Practice Economics

Imagine the following scenario: a hospitalist on the previous shift accepted a patient from another hospital and received a verbal sign-out at the time of acceptance. Now, 14 hours later, a bed at your hospital is finally available. You were advised that the patient was hemodynamically stable, but that was 8 hours ago. The patient arrives in respiratory distress with a blood pressure of 75/40, and phenylephrine running through a 20g IV in the forearm.

A 400-page printout of the patient’s electronic chart arrives – but no discharge summary is found. You are now responsible for stabilizing the patient and getting to the bottom of why your patient decompensated.

The above vignette is the “worst-case” scenario, yet it highlights how treacherous interhospital transfer can be. A recent study, published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine (doi: 10.1002/jhm.2515), found increased in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1.36 [1.29-1.43]) for medical interhospital transfer patients as compared with those admitted from the ED. When care is transferred between hospitals, additional hurdles such as lack of face-to-face sign-out, delays in transport and bed availability, and lack of electronic medical record (EMR) interoperability all contribute to miscommunication and may lead to errors in diagnosis and delay of definitive care.

Diametrically opposed to our many victories in providing technologically advanced medical care, our inability to coordinate even the most basic care across hospitals is an unfortunate reality of our fragmented health care system, and must be promptly addressed.

There currently exists no widely accepted standard of care for communication between hospitals regarding transferred patients. Commonalities include a mandatory three-way recorded physician verbal handoff and a transmission of an insurance face sheet. However, real-time concurrent EMR connectivity and clinical status updates as frequently as every 2 hours in critically ill patients are uncommon, as our own study found (doi: 10.1002/jhm.2577).

The lack of a standard of care for interhospital handoffs is, in part, why every transfer is potentially problematic. Many tertiary referral centers receive patients from more than 100 different hospitals and networks, amplifying the need for universal expectations. With differences in expectations among sending and receiving hospitals, there is ample room for variable outcomes, ranging from smooth transfers to the worst-case scenario described above. Enhanced shared decision making between providers at both hospitals, facilitated via communication tools and transfer centers, could lead to more fluid care of the transferred patient.

In order to establish standardized interhospital handoffs, a multicenter study is needed to examine outcomes of various transfer practices. A standard of communication and transfer handoff practices, based on those that lead to better outcomes, could potentially be established. Until this is studied, it is imperative that hospital systems and the government work to adopt broader EMR interoperability and radiology networks; comprehensive health information exchanges can minimize redundancy and provide real-time clinical data to make transfers safer.

Ideally, interhospital transfer should provide no more risk to a patient than a routine shift change of care providers.

Dr. Dana Herrigel is associate program director, internal medicine residency at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. Dr. Madeline Carroll is PGY-3 internal medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.

Imagine the following scenario: a hospitalist on the previous shift accepted a patient from another hospital and received a verbal sign-out at the time of acceptance. Now, 14 hours later, a bed at your hospital is finally available. You were advised that the patient was hemodynamically stable, but that was 8 hours ago. The patient arrives in respiratory distress with a blood pressure of 75/40, and phenylephrine running through a 20g IV in the forearm.

A 400-page printout of the patient’s electronic chart arrives – but no discharge summary is found. You are now responsible for stabilizing the patient and getting to the bottom of why your patient decompensated.

The above vignette is the “worst-case” scenario, yet it highlights how treacherous interhospital transfer can be. A recent study, published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine (doi: 10.1002/jhm.2515), found increased in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1.36 [1.29-1.43]) for medical interhospital transfer patients as compared with those admitted from the ED. When care is transferred between hospitals, additional hurdles such as lack of face-to-face sign-out, delays in transport and bed availability, and lack of electronic medical record (EMR) interoperability all contribute to miscommunication and may lead to errors in diagnosis and delay of definitive care.

Diametrically opposed to our many victories in providing technologically advanced medical care, our inability to coordinate even the most basic care across hospitals is an unfortunate reality of our fragmented health care system, and must be promptly addressed.

There currently exists no widely accepted standard of care for communication between hospitals regarding transferred patients. Commonalities include a mandatory three-way recorded physician verbal handoff and a transmission of an insurance face sheet. However, real-time concurrent EMR connectivity and clinical status updates as frequently as every 2 hours in critically ill patients are uncommon, as our own study found (doi: 10.1002/jhm.2577).

The lack of a standard of care for interhospital handoffs is, in part, why every transfer is potentially problematic. Many tertiary referral centers receive patients from more than 100 different hospitals and networks, amplifying the need for universal expectations. With differences in expectations among sending and receiving hospitals, there is ample room for variable outcomes, ranging from smooth transfers to the worst-case scenario described above. Enhanced shared decision making between providers at both hospitals, facilitated via communication tools and transfer centers, could lead to more fluid care of the transferred patient.

In order to establish standardized interhospital handoffs, a multicenter study is needed to examine outcomes of various transfer practices. A standard of communication and transfer handoff practices, based on those that lead to better outcomes, could potentially be established. Until this is studied, it is imperative that hospital systems and the government work to adopt broader EMR interoperability and radiology networks; comprehensive health information exchanges can minimize redundancy and provide real-time clinical data to make transfers safer.

Ideally, interhospital transfer should provide no more risk to a patient than a routine shift change of care providers.

Dr. Dana Herrigel is associate program director, internal medicine residency at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. Dr. Madeline Carroll is PGY-3 internal medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.

Imagine the following scenario: a hospitalist on the previous shift accepted a patient from another hospital and received a verbal sign-out at the time of acceptance. Now, 14 hours later, a bed at your hospital is finally available. You were advised that the patient was hemodynamically stable, but that was 8 hours ago. The patient arrives in respiratory distress with a blood pressure of 75/40, and phenylephrine running through a 20g IV in the forearm.

A 400-page printout of the patient’s electronic chart arrives – but no discharge summary is found. You are now responsible for stabilizing the patient and getting to the bottom of why your patient decompensated.

The above vignette is the “worst-case” scenario, yet it highlights how treacherous interhospital transfer can be. A recent study, published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine (doi: 10.1002/jhm.2515), found increased in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1.36 [1.29-1.43]) for medical interhospital transfer patients as compared with those admitted from the ED. When care is transferred between hospitals, additional hurdles such as lack of face-to-face sign-out, delays in transport and bed availability, and lack of electronic medical record (EMR) interoperability all contribute to miscommunication and may lead to errors in diagnosis and delay of definitive care.

Diametrically opposed to our many victories in providing technologically advanced medical care, our inability to coordinate even the most basic care across hospitals is an unfortunate reality of our fragmented health care system, and must be promptly addressed.

There currently exists no widely accepted standard of care for communication between hospitals regarding transferred patients. Commonalities include a mandatory three-way recorded physician verbal handoff and a transmission of an insurance face sheet. However, real-time concurrent EMR connectivity and clinical status updates as frequently as every 2 hours in critically ill patients are uncommon, as our own study found (doi: 10.1002/jhm.2577).

The lack of a standard of care for interhospital handoffs is, in part, why every transfer is potentially problematic. Many tertiary referral centers receive patients from more than 100 different hospitals and networks, amplifying the need for universal expectations. With differences in expectations among sending and receiving hospitals, there is ample room for variable outcomes, ranging from smooth transfers to the worst-case scenario described above. Enhanced shared decision making between providers at both hospitals, facilitated via communication tools and transfer centers, could lead to more fluid care of the transferred patient.

In order to establish standardized interhospital handoffs, a multicenter study is needed to examine outcomes of various transfer practices. A standard of communication and transfer handoff practices, based on those that lead to better outcomes, could potentially be established. Until this is studied, it is imperative that hospital systems and the government work to adopt broader EMR interoperability and radiology networks; comprehensive health information exchanges can minimize redundancy and provide real-time clinical data to make transfers safer.

Ideally, interhospital transfer should provide no more risk to a patient than a routine shift change of care providers.

Dr. Dana Herrigel is associate program director, internal medicine residency at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. Dr. Madeline Carroll is PGY-3 internal medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.

Linden Spital, NP, a psychiatric mental-health nurse practitioner, staffs the Psychiatric Consultation Liaison Service at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Nearly every hospital larger than about 200 beds, she says, could benefit from a similar service, and hospitalists could play an important role in creating it.

I wrote about the idea for a generally similar service in my April 2015 column, but at the time, I didn’t know of an institution that had something like this in place.

Along with her hospitalist colleagues, Anupama (Anu) Goyal, MBChB, and Rob Chang, MD, Linden has launched a service to provide assistance to bedside caregivers dealing with very difficult patients (eg, those who are verbally or physically threatening to staff, unreasonably demanding and angry, have bizarre behavior, etc.).

Sample Cases

Two recent cases illustrate the role of the service. A female patient in her 60s had several admissions characterized by what many caregivers agreed were unreasonably precise demands regarding how her care should be delivered. She was verbally abusive of caregivers, especially those who were young or of a different race, and her family member tended to reinforce these maladaptive behaviors. Staff found it very stressful to care for her and had concerns that her care suffered as a result.

Linden served as a resource and support for staff, plus worked with providers to set limits on the patient and family behavior and to separate patient behaviors that were and weren’t modifiable. Linden’s efforts helped clarify the goals for the patient’s care and reduced staff distress. Even though the patient’s behavior didn’t change significantly, staff anecdotally reported less distress and concern that the patient’s care suffered as a result.

Another case involved a man in his 50s who had a progressive neurodegenerative disease and was admitted because of increasingly aggressive behavior in his skilled-nursing facility (SNF). Providers at the SNF attributed the poor behavior to changes in medications. His behavior was very difficult to manage, and staff asked for Linden’s help. She worked with the patient and realized much of his difficult behavior stemmed from his frustration with communicating verbally because of his neurologic disease. Rather than pursue increasing psychotropics, Linden promoted efforts to develop a system of hand signals the patient could use to communicate needs. His behavior improved, presumably by reducing his own frustration and improving his autonomy.

Atypical Consults

This psychiatric consultation liaison service has some overlap with traditional inpatient psychiatry services, but it is configured so that the caregiver is essentially embedded on the medical units of the hospital and assists in the care of patients who wouldn’t typically be appropriate for a psychiatry consult. For example, patients and/or families who act out because of anger over being on observation status are appropriate for this service but would usually not be appropriate for a psychiatry consult. The two examples above aren’t ideal cases for a standard psychiatry consult; however, the attending hospitalist needed help nonetheless.

Operational Details

The liaison service started with a successful trial on two hospital units in 2013. Linden began serving as the sole clinician on the service in January 2015. She is available during the daytime on weekdays, and any staff can request her participation in the care of a patient. Her visits are billed when appropriate, but many aren’t billed (for example, if her primary work was to conference with staff regarding management of a patient).

