diagnose six of
the eight Medicare conditions (central
line associated blood-stream infections
and retained foreign bodies are the
exceptions) is error-ridden and there is
limited-to-no-evidence about their
degree of preventability. They further
state, “In the end, Medicare must
advance the science of quality improvement
and measurement for its ‘not paid
for preventable complications’ program
to realize true improvements in patient
outcomes. There is no shortcut.”
This issue is an important one that
requires the full attention of hospitals
and physicians in this country. It is time
to back-off, re-evaluate and shorten the
list to one set of conditions for all payors
that are clearly measurable, fully preventable
and within hospitals’ and physicians’
control. In the meantime, hospitals and
physicians should develop and comply
with evidence-based guidelines, policies
and procedures that address the prevention
of these events.
| Conditions for Which Medicare Will No Longer Pay if Acquired During an Inpatient Stay, As of October 1, 2008 |
|---|
|
| National Quality Forum’s Serious Reportable Events |
|---|
|
| Additional Hospital-Acquired Conditions Medicare is Targeting for Non-Payment |
|---|
|