You'll remember that early in the summer we talked about the proposal by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to cease reimbursing hospitals for the additional care of a patient that is required when a hospital gives a patient a nosocomial infection. CMS has been debating whether to include several types of hospital-acquired infection in the 2009 iteration of its "never event" no-reimbursement list. (CMS has not announced its final choices.)
Healthcare's reaction has been, hmmm, not positive. At The New Health Dialogue, Joanne Kenen captures the reactions, many of which run along the lines of "infections are inevitable because patients are so sick." But she's also found a marvelous (and appalling?) argument that goes, more or less, "Preventing infections will be more costly, not less, because hospitals will introduce additional procedures to protect themselves."
This recalls the intriguing and dismaying suggestion in JAMA a few weeks ago that "search and destroy" active surveillance is driven less by wanting to halt in-hospital transmission and more by hospitals wanting to build a case that patients brought the infection with them.
Showing posts with label CMS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CMS. Show all posts
22 August 2008
14 August 2008
Surveillance to stop MRSA: Where, when, how costly, how much?
My colleague Joanne Kenen — longtime health policy correspondent for Reuters, now a staff member at the New American Foundation, and a Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation Media Fellow with me in 2006-07 — very kindly invited me to guest-blog at the New Health Dialogue. Most of the post is reproduced below, but please be kind and visit them so they can record the hits!
Stopping the spread of MRSA in hospitals is one of the most contentious topics in infectious disease policy right now. A small sample of the, umm, highly divergent views on the subject filled up the letters pages of the Journal of the American Medical Association last week. Community-associated MRSA has grabbed the public's attention over the past year, but hospital-acquired MRSA remains a huge problem — so much so that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has proposed treating it as a medical error and declining to reimburse hospitals for the extra care that must be given to a patient when it occurs.
Within health care, there is vociferous debate over how to control MRSA. Because MRSA can live on the skin, nostrils and other body sites for a long period of time before causing an infection — either in the person colonized by the bug or in someone else who acquired it from the colonized person — many hospitals espouse a program of checking new patients who are most likely to be carriers, including patients in high-risk units such as ICUs, new admits from long-term care facilities, and people who have had MRSA infections on the past. But a small set of institutions are pursuing a more aggressive program, variously called "active surveillance and testing," "universal screening" or "search and destroy," that checks every inpatient for MRSA colonization and confines them to isolation until the bug has cleared.
"Search and destroy" was the topic of an important JAMA paper and editorial last March that decided the effort wasn't worthwhile. (A simultaneously published paper in the Annals of Internal Medicine completely disagreed.) The five letters in JAMA tear the topic apart, examining definitions, methodology, cost-effectiveness, adherence to infection control and more. The most intriguing suggests that "search and destroy" contains a hidden agenda: That if hospitals can demonstrate patients were carrying MRSA on admission, they may be able to make a case for any subsequent infections not being their fault — and so escape the lowered reimbursement rates that CMS proposes.
Stopping the spread of MRSA in hospitals is one of the most contentious topics in infectious disease policy right now. A small sample of the, umm, highly divergent views on the subject filled up the letters pages of the Journal of the American Medical Association last week. Community-associated MRSA has grabbed the public's attention over the past year, but hospital-acquired MRSA remains a huge problem — so much so that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has proposed treating it as a medical error and declining to reimburse hospitals for the extra care that must be given to a patient when it occurs.
Within health care, there is vociferous debate over how to control MRSA. Because MRSA can live on the skin, nostrils and other body sites for a long period of time before causing an infection — either in the person colonized by the bug or in someone else who acquired it from the colonized person — many hospitals espouse a program of checking new patients who are most likely to be carriers, including patients in high-risk units such as ICUs, new admits from long-term care facilities, and people who have had MRSA infections on the past. But a small set of institutions are pursuing a more aggressive program, variously called "active surveillance and testing," "universal screening" or "search and destroy," that checks every inpatient for MRSA colonization and confines them to isolation until the bug has cleared.
"Search and destroy" was the topic of an important JAMA paper and editorial last March that decided the effort wasn't worthwhile. (A simultaneously published paper in the Annals of Internal Medicine completely disagreed.) The five letters in JAMA tear the topic apart, examining definitions, methodology, cost-effectiveness, adherence to infection control and more. The most intriguing suggests that "search and destroy" contains a hidden agenda: That if hospitals can demonstrate patients were carrying MRSA on admission, they may be able to make a case for any subsequent infections not being their fault — and so escape the lowered reimbursement rates that CMS proposes.
27 May 2008
Hospital gives patient MRSA. Should Medicare reimburse?
You have until June 13th to tell the government what you think. Details of how to comment at the end of this post because they are complicated.
Here's the back-story: Until recently, hospitals were reimbursed by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (part of the US Department of Health and Human Services) whenever they provided care to Medicare or Medicaid patients, even if that care included a mistake, error or hospital-acquired infection. Thankfully, that is beginning to change. Last December, CMS proposed a rule change. In the agency's language:
Here's the back-story: Until recently, hospitals were reimbursed by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (part of the US Department of Health and Human Services) whenever they provided care to Medicare or Medicaid patients, even if that care included a mistake, error or hospital-acquired infection. Thankfully, that is beginning to change. Last December, CMS proposed a rule change. In the agency's language:
Beginning October 1, 2008, Medicare will no longer pay hospitals at a higher rate for the increased costs of care that result when a patient is harmed by one of several conditions they didn’t have when they were first admitted to the hospital and that have been determined to be reasonably preventable by following generally accepted guidelines. (Quoted from this press release.)In other words: Hospitals, you break it, you bought it.
These are the conditions for which, as of Oct. 1, 2008 (the first day of federal fiscal year 2009), Medicare will not reimburse:
This a complex topic and there is a long paper trail attached to it. Fact sheets are here. Definitions of the conditions, as accepted by CMS and the CDC, are here. The records of the Dec. 17. 2007 hearing in which this was discussed, including complete transcripts, is here.
Directions for how to comment electronically and by mail and hand-delivery (faxes are not accepted) are contained in this long Federal Register entry. Here is how to do it electronically:
- Object inadvertently left in after surgery
- Air embolism
- Blood incompatibility
- Catheter associated urinary tract infection
- Pressure ulcer (decubitus ulcer)
- Vascular catheter associated infection
- Surgical site infection - Mediastinitis (infection in the chest) after coronary artery bypass graft surgery
- Certain types of falls and trauma.
- Surgical site infections following certain elective procedures.
- Legionnaires’ disease (a type of pneumonia caused by a specific bacterium)
- Extreme blood sugar derangement
- Iatrogenic pneumothorax (collapse of the lung)
- Delirium
- Ventilator-associated pneumonia
- Deep vein thrombosis/Pulmonary Embolism (formation/movement of a blood clot)
- Staphylococcus aureus septicemia (bloodstream infection)
- Clostridium difficile associated disease (a bacterium that causes severe diarrhea and more serious intestinal conditions such as colitis)
This a complex topic and there is a long paper trail attached to it. Fact sheets are here. Definitions of the conditions, as accepted by CMS and the CDC, are here. The records of the Dec. 17. 2007 hearing in which this was discussed, including complete transcripts, is here.
Directions for how to comment electronically and by mail and hand-delivery (faxes are not accepted) are contained in this long Federal Register entry. Here is how to do it electronically:
- Go to http://www.regulations.gov
- Under "Comment or Submission," enter this file-code: CMS–1390–P
- Click on "Send a comment or submission" in the left-middle of the page.
- Fill out the form that comes up (you may have to page-down to see the full form).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)