Consults can be requested by anyone (nurses, etc., as well as physicians, though only the latter would be billable) via an electronic health record entry that helps ensure whether the request is for this service versus the inpatient psychiatry service. The order includes a standard list of potential reasons for consult that can be selected and amplified with free text comments. She also receives verbal consult requests as she moves through the hospital.

Linden’s position is budgeted through the psychiatry department and funded by the hospital with only modest professional fee collections.

An Idea That Is Catching On?

Anu Goyal made me aware of a study from 2004 that summarized findings from experience with a similar service at Washington University in St. Louis, but the service was cancelled after a short time due to its cost.1 She also found a few studies from the 1990s and a 2001 study from Australia that report on a similar service.

But maybe the idea is catching on again, at least a little.

On April 25, The Wall Street Journal published an article titled “Hospitals Test Putting Psychiatrists on Medical Wards.”2 It described programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, and NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center in New York City. They share some similarities with the service at the University of Michigan. However, according to the article, the three big-city programs tilt more toward a traditional consultation model than what Linden does.

I think every hospital should be thinking about a service other than traditional consult psychiatry that could help with challenging patient behavior. The University of Michigan model or similar ones seem like a good place to start. TH

Reference

1. Yakimo R, Kurlowicz L, Murray R. Evaluation of outcomes in psychiatric consultation-liaison nursing practice. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2004;18(6):215-227.

   2. Ladnado L. Hospitals test putting psychiatrists on medical wards. The Wall Street Journal website. Accessed July 3, 2016.

Linden Spital, NP, a psychiatric mental-health nurse practitioner, staffs the Psychiatric Consultation Liaison Service at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Nearly every hospital larger than about 200 beds, she says, could benefit from a similar service, and hospitalists could play an important role in creating it.

I wrote about the idea for a generally similar service in my April 2015 column, but at the time, I didn’t know of an institution that had something like this in place.

Along with her hospitalist colleagues, Anupama (Anu) Goyal, MBChB, and Rob Chang, MD, Linden has launched a service to provide assistance to bedside caregivers dealing with very difficult patients (eg, those who are verbally or physically threatening to staff, unreasonably demanding and angry, have bizarre behavior, etc.).

Sample Cases

Two recent cases illustrate the role of the service. A female patient in her 60s had several admissions characterized by what many caregivers agreed were unreasonably precise demands regarding how her care should be delivered. She was verbally abusive of caregivers, especially those who were young or of a different race, and her family member tended to reinforce these maladaptive behaviors. Staff found it very stressful to care for her and had concerns that her care suffered as a result.

Linden served as a resource and support for staff, plus worked with providers to set limits on the patient and family behavior and to separate patient behaviors that were and weren’t modifiable. Linden’s efforts helped clarify the goals for the patient’s care and reduced staff distress. Even though the patient’s behavior didn’t change significantly, staff anecdotally reported less distress and concern that the patient’s care suffered as a result.

Another case involved a man in his 50s who had a progressive neurodegenerative disease and was admitted because of increasingly aggressive behavior in his skilled-nursing facility (SNF). Providers at the SNF attributed the poor behavior to changes in medications. His behavior was very difficult to manage, and staff asked for Linden’s help. She worked with the patient and realized much of his difficult behavior stemmed from his frustration with communicating verbally because of his neurologic disease. Rather than pursue increasing psychotropics, Linden promoted efforts to develop a system of hand signals the patient could use to communicate needs. His behavior improved, presumably by reducing his own frustration and improving his autonomy.

Atypical Consults

This psychiatric consultation liaison service has some overlap with traditional inpatient psychiatry services, but it is configured so that the caregiver is essentially embedded on the medical units of the hospital and assists in the care of patients who wouldn’t typically be appropriate for a psychiatry consult. For example, patients and/or families who act out because of anger over being on observation status are appropriate for this service but would usually not be appropriate for a psychiatry consult. The two examples above aren’t ideal cases for a standard psychiatry consult; however, the attending hospitalist needed help nonetheless.

Operational Details

The liaison service started with a successful trial on two hospital units in 2013. Linden began serving as the sole clinician on the service in January 2015. She is available during the daytime on weekdays, and any staff can request her participation in the care of a patient. Her visits are billed when appropriate, but many aren’t billed (for example, if her primary work was to conference with staff regarding management of a patient).

Consults can be requested by anyone (nurses, etc., as well as physicians, though only the latter would be billable) via an electronic health record entry that helps ensure whether the request is for this service versus the inpatient psychiatry service. The order includes a standard list of potential reasons for consult that can be selected and amplified with free text comments. She also receives verbal consult requests as she moves through the hospital.

Linden’s position is budgeted through the psychiatry department and funded by the hospital with only modest professional fee collections.

An Idea That Is Catching On?

Anu Goyal made me aware of a study from 2004 that summarized findings from experience with a similar service at Washington University in St. Louis, but the service was cancelled after a short time due to its cost.1 She also found a few studies from the 1990s and a 2001 study from Australia that report on a similar service.

But maybe the idea is catching on again, at least a little.

On April 25, The Wall Street Journal published an article titled “Hospitals Test Putting Psychiatrists on Medical Wards.”2 It described programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, and NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center in New York City. They share some similarities with the service at the University of Michigan. However, according to the article, the three big-city programs tilt more toward a traditional consultation model than what Linden does.

I think every hospital should be thinking about a service other than traditional consult psychiatry that could help with challenging patient behavior. The University of Michigan model or similar ones seem like a good place to start. TH

Reference

1. Yakimo R, Kurlowicz L, Murray R. Evaluation of outcomes in psychiatric consultation-liaison nursing practice. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2004;18(6):215-227.

   2. Ladnado L. Hospitals test putting psychiatrists on medical wards. The Wall Street Journal website. Accessed July 3, 2016.

Linden Spital, NP, a psychiatric mental-health nurse practitioner, staffs the Psychiatric Consultation Liaison Service at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Nearly every hospital larger than about 200 beds, she says, could benefit from a similar service, and hospitalists could play an important role in creating it.

I wrote about the idea for a generally similar service in my April 2015 column, but at the time, I didn’t know of an institution that had something like this in place.

Along with her hospitalist colleagues, Anupama (Anu) Goyal, MBChB, and Rob Chang, MD, Linden has launched a service to provide assistance to bedside caregivers dealing with very difficult patients (eg, those who are verbally or physically threatening to staff, unreasonably demanding and angry, have bizarre behavior, etc.).

Sample Cases

Two recent cases illustrate the role of the service. A female patient in her 60s had several admissions characterized by what many caregivers agreed were unreasonably precise demands regarding how her care should be delivered. She was verbally abusive of caregivers, especially those who were young or of a different race, and her family member tended to reinforce these maladaptive behaviors. Staff found it very stressful to care for her and had concerns that her care suffered as a result.

Linden served as a resource and support for staff, plus worked with providers to set limits on the patient and family behavior and to separate patient behaviors that were and weren’t modifiable. Linden’s efforts helped clarify the goals for the patient’s care and reduced staff distress. Even though the patient’s behavior didn’t change significantly, staff anecdotally reported less distress and concern that the patient’s care suffered as a result.

Another case involved a man in his 50s who had a progressive neurodegenerative disease and was admitted because of increasingly aggressive behavior in his skilled-nursing facility (SNF). Providers at the SNF attributed the poor behavior to changes in medications. His behavior was very difficult to manage, and staff asked for Linden’s help. She worked with the patient and realized much of his difficult behavior stemmed from his frustration with communicating verbally because of his neurologic disease. Rather than pursue increasing psychotropics, Linden promoted efforts to develop a system of hand signals the patient could use to communicate needs. His behavior improved, presumably by reducing his own frustration and improving his autonomy.

Atypical Consults

This psychiatric consultation liaison service has some overlap with traditional inpatient psychiatry services, but it is configured so that the caregiver is essentially embedded on the medical units of the hospital and assists in the care of patients who wouldn’t typically be appropriate for a psychiatry consult. For example, patients and/or families who act out because of anger over being on observation status are appropriate for this service but would usually not be appropriate for a psychiatry consult. The two examples above aren’t ideal cases for a standard psychiatry consult; however, the attending hospitalist needed help nonetheless.

Operational Details

The liaison service started with a successful trial on two hospital units in 2013. Linden began serving as the sole clinician on the service in January 2015. She is available during the daytime on weekdays, and any staff can request her participation in the care of a patient. Her visits are billed when appropriate, but many aren’t billed (for example, if her primary work was to conference with staff regarding management of a patient).

Consults can be requested by anyone (nurses, etc., as well as physicians, though only the latter would be billable) via an electronic health record entry that helps ensure whether the request is for this service versus the inpatient psychiatry service. The order includes a standard list of potential reasons for consult that can be selected and amplified with free text comments. She also receives verbal consult requests as she moves through the hospital.

Linden’s position is budgeted through the psychiatry department and funded by the hospital with only modest professional fee collections.

An Idea That Is Catching On?

Anu Goyal made me aware of a study from 2004 that summarized findings from experience with a similar service at Washington University in St. Louis, but the service was cancelled after a short time due to its cost.1 She also found a few studies from the 1990s and a 2001 study from Australia that report on a similar service.

But maybe the idea is catching on again, at least a little.

On April 25, The Wall Street Journal published an article titled “Hospitals Test Putting Psychiatrists on Medical Wards.”2 It described programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, and NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center in New York City. They share some similarities with the service at the University of Michigan. However, according to the article, the three big-city programs tilt more toward a traditional consultation model than what Linden does.

I think every hospital should be thinking about a service other than traditional consult psychiatry that could help with challenging patient behavior. The University of Michigan model or similar ones seem like a good place to start. TH

Reference

1. Yakimo R, Kurlowicz L, Murray R. Evaluation of outcomes in psychiatric consultation-liaison nursing practice. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2004;18(6):215-227.

   2. Ladnado L. Hospitals test putting psychiatrists on medical wards. The Wall Street Journal website. Accessed July 3, 2016.

Facilitators: Christopher Russo, MD, FAAP, Laura Hodo, MD, and Lauren Wilson, MD

This session discussed ways to design and improve education within community hospital settings. It was done via a didactic session, breakout groups, and an electronic assessment tool that can be used beyond the session. Facilitators included the workshop leaders and co-leaders along with current PHM fellows and educators from community and academic settings.

During the didactic session a general background of importance of education during times of increasing academic and community site affiliations was discussed. This included the strengths of community hospitals for learners such as “appropriate learner autonomy”, “exposure to different career paths”, and “transfer decision-making”.

Some of the challenges discussed in regards to developing an educational structure in community settings included:

1. Logistics

   • Making the case for education
   • Legal framework (i.e. Affiliation agreements, Liability)
   • Finances (i.e. GME funding)
   • Paperwork burden (ex. Licensing, Credentialing)

2. Learning Environment

   • Complementing clinical work with materials
   • Autonomy/Supervision balancing
   • Developing Clinical teachers

The didactic session also reviewed the 6 steps for curriculum development: General Needs Assessment, Targeted Needs Assessment, Goals and Objectives, Educational Strategies, Implementation, and Evaluation/Feedback. Each of these was described in further detail with relevant examples.

Groups were broken out into small groups based on four learner types: Medical Students, Family Medicine Residents, Pediatric Residents, and PHM Fellows. Within each group a “Program Development Matrix” was distributed to assess the support from leadership and logistics within each setting. Each one of these was separated into subgroups such as credentialing, financial support, housing/travel, and preceptor recruitment.

A separate “Curriculum Development Matrix” was utilized during breakout groups that focused on curriculum development. This matrix was broken into 3 areas: Educational Strategies, Implementation, and Evaluation/Feedback. These were broken down into subgroups such as content, identifying resources, and remediation planning. The group was asked to determine short and long term goals with action steps for both of these matrix subgroups.

Overall the session presented a structured way of assessing the educational environment for learners in community settings. It gave tangible tools to develop a needs assessment and planning to achieve the defined goals that can be readily used by sites who wish to develop or improve their current educational framework.

Facilitators: Christopher Russo, MD, FAAP, Laura Hodo, MD, and Lauren Wilson, MD

This session discussed ways to design and improve education within community hospital settings. It was done via a didactic session, breakout groups, and an electronic assessment tool that can be used beyond the session. Facilitators included the workshop leaders and co-leaders along with current PHM fellows and educators from community and academic settings.

During the didactic session a general background of importance of education during times of increasing academic and community site affiliations was discussed. This included the strengths of community hospitals for learners such as “appropriate learner autonomy”, “exposure to different career paths”, and “transfer decision-making”.

Some of the challenges discussed in regards to developing an educational structure in community settings included:

1. Logistics

   • Making the case for education
   • Legal framework (i.e. Affiliation agreements, Liability)
   • Finances (i.e. GME funding)
   • Paperwork burden (ex. Licensing, Credentialing)

2. Learning Environment

   • Complementing clinical work with materials
   • Autonomy/Supervision balancing
   • Developing Clinical teachers

The didactic session also reviewed the 6 steps for curriculum development: General Needs Assessment, Targeted Needs Assessment, Goals and Objectives, Educational Strategies, Implementation, and Evaluation/Feedback. Each of these was described in further detail with relevant examples.

Groups were broken out into small groups based on four learner types: Medical Students, Family Medicine Residents, Pediatric Residents, and PHM Fellows. Within each group a “Program Development Matrix” was distributed to assess the support from leadership and logistics within each setting. Each one of these was separated into subgroups such as credentialing, financial support, housing/travel, and preceptor recruitment.

A separate “Curriculum Development Matrix” was utilized during breakout groups that focused on curriculum development. This matrix was broken into 3 areas: Educational Strategies, Implementation, and Evaluation/Feedback. These were broken down into subgroups such as content, identifying resources, and remediation planning. The group was asked to determine short and long term goals with action steps for both of these matrix subgroups.

Overall the session presented a structured way of assessing the educational environment for learners in community settings. It gave tangible tools to develop a needs assessment and planning to achieve the defined goals that can be readily used by sites who wish to develop or improve their current educational framework.

Facilitators: Christopher Russo, MD, FAAP, Laura Hodo, MD, and Lauren Wilson, MD

This session discussed ways to design and improve education within community hospital settings. It was done via a didactic session, breakout groups, and an electronic assessment tool that can be used beyond the session. Facilitators included the workshop leaders and co-leaders along with current PHM fellows and educators from community and academic settings.

During the didactic session a general background of importance of education during times of increasing academic and community site affiliations was discussed. This included the strengths of community hospitals for learners such as “appropriate learner autonomy”, “exposure to different career paths”, and “transfer decision-making”.

Some of the challenges discussed in regards to developing an educational structure in community settings included:

1. Logistics

   • Making the case for education
   • Legal framework (i.e. Affiliation agreements, Liability)
   • Finances (i.e. GME funding)
   • Paperwork burden (ex. Licensing, Credentialing)

2. Learning Environment

   • Complementing clinical work with materials
   • Autonomy/Supervision balancing
   • Developing Clinical teachers

The didactic session also reviewed the 6 steps for curriculum development: General Needs Assessment, Targeted Needs Assessment, Goals and Objectives, Educational Strategies, Implementation, and Evaluation/Feedback. Each of these was described in further detail with relevant examples.

Groups were broken out into small groups based on four learner types: Medical Students, Family Medicine Residents, Pediatric Residents, and PHM Fellows. Within each group a “Program Development Matrix” was distributed to assess the support from leadership and logistics within each setting. Each one of these was separated into subgroups such as credentialing, financial support, housing/travel, and preceptor recruitment.

A separate “Curriculum Development Matrix” was utilized during breakout groups that focused on curriculum development. This matrix was broken into 3 areas: Educational Strategies, Implementation, and Evaluation/Feedback. These were broken down into subgroups such as content, identifying resources, and remediation planning. The group was asked to determine short and long term goals with action steps for both of these matrix subgroups.

Overall the session presented a structured way of assessing the educational environment for learners in community settings. It gave tangible tools to develop a needs assessment and planning to achieve the defined goals that can be readily used by sites who wish to develop or improve their current educational framework.

ORLANDO – An integrated care model that includes a hematologist, a specialized hematology nurse, a physical therapist, a social worker, and 24/7 access to a specialized coagulation laboratory is recommended in a new hemophilia care guideline jointly developed by the National Hemophilia Foundation and McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.

The guideline has been formally accepted for inclusion in the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), the National Hemophilia Foundation announced at its annual meeting, held immediately before the World Hemophilia Foundation World Congress here.

©designer491/Thinkstock

“The integrated care model, as is utilized within the U.S. federally funded network of hemophilia treatment centers (HTCs), should be advocated for optimal care of persons with hemophilia,” wrote guideline coauthors Steven W. Pipe, MD, from the University of Michigan School of Medicine in Ann Arbor, and Craig M. Kessler, MD, from Georgetown University in Washington, in an introduction to the guideline, published in the journal Hemophilia.

Developed according to evidence-based principles, the guideline is hoped to “promote harmonization of care delivery and reduce practice variations within the U.S. HTC network. This guideline will inform the HTC network how best to prioritize additional ‘high-value’ research to fill data gaps or strengthen the evidence base as outlined in the manuscript,” they added.

The guideline authors recognized three basic models of care in use in the United States:

The integrated care, comprehensive care, or HTC model, which generally assumes that all aspects of care will be delivered in a specialized center.

Specialist-based care, under which a hematologist may or may not have training in the management of patients with hemophilia, is provided in a hospital or medical office, but not in a specialized center.

Non-specialist care, delivered in an emergency department or primary care practitioners office.

“We believe that the ‘No Care’ model, theoretically indicating complete absence of care, does not currently operate in the U.S. Yet, this is likely the de facto model of care for many individuals with hemophilia who do not have access to care due to profound resource constraints, particularly in developing countries or underserved minorities,” the authors wrote.

The guideline’s main recommendation – that the integrated-care model is preferable to the non-integrated care model – is conditional, with moderate certainty in the evidence.

For persons with hemophilia with inhibitors to clotting factors, however, the integrated-care model recommendation is considered to be strong, with moderate certainty.

The guideline development panel found that there were significant gaps in evidence for the benefits of integrated care for specific populations such as older patients and populations with poor access to care, and called for additional studies to clarify these questions.

Additionally, the panelists call for study into which specific interventions or aspects of care should be included in the integrated model, and for more in-depth studies into the effects on patient-important outcomes.

“This collaborative project constitutes an important milestone on a critical component of evidence-based guideline methodology,” Alfonso Iorio, MD, PhD, from the Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics at McMaster University, said in a press statement. “It demonstrates how a patient advocacy organization can promote and support a guideline process, in the true spirit of patient involvement in research and care process, without compromising a rigorous and transparent conflict of interest management process.”

The guidelines were funded by the National Hemophilia Foundation. Several guideline panelists reported financial relationships with companies that make clotting factors and other products for persons with hemophilia.

ORLANDO – An integrated care model that includes a hematologist, a specialized hematology nurse, a physical therapist, a social worker, and 24/7 access to a specialized coagulation laboratory is recommended in a new hemophilia care guideline jointly developed by the National Hemophilia Foundation and McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.

The guideline has been formally accepted for inclusion in the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), the National Hemophilia Foundation announced at its annual meeting, held immediately before the World Hemophilia Foundation World Congress here.

©designer491/Thinkstock

“The integrated care model, as is utilized within the U.S. federally funded network of hemophilia treatment centers (HTCs), should be advocated for optimal care of persons with hemophilia,” wrote guideline coauthors Steven W. Pipe, MD, from the University of Michigan School of Medicine in Ann Arbor, and Craig M. Kessler, MD, from Georgetown University in Washington, in an introduction to the guideline, published in the journal Hemophilia.

Developed according to evidence-based principles, the guideline is hoped to “promote harmonization of care delivery and reduce practice variations within the U.S. HTC network. This guideline will inform the HTC network how best to prioritize additional ‘high-value’ research to fill data gaps or strengthen the evidence base as outlined in the manuscript,” they added.

The guideline authors recognized three basic models of care in use in the United States:

The integrated care, comprehensive care, or HTC model, which generally assumes that all aspects of care will be delivered in a specialized center.

Specialist-based care, under which a hematologist may or may not have training in the management of patients with hemophilia, is provided in a hospital or medical office, but not in a specialized center.

Non-specialist care, delivered in an emergency department or primary care practitioners office.

“We believe that the ‘No Care’ model, theoretically indicating complete absence of care, does not currently operate in the U.S. Yet, this is likely the de facto model of care for many individuals with hemophilia who do not have access to care due to profound resource constraints, particularly in developing countries or underserved minorities,” the authors wrote.

The guideline’s main recommendation – that the integrated-care model is preferable to the non-integrated care model – is conditional, with moderate certainty in the evidence.

For persons with hemophilia with inhibitors to clotting factors, however, the integrated-care model recommendation is considered to be strong, with moderate certainty.

The guideline development panel found that there were significant gaps in evidence for the benefits of integrated care for specific populations such as older patients and populations with poor access to care, and called for additional studies to clarify these questions.

Additionally, the panelists call for study into which specific interventions or aspects of care should be included in the integrated model, and for more in-depth studies into the effects on patient-important outcomes.

“This collaborative project constitutes an important milestone on a critical component of evidence-based guideline methodology,” Alfonso Iorio, MD, PhD, from the Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics at McMaster University, said in a press statement. “It demonstrates how a patient advocacy organization can promote and support a guideline process, in the true spirit of patient involvement in research and care process, without compromising a rigorous and transparent conflict of interest management process.”

The guidelines were funded by the National Hemophilia Foundation. Several guideline panelists reported financial relationships with companies that make clotting factors and other products for persons with hemophilia.

ORLANDO – An integrated care model that includes a hematologist, a specialized hematology nurse, a physical therapist, a social worker, and 24/7 access to a specialized coagulation laboratory is recommended in a new hemophilia care guideline jointly developed by the National Hemophilia Foundation and McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.

The guideline has been formally accepted for inclusion in the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), the National Hemophilia Foundation announced at its annual meeting, held immediately before the World Hemophilia Foundation World Congress here.

©designer491/Thinkstock

“The integrated care model, as is utilized within the U.S. federally funded network of hemophilia treatment centers (HTCs), should be advocated for optimal care of persons with hemophilia,” wrote guideline coauthors Steven W. Pipe, MD, from the University of Michigan School of Medicine in Ann Arbor, and Craig M. Kessler, MD, from Georgetown University in Washington, in an introduction to the guideline, published in the journal Hemophilia.

Developed according to evidence-based principles, the guideline is hoped to “promote harmonization of care delivery and reduce practice variations within the U.S. HTC network. This guideline will inform the HTC network how best to prioritize additional ‘high-value’ research to fill data gaps or strengthen the evidence base as outlined in the manuscript,” they added.

The guideline authors recognized three basic models of care in use in the United States:

The integrated care, comprehensive care, or HTC model, which generally assumes that all aspects of care will be delivered in a specialized center.

Specialist-based care, under which a hematologist may or may not have training in the management of patients with hemophilia, is provided in a hospital or medical office, but not in a specialized center.

Non-specialist care, delivered in an emergency department or primary care practitioners office.

“We believe that the ‘No Care’ model, theoretically indicating complete absence of care, does not currently operate in the U.S. Yet, this is likely the de facto model of care for many individuals with hemophilia who do not have access to care due to profound resource constraints, particularly in developing countries or underserved minorities,” the authors wrote.

The guideline’s main recommendation – that the integrated-care model is preferable to the non-integrated care model – is conditional, with moderate certainty in the evidence.

For persons with hemophilia with inhibitors to clotting factors, however, the integrated-care model recommendation is considered to be strong, with moderate certainty.

The guideline development panel found that there were significant gaps in evidence for the benefits of integrated care for specific populations such as older patients and populations with poor access to care, and called for additional studies to clarify these questions.

Additionally, the panelists call for study into which specific interventions or aspects of care should be included in the integrated model, and for more in-depth studies into the effects on patient-important outcomes.

“This collaborative project constitutes an important milestone on a critical component of evidence-based guideline methodology,” Alfonso Iorio, MD, PhD, from the Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics at McMaster University, said in a press statement. “It demonstrates how a patient advocacy organization can promote and support a guideline process, in the true spirit of patient involvement in research and care process, without compromising a rigorous and transparent conflict of interest management process.”

The guidelines were funded by the National Hemophilia Foundation. Several guideline panelists reported financial relationships with companies that make clotting factors and other products for persons with hemophilia.

Like most physicians, Dr. Susan Hardwick-Smith was used to receiving the occasional negative online review about her practice. But a biting post from several years ago was so wrenching that it nearly drove the Houston ob.gyn. out of medicine for good.

The patient blasted Dr. Hardwick-Smith on a popular review site about her care during a delivery and accused the doctor of attempting to force an unnecessary C-section. The account was inaccurate, but privacy laws prevented Dr. Hardwick-Smith from defending herself online or sharing details of the actual encounter, she said.

“She wrote this very detailed account of what a terrible doctor I was, and in my version of reality, I had saved her baby’s life,” said Dr. Hardwick-Smith. “I felt extremely powerless. I lost a lot of sleep over it, and I was considering giving up delivering babies. It was a real turning point for me.”

Rather than hanging up her white coat, Dr. Hardwick-Smith began working with an online reputation company – eMerit – that works to dilute negative reviews by soliciting a greater number of reviews from patients. The offensive post is now buried under hundreds of other reviews that are primarily positive, she said.

Hiring a reputation management company is one strategy for coping with negative online reviews. But cyberlaw experts stress that removing negative posts altogether is no easy feat. The best move to take often depends on the post, the patient, and the circumstance.

By now, it’s no secret that negative online reviews can significantly impact a medical practice, from influencing patient recruitment to affecting practice revenue to ruining a reputation. A 2015 survey of 2,354 consumers by search marketing firm BrightLocal found that 92% of consumers read online reviews – up from 67% in 2010 – and 40% of consumers had formed an opinion by reading just one to three reviews. Of 2,137 patients who viewed online reviews, 35% selected a physician based on positive reviews, while 37% avoided doctors with negative reviews, according to a 2014 study in JAMA (doi:10.1001/jama.2013.283194).

Reviews have become a strong force in the health care industry, said Peter Yelkovac, an online defamation attorney in Northern Indiana.

“Online reviews have really replaced the common ‘word of mouth’ that used to be the primary source for doctors referrals,” Mr. Yelkovac said in an interview. “Now, [patients] go online. Anyone can type anything they want, whether it’s truthful, untruthful, positive, indifferent, or negative.”

Doctor vs. website

In some cases, contacting a website administrator and requesting a review be removed can end the dilemma, said Michael J. Sacopulos, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Terre Haute, Ind.

Rating sites generally have “terms of use,” and posts that violate the terms usually will be taken down by site administrators with some nudging, Mr. Sacopulos said in an interview. Other sites have “strike policies,” where a reviewee can request that one or two negative reviews be removed.

Still other sites are not as accommodating. Amazon, for instance, has immunity against content posted on the site, Mr. Sacopulos said. Under the Communications Decency Act, interactive computer services, such as a consumer review website, cannot be liable for content independently created or developed by third-party users. Such sites are hardly motivated to remove negative comments when racy posts can drive traffic to the site, he said.

Eric M. Joseph, MD, a facial plastic surgeon in West Orange, N.J., learned this lesson firsthand when he attempted to have a video removed from YouTube. A poster had uploaded copyright-protected before and after photos from Dr. Joseph’s practice onto YouTube and made disparaging comments about the patients in a video that went viral. Dr. Joseph and the patient both flagged the video for removal, but to no avail.

“It was impossible to [talk to] a human being at Google,” Dr, Joseph said. “It almost didn’t come down, and we were in conversations about suing Google. It took months and a cyberattorney who specializes in copyright infringement.”

The video finally was removed, but not before Dr. Joseph spent $6,000 in legal fees and experienced significant distress from the incident. Although most reviews about his practice are positive, he said, it’s difficult not to be affected by negative posts.

“From a psychological standpoint, it stings,” he said. “The burn of a negative review outweighs the sweetness of a positive review 100 times.”

Reputation companies to the rescue?

Like Dr. Hardwick-Smith, Dr. Joseph has utilized the online reputation management company eMerit to improve his online presence. The company gathers reviews from patients at the point of service and posts them to dominate review sites.

The solution to pollution is dilution, which means counterbalancing negative reviews with more representative reviews,” said Jeffrey Segal, MD, a neurosurgeon and attorney, and the founder of eMerit. “The next step is to deescalate conflict if you know who the patient is – to see if the patient problem can be resolved. Typically a patient is pleasantly surprised that you took the effort to call. Because the bar is so low, it’s very easy to exceed it.”

Physicians subscribe to eMerit on a month-to-month basis, paying $100-$600 a month, depending on the practice’s needs, Dr. Segal said. He touted a greater than 90% renewal rate, and said eMerit has captured and uploaded more than 150,000 patient reviews since its inception.

For the online reputation management company Reputation.com, health care providers have become one of the its most frequent clients, said Michael Fertik, company founder. Reputation.com solicits reviews from patients after appointments and ensures their visibility on top review sites. The platform also integrates reviews from general and health care review sites to help providers address patient feedback and receive alerts when negative reviews are posted. Rates start at $50 a month.

Mr. Fertik noted that more reviews not only overtake negative posts, but they make physicians easier to find by patients.

“If you have more than 10-15 reviews, you have a higher chance of getting a new patient because the search engine is going to favor doctors that have more reviews,” he said. “Doctors that have a small number of reviews don’t exist as far as search engines are concerned.”

However, all online reputation management firms are not equal, Mr. Sacopulos warned. Some are unfamiliar with the health care space, while others are unclear on health care privacy regulations. Mr. Sacopulos learned of a company that was sending patients texts to request reviews, which was likely a privacy violation and a violation of the Telecommunications Act, he said.

““Some [companies] are much more credible, and they understand health care law more than others,” he said. “Some have the technological capabilities to do things, but don’t understand the legal environment, so you need to be very careful [about whom] you pick.”

Time to sue?

Litigation is generally the last resort to fighting unfavorable online reviews. If a doctor believes a review is unfair or defamatory, and all other efforts have been exhausted, a lawyer may be able to help, Mr. Yelkovac said.

“When someone says, ‘I want to sue,’ that’s a possibility, but that’s typically far down the road,” he said. “Lawsuits are expensive. Lawsuits have an unknown outcome, and I would say, many times when you do sue for defamation, [the poster] may or may not have a lot of money, so you may end up spending a lot of money and you don’t recover anything from the patient.”

The majority of the lawsuits Mr. Yelkovac handles related to online reviews seek to unmask the poster with the aid of subpoenas and at times computer forensics, he said. From there, doctors can decide which action to take, such as contacting the poster and asking to have the comment removed.

“Sometimes it’s a surprise,” he said. “Sometimes it’s an ex-employee. Sometimes it’s a family member, or it could potentially be a competitor. Many times it’s not even a patient, and sometimes it’s a patient [who] the doctor never thought would post a review.”

Reviews and malpractice risk

Remember that not all unfavorable reviews are necessarily negative for physicians, said Brant Avondet, founder of Searchlight Enterprises, a malpractice risk prediction and online physician ratings research company.

A pattern of reviews that express the same concerns or frustrations by patients can be used to address and change internal policies and problems, such as multiple complaints about long wait times or a crowded parking lot, he said. Perhaps the front desk staff is repeatedly unfriendly to patients. Taking steps to correct these concerns could help in the long run, Mr. Avondet said.

Searchlight Enterprises recently presented study findings about a suggested link between online ratings and legal risk for physicians at a national medical insurance conference. Mr. Avondet and his colleagues evaluated claims data for 4,000 Florida physicians from the Florida Healthcare Practitioner Data Portal from 2000 to 2016 and studied online physician reviews from top rating sites. Doctors were grouped into three categories: surgical, ob.gyn., and “other” specialties. Findings showed the bottom 10% of surgeons studied (those with the worst online reviews) had 150% as many claims as the average for all surgeons. Surgeons in the top 20% (doctors with the best online reviews) had roughly half of the risk of a claim, compared with the average surgeon. Similar results were found for ob.gyns. and other specialties.

“Low and behold, there’s a huge correlation,” Mr. Avondet said. “There’s no shadow of a doubt that there’s something there that predicts your malpractice risk based on how nice or mean you are in the eyes of the patient.”

Mr. Avondet said he encourages physicians to use online reviews to make improvements, thus lowering their liability.

“Look at these reviews as a lens into your practice and things you might need to correct,” he said. “Use it as [insight] for how you can improve your practice and decrease the risk of getting sued.”

agallegos@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @legal_med

Like most physicians, Dr. Susan Hardwick-Smith was used to receiving the occasional negative online review about her practice. But a biting post from several years ago was so wrenching that it nearly drove the Houston ob.gyn. out of medicine for good.

The patient blasted Dr. Hardwick-Smith on a popular review site about her care during a delivery and accused the doctor of attempting to force an unnecessary C-section. The account was inaccurate, but privacy laws prevented Dr. Hardwick-Smith from defending herself online or sharing details of the actual encounter, she said.

“She wrote this very detailed account of what a terrible doctor I was, and in my version of reality, I had saved her baby’s life,” said Dr. Hardwick-Smith. “I felt extremely powerless. I lost a lot of sleep over it, and I was considering giving up delivering babies. It was a real turning point for me.”

Rather than hanging up her white coat, Dr. Hardwick-Smith began working with an online reputation company – eMerit – that works to dilute negative reviews by soliciting a greater number of reviews from patients. The offensive post is now buried under hundreds of other reviews that are primarily positive, she said.

Hiring a reputation management company is one strategy for coping with negative online reviews. But cyberlaw experts stress that removing negative posts altogether is no easy feat. The best move to take often depends on the post, the patient, and the circumstance.

By now, it’s no secret that negative online reviews can significantly impact a medical practice, from influencing patient recruitment to affecting practice revenue to ruining a reputation. A 2015 survey of 2,354 consumers by search marketing firm BrightLocal found that 92% of consumers read online reviews – up from 67% in 2010 – and 40% of consumers had formed an opinion by reading just one to three reviews. Of 2,137 patients who viewed online reviews, 35% selected a physician based on positive reviews, while 37% avoided doctors with negative reviews, according to a 2014 study in JAMA (doi:10.1001/jama.2013.283194).

Reviews have become a strong force in the health care industry, said Peter Yelkovac, an online defamation attorney in Northern Indiana.

“Online reviews have really replaced the common ‘word of mouth’ that used to be the primary source for doctors referrals,” Mr. Yelkovac said in an interview. “Now, [patients] go online. Anyone can type anything they want, whether it’s truthful, untruthful, positive, indifferent, or negative.”

Doctor vs. website

In some cases, contacting a website administrator and requesting a review be removed can end the dilemma, said Michael J. Sacopulos, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Terre Haute, Ind.

Rating sites generally have “terms of use,” and posts that violate the terms usually will be taken down by site administrators with some nudging, Mr. Sacopulos said in an interview. Other sites have “strike policies,” where a reviewee can request that one or two negative reviews be removed.

Still other sites are not as accommodating. Amazon, for instance, has immunity against content posted on the site, Mr. Sacopulos said. Under the Communications Decency Act, interactive computer services, such as a consumer review website, cannot be liable for content independently created or developed by third-party users. Such sites are hardly motivated to remove negative comments when racy posts can drive traffic to the site, he said.

Eric M. Joseph, MD, a facial plastic surgeon in West Orange, N.J., learned this lesson firsthand when he attempted to have a video removed from YouTube. A poster had uploaded copyright-protected before and after photos from Dr. Joseph’s practice onto YouTube and made disparaging comments about the patients in a video that went viral. Dr. Joseph and the patient both flagged the video for removal, but to no avail.

“It was impossible to [talk to] a human being at Google,” Dr, Joseph said. “It almost didn’t come down, and we were in conversations about suing Google. It took months and a cyberattorney who specializes in copyright infringement.”

The video finally was removed, but not before Dr. Joseph spent $6,000 in legal fees and experienced significant distress from the incident. Although most reviews about his practice are positive, he said, it’s difficult not to be affected by negative posts.

“From a psychological standpoint, it stings,” he said. “The burn of a negative review outweighs the sweetness of a positive review 100 times.”

Reputation companies to the rescue?

Like Dr. Hardwick-Smith, Dr. Joseph has utilized the online reputation management company eMerit to improve his online presence. The company gathers reviews from patients at the point of service and posts them to dominate review sites.

The solution to pollution is dilution, which means counterbalancing negative reviews with more representative reviews,” said Jeffrey Segal, MD, a neurosurgeon and attorney, and the founder of eMerit. “The next step is to deescalate conflict if you know who the patient is – to see if the patient problem can be resolved. Typically a patient is pleasantly surprised that you took the effort to call. Because the bar is so low, it’s very easy to exceed it.”

Physicians subscribe to eMerit on a month-to-month basis, paying $100-$600 a month, depending on the practice’s needs, Dr. Segal said. He touted a greater than 90% renewal rate, and said eMerit has captured and uploaded more than 150,000 patient reviews since its inception.

For the online reputation management company Reputation.com, health care providers have become one of the its most frequent clients, said Michael Fertik, company founder. Reputation.com solicits reviews from patients after appointments and ensures their visibility on top review sites. The platform also integrates reviews from general and health care review sites to help providers address patient feedback and receive alerts when negative reviews are posted. Rates start at $50 a month.

Mr. Fertik noted that more reviews not only overtake negative posts, but they make physicians easier to find by patients.

“If you have more than 10-15 reviews, you have a higher chance of getting a new patient because the search engine is going to favor doctors that have more reviews,” he said. “Doctors that have a small number of reviews don’t exist as far as search engines are concerned.”

However, all online reputation management firms are not equal, Mr. Sacopulos warned. Some are unfamiliar with the health care space, while others are unclear on health care privacy regulations. Mr. Sacopulos learned of a company that was sending patients texts to request reviews, which was likely a privacy violation and a violation of the Telecommunications Act, he said.

““Some [companies] are much more credible, and they understand health care law more than others,” he said. “Some have the technological capabilities to do things, but don’t understand the legal environment, so you need to be very careful [about whom] you pick.”

Time to sue?

Litigation is generally the last resort to fighting unfavorable online reviews. If a doctor believes a review is unfair or defamatory, and all other efforts have been exhausted, a lawyer may be able to help, Mr. Yelkovac said.

“When someone says, ‘I want to sue,’ that’s a possibility, but that’s typically far down the road,” he said. “Lawsuits are expensive. Lawsuits have an unknown outcome, and I would say, many times when you do sue for defamation, [the poster] may or may not have a lot of money, so you may end up spending a lot of money and you don’t recover anything from the patient.”

The majority of the lawsuits Mr. Yelkovac handles related to online reviews seek to unmask the poster with the aid of subpoenas and at times computer forensics, he said. From there, doctors can decide which action to take, such as contacting the poster and asking to have the comment removed.

“Sometimes it’s a surprise,” he said. “Sometimes it’s an ex-employee. Sometimes it’s a family member, or it could potentially be a competitor. Many times it’s not even a patient, and sometimes it’s a patient [who] the doctor never thought would post a review.”

Reviews and malpractice risk

Remember that not all unfavorable reviews are necessarily negative for physicians, said Brant Avondet, founder of Searchlight Enterprises, a malpractice risk prediction and online physician ratings research company.

A pattern of reviews that express the same concerns or frustrations by patients can be used to address and change internal policies and problems, such as multiple complaints about long wait times or a crowded parking lot, he said. Perhaps the front desk staff is repeatedly unfriendly to patients. Taking steps to correct these concerns could help in the long run, Mr. Avondet said.

Searchlight Enterprises recently presented study findings about a suggested link between online ratings and legal risk for physicians at a national medical insurance conference. Mr. Avondet and his colleagues evaluated claims data for 4,000 Florida physicians from the Florida Healthcare Practitioner Data Portal from 2000 to 2016 and studied online physician reviews from top rating sites. Doctors were grouped into three categories: surgical, ob.gyn., and “other” specialties. Findings showed the bottom 10% of surgeons studied (those with the worst online reviews) had 150% as many claims as the average for all surgeons. Surgeons in the top 20% (doctors with the best online reviews) had roughly half of the risk of a claim, compared with the average surgeon. Similar results were found for ob.gyns. and other specialties.

“Low and behold, there’s a huge correlation,” Mr. Avondet said. “There’s no shadow of a doubt that there’s something there that predicts your malpractice risk based on how nice or mean you are in the eyes of the patient.”

Mr. Avondet said he encourages physicians to use online reviews to make improvements, thus lowering their liability.

“Look at these reviews as a lens into your practice and things you might need to correct,” he said. “Use it as [insight] for how you can improve your practice and decrease the risk of getting sued.”

agallegos@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @legal_med

Like most physicians, Dr. Susan Hardwick-Smith was used to receiving the occasional negative online review about her practice. But a biting post from several years ago was so wrenching that it nearly drove the Houston ob.gyn. out of medicine for good.

The patient blasted Dr. Hardwick-Smith on a popular review site about her care during a delivery and accused the doctor of attempting to force an unnecessary C-section. The account was inaccurate, but privacy laws prevented Dr. Hardwick-Smith from defending herself online or sharing details of the actual encounter, she said.

“She wrote this very detailed account of what a terrible doctor I was, and in my version of reality, I had saved her baby’s life,” said Dr. Hardwick-Smith. “I felt extremely powerless. I lost a lot of sleep over it, and I was considering giving up delivering babies. It was a real turning point for me.”

Rather than hanging up her white coat, Dr. Hardwick-Smith began working with an online reputation company – eMerit – that works to dilute negative reviews by soliciting a greater number of reviews from patients. The offensive post is now buried under hundreds of other reviews that are primarily positive, she said.

Hiring a reputation management company is one strategy for coping with negative online reviews. But cyberlaw experts stress that removing negative posts altogether is no easy feat. The best move to take often depends on the post, the patient, and the circumstance.

By now, it’s no secret that negative online reviews can significantly impact a medical practice, from influencing patient recruitment to affecting practice revenue to ruining a reputation. A 2015 survey of 2,354 consumers by search marketing firm BrightLocal found that 92% of consumers read online reviews – up from 67% in 2010 – and 40% of consumers had formed an opinion by reading just one to three reviews. Of 2,137 patients who viewed online reviews, 35% selected a physician based on positive reviews, while 37% avoided doctors with negative reviews, according to a 2014 study in JAMA (doi:10.1001/jama.2013.283194).

Reviews have become a strong force in the health care industry, said Peter Yelkovac, an online defamation attorney in Northern Indiana.

“Online reviews have really replaced the common ‘word of mouth’ that used to be the primary source for doctors referrals,” Mr. Yelkovac said in an interview. “Now, [patients] go online. Anyone can type anything they want, whether it’s truthful, untruthful, positive, indifferent, or negative.”

Doctor vs. website

In some cases, contacting a website administrator and requesting a review be removed can end the dilemma, said Michael J. Sacopulos, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Terre Haute, Ind.

Rating sites generally have “terms of use,” and posts that violate the terms usually will be taken down by site administrators with some nudging, Mr. Sacopulos said in an interview. Other sites have “strike policies,” where a reviewee can request that one or two negative reviews be removed.

Still other sites are not as accommodating. Amazon, for instance, has immunity against content posted on the site, Mr. Sacopulos said. Under the Communications Decency Act, interactive computer services, such as a consumer review website, cannot be liable for content independently created or developed by third-party users. Such sites are hardly motivated to remove negative comments when racy posts can drive traffic to the site, he said.

Eric M. Joseph, MD, a facial plastic surgeon in West Orange, N.J., learned this lesson firsthand when he attempted to have a video removed from YouTube. A poster had uploaded copyright-protected before and after photos from Dr. Joseph’s practice onto YouTube and made disparaging comments about the patients in a video that went viral. Dr. Joseph and the patient both flagged the video for removal, but to no avail.

“It was impossible to [talk to] a human being at Google,” Dr, Joseph said. “It almost didn’t come down, and we were in conversations about suing Google. It took months and a cyberattorney who specializes in copyright infringement.”

The video finally was removed, but not before Dr. Joseph spent $6,000 in legal fees and experienced significant distress from the incident. Although most reviews about his practice are positive, he said, it’s difficult not to be affected by negative posts.

“From a psychological standpoint, it stings,” he said. “The burn of a negative review outweighs the sweetness of a positive review 100 times.”

Reputation companies to the rescue?

Like Dr. Hardwick-Smith, Dr. Joseph has utilized the online reputation management company eMerit to improve his online presence. The company gathers reviews from patients at the point of service and posts them to dominate review sites.

The solution to pollution is dilution, which means counterbalancing negative reviews with more representative reviews,” said Jeffrey Segal, MD, a neurosurgeon and attorney, and the founder of eMerit. “The next step is to deescalate conflict if you know who the patient is – to see if the patient problem can be resolved. Typically a patient is pleasantly surprised that you took the effort to call. Because the bar is so low, it’s very easy to exceed it.”

Physicians subscribe to eMerit on a month-to-month basis, paying $100-$600 a month, depending on the practice’s needs, Dr. Segal said. He touted a greater than 90% renewal rate, and said eMerit has captured and uploaded more than 150,000 patient reviews since its inception.

For the online reputation management company Reputation.com, health care providers have become one of the its most frequent clients, said Michael Fertik, company founder. Reputation.com solicits reviews from patients after appointments and ensures their visibility on top review sites. The platform also integrates reviews from general and health care review sites to help providers address patient feedback and receive alerts when negative reviews are posted. Rates start at $50 a month.

Mr. Fertik noted that more reviews not only overtake negative posts, but they make physicians easier to find by patients.

“If you have more than 10-15 reviews, you have a higher chance of getting a new patient because the search engine is going to favor doctors that have more reviews,” he said. “Doctors that have a small number of reviews don’t exist as far as search engines are concerned.”

However, all online reputation management firms are not equal, Mr. Sacopulos warned. Some are unfamiliar with the health care space, while others are unclear on health care privacy regulations. Mr. Sacopulos learned of a company that was sending patients texts to request reviews, which was likely a privacy violation and a violation of the Telecommunications Act, he said.

““Some [companies] are much more credible, and they understand health care law more than others,” he said. “Some have the technological capabilities to do things, but don’t understand the legal environment, so you need to be very careful [about whom] you pick.”

Time to sue?

Litigation is generally the last resort to fighting unfavorable online reviews. If a doctor believes a review is unfair or defamatory, and all other efforts have been exhausted, a lawyer may be able to help, Mr. Yelkovac said.

“When someone says, ‘I want to sue,’ that’s a possibility, but that’s typically far down the road,” he said. “Lawsuits are expensive. Lawsuits have an unknown outcome, and I would say, many times when you do sue for defamation, [the poster] may or may not have a lot of money, so you may end up spending a lot of money and you don’t recover anything from the patient.”

The majority of the lawsuits Mr. Yelkovac handles related to online reviews seek to unmask the poster with the aid of subpoenas and at times computer forensics, he said. From there, doctors can decide which action to take, such as contacting the poster and asking to have the comment removed.

“Sometimes it’s a surprise,” he said. “Sometimes it’s an ex-employee. Sometimes it’s a family member, or it could potentially be a competitor. Many times it’s not even a patient, and sometimes it’s a patient [who] the doctor never thought would post a review.”

Reviews and malpractice risk

Remember that not all unfavorable reviews are necessarily negative for physicians, said Brant Avondet, founder of Searchlight Enterprises, a malpractice risk prediction and online physician ratings research company.

A pattern of reviews that express the same concerns or frustrations by patients can be used to address and change internal policies and problems, such as multiple complaints about long wait times or a crowded parking lot, he said. Perhaps the front desk staff is repeatedly unfriendly to patients. Taking steps to correct these concerns could help in the long run, Mr. Avondet said.

Searchlight Enterprises recently presented study findings about a suggested link between online ratings and legal risk for physicians at a national medical insurance conference. Mr. Avondet and his colleagues evaluated claims data for 4,000 Florida physicians from the Florida Healthcare Practitioner Data Portal from 2000 to 2016 and studied online physician reviews from top rating sites. Doctors were grouped into three categories: surgical, ob.gyn., and “other” specialties. Findings showed the bottom 10% of surgeons studied (those with the worst online reviews) had 150% as many claims as the average for all surgeons. Surgeons in the top 20% (doctors with the best online reviews) had roughly half of the risk of a claim, compared with the average surgeon. Similar results were found for ob.gyns. and other specialties.

“Low and behold, there’s a huge correlation,” Mr. Avondet said. “There’s no shadow of a doubt that there’s something there that predicts your malpractice risk based on how nice or mean you are in the eyes of the patient.”

Mr. Avondet said he encourages physicians to use online reviews to make improvements, thus lowering their liability.

“Look at these reviews as a lens into your practice and things you might need to correct,” he said. “Use it as [insight] for how you can improve your practice and decrease the risk of getting sued.”

agallegos@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @legal_med

The healthcare industry is under major stress from steady declines in all sources of revenue. The drivers are multifactorial but include declining reimbursement from payors, a shift from fee-for-service to pay-for-performance, and state-by-state variability in patients covered by Medicaid, by high-deductible plans, or by being uninsured. In academic medical centers, rising overhead costs coupled with a reticence to raise student tuition and declining research funding streams have further compounded the situation.

Regardless of the actual numbers, all healthcare institutions are feeling the financial pinch. Most are intensely focused on cost-reduction efforts. The question is, what do physicians think about their role in these efforts, and what efforts will be most effective?

A recent survey of a large physician group practice found that many physicians do not know what their cost drivers are or do not think it is their role to participate in cost-reduction efforts.1 Of note, the group practice in the survey is a Pioneer Medicare accountable care organization (ACO) and participates in a combination of fee-for-service and capitated contracts.

Within the survey, the researchers embedded a cost-consciousness scale, which is a validated survey tool designed to assess daily cost consciousness. They also embedded other survey items to determine the physicians’ concerns for malpractice, comfort with diagnostic uncertainty, and perception of patient-family pressure for utilization of services. The average overall cost-consciousness score was 29 out of 44, with higher scores indicating more cost consciousness.

Almost all physicians agreed that they need to reduce unnecessary testing (97%), need to adhere to guidelines (98%), and have a responsibility to control costs (92%). However, 33% felt it was unfair for them to have to be both cost-conscious and concerned with the welfare of their patients.

Approximately a third of respondents also felt that there was too much emphasis on cost and that physicians are too busy to worry about costs.

More than a third (37%) said they did not have good knowledge about test-procedure cost within their system.

More than half of physicians felt pressure from patients to perform tests and procedures (from 68% of primary-care physicians, 58% of medical specialists, and 56% of surgical specialists) and felt pressure to refer to consultants (from 65% of primary-care physicians, 35% of medical specialists, and 34% of surgical specialists).

Based on this survey and other literature about physicians’ perceptions of their role and their ability to control costs, it is clear that the first step in understanding how to engage physicians in cost-reducing efforts is to understand what the drivers are for utilization and what the concerns are for reducing cost. Many hypothesize that the drivers to support the status quo include a fear of litigation, fear of missing a diagnosis, and patient demands for services. Another major driver of current utilization is that there is ongoing support for the status quo, as the majority of reimbursement for providers is still based on fee-for-service.

Change Efforts

One cost-reducing effort that has gained widespread enthusiasm from medical societies is the Choosing Wisely campaign. This campaign is an effort originally driven by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation to help physicians become aware of and reduce unnecessary utilization of resources. Each Choosing Wisely list is generated and endorsed by the relevant medical society and widely advertised to physicians via a variety of mechanisms. More than 70 medical societies have participated in the effort to date.

The recommendations are often widely accepted by those in the specialty since they are evidence-based and derived and advertised by their own specialty societies. In the survey mentioned above, almost all physicians agreed that their Choosing Wisely was a good source of guidance (ranging from 92% of surgical specialties to 97% of primary-care physicians). In order to drive the movement from the patient perspective, Consumer Reports has developed educational materials aimed at the consumer side of healthcare (ie, patients and families).

As Consumer Reports suggests, the first step to implementing cost-conscious care is to measure awareness of cost and causes of overutilization. By first understanding behaviors, a group can then work to impact such behaviors. It is highly likely that the drivers are different based on the specialty of the physician, the patient population being served, and the local healthcare market drivers. As such, there will not be a single, across-the-board solution to reducing unnecessary utilization of services (and therefore cost), but interventions will need to be tailored to different groups depending on the drivers of cost locally.

Depending on the issues within a group, successful interventions could include:

• Decision support tools (for appropriate use of consultants and diagnostic tests)
• Display of testing costs (not just at the time of ordering)
• Efforts aimed at patient education (both as general consumers as well as at the point of care)
• Malpractice reform to support physicians trying to balance cost consciousness with patient welfare

In Sum

We have a long way to go in engaging physicians in efforts to reduce unnecessary utilization and cost. I recommend that hospitalist practices utilize the survey tool used in this study to understand the perceived barriers and drivers of cost within their practice and work with their local administrative teams to better understand patterns of overutilization among their group. Then interventions can be designed to be evidence-based, tailored to local workflow, and both reliable and sustainable.

If done well, hospitalists can have a huge impact on utilization and cost and position their groups and their hospitals well to succeed in this cost-constrained era of healthcare. TH

References

1. Colla CH, Kinsella EA, Morden NE, Meyers DJ, Rosenthal MB, Sequist TD. Physician perception of Choosing Wisely and drivers of overuse. Am J Manag Care. 2016;22(5):337-343.

The healthcare industry is under major stress from steady declines in all sources of revenue. The drivers are multifactorial but include declining reimbursement from payors, a shift from fee-for-service to pay-for-performance, and state-by-state variability in patients covered by Medicaid, by high-deductible plans, or by being uninsured. In academic medical centers, rising overhead costs coupled with a reticence to raise student tuition and declining research funding streams have further compounded the situation.

Regardless of the actual numbers, all healthcare institutions are feeling the financial pinch. Most are intensely focused on cost-reduction efforts. The question is, what do physicians think about their role in these efforts, and what efforts will be most effective?

A recent survey of a large physician group practice found that many physicians do not know what their cost drivers are or do not think it is their role to participate in cost-reduction efforts.1 Of note, the group practice in the survey is a Pioneer Medicare accountable care organization (ACO) and participates in a combination of fee-for-service and capitated contracts.

Within the survey, the researchers embedded a cost-consciousness scale, which is a validated survey tool designed to assess daily cost consciousness. They also embedded other survey items to determine the physicians’ concerns for malpractice, comfort with diagnostic uncertainty, and perception of patient-family pressure for utilization of services. The average overall cost-consciousness score was 29 out of 44, with higher scores indicating more cost consciousness.

Almost all physicians agreed that they need to reduce unnecessary testing (97%), need to adhere to guidelines (98%), and have a responsibility to control costs (92%). However, 33% felt it was unfair for them to have to be both cost-conscious and concerned with the welfare of their patients.

Approximately a third of respondents also felt that there was too much emphasis on cost and that physicians are too busy to worry about costs.

More than a third (37%) said they did not have good knowledge about test-procedure cost within their system.

More than half of physicians felt pressure from patients to perform tests and procedures (from 68% of primary-care physicians, 58% of medical specialists, and 56% of surgical specialists) and felt pressure to refer to consultants (from 65% of primary-care physicians, 35% of medical specialists, and 34% of surgical specialists).

Based on this survey and other literature about physicians’ perceptions of their role and their ability to control costs, it is clear that the first step in understanding how to engage physicians in cost-reducing efforts is to understand what the drivers are for utilization and what the concerns are for reducing cost. Many hypothesize that the drivers to support the status quo include a fear of litigation, fear of missing a diagnosis, and patient demands for services. Another major driver of current utilization is that there is ongoing support for the status quo, as the majority of reimbursement for providers is still based on fee-for-service.

Change Efforts

One cost-reducing effort that has gained widespread enthusiasm from medical societies is the Choosing Wisely campaign. This campaign is an effort originally driven by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation to help physicians become aware of and reduce unnecessary utilization of resources. Each Choosing Wisely list is generated and endorsed by the relevant medical society and widely advertised to physicians via a variety of mechanisms. More than 70 medical societies have participated in the effort to date.

The recommendations are often widely accepted by those in the specialty since they are evidence-based and derived and advertised by their own specialty societies. In the survey mentioned above, almost all physicians agreed that their Choosing Wisely was a good source of guidance (ranging from 92% of surgical specialties to 97% of primary-care physicians). In order to drive the movement from the patient perspective, Consumer Reports has developed educational materials aimed at the consumer side of healthcare (ie, patients and families).

As Consumer Reports suggests, the first step to implementing cost-conscious care is to measure awareness of cost and causes of overutilization. By first understanding behaviors, a group can then work to impact such behaviors. It is highly likely that the drivers are different based on the specialty of the physician, the patient population being served, and the local healthcare market drivers. As such, there will not be a single, across-the-board solution to reducing unnecessary utilization of services (and therefore cost), but interventions will need to be tailored to different groups depending on the drivers of cost locally.

Depending on the issues within a group, successful interventions could include:

• Decision support tools (for appropriate use of consultants and diagnostic tests)
• Display of testing costs (not just at the time of ordering)
• Efforts aimed at patient education (both as general consumers as well as at the point of care)
• Malpractice reform to support physicians trying to balance cost consciousness with patient welfare

In Sum

We have a long way to go in engaging physicians in efforts to reduce unnecessary utilization and cost. I recommend that hospitalist practices utilize the survey tool used in this study to understand the perceived barriers and drivers of cost within their practice and work with their local administrative teams to better understand patterns of overutilization among their group. Then interventions can be designed to be evidence-based, tailored to local workflow, and both reliable and sustainable.

If done well, hospitalists can have a huge impact on utilization and cost and position their groups and their hospitals well to succeed in this cost-constrained era of healthcare. TH

References

1. Colla CH, Kinsella EA, Morden NE, Meyers DJ, Rosenthal MB, Sequist TD. Physician perception of Choosing Wisely and drivers of overuse. Am J Manag Care. 2016;22(5):337-343.

The healthcare industry is under major stress from steady declines in all sources of revenue. The drivers are multifactorial but include declining reimbursement from payors, a shift from fee-for-service to pay-for-performance, and state-by-state variability in patients covered by Medicaid, by high-deductible plans, or by being uninsured. In academic medical centers, rising overhead costs coupled with a reticence to raise student tuition and declining research funding streams have further compounded the situation.

Regardless of the actual numbers, all healthcare institutions are feeling the financial pinch. Most are intensely focused on cost-reduction efforts. The question is, what do physicians think about their role in these efforts, and what efforts will be most effective?

A recent survey of a large physician group practice found that many physicians do not know what their cost drivers are or do not think it is their role to participate in cost-reduction efforts.1 Of note, the group practice in the survey is a Pioneer Medicare accountable care organization (ACO) and participates in a combination of fee-for-service and capitated contracts.

Within the survey, the researchers embedded a cost-consciousness scale, which is a validated survey tool designed to assess daily cost consciousness. They also embedded other survey items to determine the physicians’ concerns for malpractice, comfort with diagnostic uncertainty, and perception of patient-family pressure for utilization of services. The average overall cost-consciousness score was 29 out of 44, with higher scores indicating more cost consciousness.

Almost all physicians agreed that they need to reduce unnecessary testing (97%), need to adhere to guidelines (98%), and have a responsibility to control costs (92%). However, 33% felt it was unfair for them to have to be both cost-conscious and concerned with the welfare of their patients.

Approximately a third of respondents also felt that there was too much emphasis on cost and that physicians are too busy to worry about costs.

More than a third (37%) said they did not have good knowledge about test-procedure cost within their system.

More than half of physicians felt pressure from patients to perform tests and procedures (from 68% of primary-care physicians, 58% of medical specialists, and 56% of surgical specialists) and felt pressure to refer to consultants (from 65% of primary-care physicians, 35% of medical specialists, and 34% of surgical specialists).

Based on this survey and other literature about physicians’ perceptions of their role and their ability to control costs, it is clear that the first step in understanding how to engage physicians in cost-reducing efforts is to understand what the drivers are for utilization and what the concerns are for reducing cost. Many hypothesize that the drivers to support the status quo include a fear of litigation, fear of missing a diagnosis, and patient demands for services. Another major driver of current utilization is that there is ongoing support for the status quo, as the majority of reimbursement for providers is still based on fee-for-service.

Change Efforts

One cost-reducing effort that has gained widespread enthusiasm from medical societies is the Choosing Wisely campaign. This campaign is an effort originally driven by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation to help physicians become aware of and reduce unnecessary utilization of resources. Each Choosing Wisely list is generated and endorsed by the relevant medical society and widely advertised to physicians via a variety of mechanisms. More than 70 medical societies have participated in the effort to date.

The recommendations are often widely accepted by those in the specialty since they are evidence-based and derived and advertised by their own specialty societies. In the survey mentioned above, almost all physicians agreed that their Choosing Wisely was a good source of guidance (ranging from 92% of surgical specialties to 97% of primary-care physicians). In order to drive the movement from the patient perspective, Consumer Reports has developed educational materials aimed at the consumer side of healthcare (ie, patients and families).

As Consumer Reports suggests, the first step to implementing cost-conscious care is to measure awareness of cost and causes of overutilization. By first understanding behaviors, a group can then work to impact such behaviors. It is highly likely that the drivers are different based on the specialty of the physician, the patient population being served, and the local healthcare market drivers. As such, there will not be a single, across-the-board solution to reducing unnecessary utilization of services (and therefore cost), but interventions will need to be tailored to different groups depending on the drivers of cost locally.

Depending on the issues within a group, successful interventions could include:

• Decision support tools (for appropriate use of consultants and diagnostic tests)
• Display of testing costs (not just at the time of ordering)
• Efforts aimed at patient education (both as general consumers as well as at the point of care)
• Malpractice reform to support physicians trying to balance cost consciousness with patient welfare

In Sum

We have a long way to go in engaging physicians in efforts to reduce unnecessary utilization and cost. I recommend that hospitalist practices utilize the survey tool used in this study to understand the perceived barriers and drivers of cost within their practice and work with their local administrative teams to better understand patterns of overutilization among their group. Then interventions can be designed to be evidence-based, tailored to local workflow, and both reliable and sustainable.

If done well, hospitalists can have a huge impact on utilization and cost and position their groups and their hospitals well to succeed in this cost-constrained era of healthcare. TH

References

1. Colla CH, Kinsella EA, Morden NE, Meyers DJ, Rosenthal MB, Sequist TD. Physician perception of Choosing Wisely and drivers of overuse. Am J Manag Care. 2016;22(5):337-343.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is seeking physician input on the Open Payments program.

The agency signaled its intent to gather information in its proposed Medicare Physician Fee Schedule for 2017 and will host a conference call for that purpose on August 2.

©TheaDesign/Thinkstock

The agency already has released a slide presentation to be used during the call that highlights the information being requested, including whether the payment categories are inclusive enough; how many years of payment data is relevant; whether reporting entities should pre-vet data before reporting to the Open Payment system; the adequacy of the definition of a covered recipient teaching hospital; whether reporting entities should be able to submit data continuously throughout the calendar year; how mergers affect reporting; clarity on reporting of ownership and investment interests; clarity on the definition of physician-owned distributors; and clarity on ways to streamline the reporting process.

Details for participating in the conference call can be found here.

gtwachtman@frontlinemedcom.com

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is seeking physician input on the Open Payments program.

The agency signaled its intent to gather information in its proposed Medicare Physician Fee Schedule for 2017 and will host a conference call for that purpose on August 2.

©TheaDesign/Thinkstock

The agency already has released a slide presentation to be used during the call that highlights the information being requested, including whether the payment categories are inclusive enough; how many years of payment data is relevant; whether reporting entities should pre-vet data before reporting to the Open Payment system; the adequacy of the definition of a covered recipient teaching hospital; whether reporting entities should be able to submit data continuously throughout the calendar year; how mergers affect reporting; clarity on reporting of ownership and investment interests; clarity on the definition of physician-owned distributors; and clarity on ways to streamline the reporting process.

Details for participating in the conference call can be found here.

gtwachtman@frontlinemedcom.com

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is seeking physician input on the Open Payments program.

The agency signaled its intent to gather information in its proposed Medicare Physician Fee Schedule for 2017 and will host a conference call for that purpose on August 2.

©TheaDesign/Thinkstock

The agency already has released a slide presentation to be used during the call that highlights the information being requested, including whether the payment categories are inclusive enough; how many years of payment data is relevant; whether reporting entities should pre-vet data before reporting to the Open Payment system; the adequacy of the definition of a covered recipient teaching hospital; whether reporting entities should be able to submit data continuously throughout the calendar year; how mergers affect reporting; clarity on reporting of ownership and investment interests; clarity on the definition of physician-owned distributors; and clarity on ways to streamline the reporting process.

Details for participating in the conference call can be found here.

gtwachtman@frontlinemedcom.com

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is suing to block two mega-mergers between four of the largest health insurers in the nation, claiming the alignments will harm competition and reduce patient choice.

The DOJ and a number of state attorneys general filed legal challenges July 21 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to ban Anthem’s proposed acquisition of Cigna and Aetna’s proposed acquisition of Humana. The lawsuits allege the two mergers – valued at $54 billion and $37 billion respectively – would negatively affect doctors, patients, and employers, by limiting price competition, reducing benefits, decreasing incentives to provide innovative wellness programs, and lowering quality of care.

Courtesy U.S. Department of Justice

“These mergers would restrict competition for health insurance products sold in markets across the country and would give tremendous power over the nation’s health insurance industry to just three large companies,” U.S. Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch said in a statement. “Our actions seek to preserve competition that keeps premiums down and drives insurers to collaborate with doctors and hospitals to provide better health care for all Americans.”

Anthem called the lawsuit “an unfortunate and misguided step backward for access to affordable health care.

“The DOJ’s action is based on a flawed analysis and misunderstanding of the dynamic, competitive, and highly regulated health care landscape and is inconsistent with the way that the DOJ has reviewed past health care transactions,” Anthem officials said in a statement. “Anthem has an unwavering commitment to enhancing access to affordable health care, and the benefits and efficiencies from its merger with Cigna is one way that Anthem will continue its mission of improving consumer choice, quality, and affordability.”

In a statement, Cigna officials said that company is evaluating its options given the nature of the concerns raised by the DOJ. Aetna and Humana meanwhile, vowed to vigorously defend their pending merger.

“A combined company will result in a broader choice of products, access to higher quality, and more affordable care, and a better overall experience for consumers,” according to a joint statement. “Aetna and Humana look forward to making this clear in court, where a judge will review the transaction based on its merits.”

Anthem’s proposed acquisition of Cigna would be the largest merger in the history of the health insurance industry, according to the DOJ. The companies began talks of a possible merger in early 2014 and Anthem agreed to acquire Cigna for $54 billion in 2015, according to court documents.

Meanwhile, Aetna began inquiring about a deal with Humana in March 2015, entering into a definitive agreement to acquire Humana for $37 billion later that year. The two proposed mergers have been closely watched by the DOJ and other regulatory agencies from the start.

The DOJ’s suit against Anthem and Cigna alleges the merger would substantially reduce competition for millions of patients who receive commercial health insurance coverage, from large-group employers in at least 35 metropolitan areas and from public exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act. The elimination of Cigna also threatens competition among commercial insurers for the purchase of health care services from hospitals, physicians, and other providers, the suit alleges. Eleven states and the District of Columbia joined the department’s challenge of the Cigna acquisition.

The government’s challenge against Aetna and Humana alleges the merger would greatly reduce Medicare Advantage competition in more than 350 counties in 21 states, affecting more than 1.5 million Medicare Advantage patients. The lawsuit also claims that Aetna’s purchase of Humana would substantially reduce competition to sell commercial health insurance to individuals and families on the public exchanges in 17 counties in Florida, Georgia, and Missouri. Eight states and the District of Columbia joined the department’s challenge of the Humana acquisition.

The American Medical Association voiced support for the lawsuit, condemning the proposed transactions as moves that will lessen competition and choice. In 2015, AMA issued special analyses showing that the combined impact of the proposed Anthem/Cigna and Aetna/Humana mergers and urged the federal government to block the transactions.

“The prospect of reducing five national health insurance carriers to just three is unacceptable,” AMA President Andrew W. Gurman, MD, said in a statement. “[The] action by the DOJ acknowledges the AMA’s concern that patients’ interests can be harmed when big insurers acquire rivals and develop strangleholds on local markets. Allowing commercial health insurers to become too big and exert control over the delivery of health care would be bad for patients and vitality of the nation’s health care system.”

aallegos@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @legal_med

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is suing to block two mega-mergers between four of the largest health insurers in the nation, claiming the alignments will harm competition and reduce patient choice.

The DOJ and a number of state attorneys general filed legal challenges July 21 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to ban Anthem’s proposed acquisition of Cigna and Aetna’s proposed acquisition of Humana. The lawsuits allege the two mergers – valued at $54 billion and $37 billion respectively – would negatively affect doctors, patients, and employers, by limiting price competition, reducing benefits, decreasing incentives to provide innovative wellness programs, and lowering quality of care.

Courtesy U.S. Department of Justice

“These mergers would restrict competition for health insurance products sold in markets across the country and would give tremendous power over the nation’s health insurance industry to just three large companies,” U.S. Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch said in a statement. “Our actions seek to preserve competition that keeps premiums down and drives insurers to collaborate with doctors and hospitals to provide better health care for all Americans.”

Anthem called the lawsuit “an unfortunate and misguided step backward for access to affordable health care.

“The DOJ’s action is based on a flawed analysis and misunderstanding of the dynamic, competitive, and highly regulated health care landscape and is inconsistent with the way that the DOJ has reviewed past health care transactions,” Anthem officials said in a statement. “Anthem has an unwavering commitment to enhancing access to affordable health care, and the benefits and efficiencies from its merger with Cigna is one way that Anthem will continue its mission of improving consumer choice, quality, and affordability.”

In a statement, Cigna officials said that company is evaluating its options given the nature of the concerns raised by the DOJ. Aetna and Humana meanwhile, vowed to vigorously defend their pending merger.

“A combined company will result in a broader choice of products, access to higher quality, and more affordable care, and a better overall experience for consumers,” according to a joint statement. “Aetna and Humana look forward to making this clear in court, where a judge will review the transaction based on its merits.”

Anthem’s proposed acquisition of Cigna would be the largest merger in the history of the health insurance industry, according to the DOJ. The companies began talks of a possible merger in early 2014 and Anthem agreed to acquire Cigna for $54 billion in 2015, according to court documents.

Meanwhile, Aetna began inquiring about a deal with Humana in March 2015, entering into a definitive agreement to acquire Humana for $37 billion later that year. The two proposed mergers have been closely watched by the DOJ and other regulatory agencies from the start.

The DOJ’s suit against Anthem and Cigna alleges the merger would substantially reduce competition for millions of patients who receive commercial health insurance coverage, from large-group employers in at least 35 metropolitan areas and from public exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act. The elimination of Cigna also threatens competition among commercial insurers for the purchase of health care services from hospitals, physicians, and other providers, the suit alleges. Eleven states and the District of Columbia joined the department’s challenge of the Cigna acquisition.

The government’s challenge against Aetna and Humana alleges the merger would greatly reduce Medicare Advantage competition in more than 350 counties in 21 states, affecting more than 1.5 million Medicare Advantage patients. The lawsuit also claims that Aetna’s purchase of Humana would substantially reduce competition to sell commercial health insurance to individuals and families on the public exchanges in 17 counties in Florida, Georgia, and Missouri. Eight states and the District of Columbia joined the department’s challenge of the Humana acquisition.

The American Medical Association voiced support for the lawsuit, condemning the proposed transactions as moves that will lessen competition and choice. In 2015, AMA issued special analyses showing that the combined impact of the proposed Anthem/Cigna and Aetna/Humana mergers and urged the federal government to block the transactions.

“The prospect of reducing five national health insurance carriers to just three is unacceptable,” AMA President Andrew W. Gurman, MD, said in a statement. “[The] action by the DOJ acknowledges the AMA’s concern that patients’ interests can be harmed when big insurers acquire rivals and develop strangleholds on local markets. Allowing commercial health insurers to become too big and exert control over the delivery of health care would be bad for patients and vitality of the nation’s health care system.”

aallegos@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @legal_med

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is suing to block two mega-mergers between four of the largest health insurers in the nation, claiming the alignments will harm competition and reduce patient choice.

The DOJ and a number of state attorneys general filed legal challenges July 21 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to ban Anthem’s proposed acquisition of Cigna and Aetna’s proposed acquisition of Humana. The lawsuits allege the two mergers – valued at $54 billion and $37 billion respectively – would negatively affect doctors, patients, and employers, by limiting price competition, reducing benefits, decreasing incentives to provide innovative wellness programs, and lowering quality of care.

Courtesy U.S. Department of Justice

“These mergers would restrict competition for health insurance products sold in markets across the country and would give tremendous power over the nation’s health insurance industry to just three large companies,” U.S. Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch said in a statement. “Our actions seek to preserve competition that keeps premiums down and drives insurers to collaborate with doctors and hospitals to provide better health care for all Americans.”

Anthem called the lawsuit “an unfortunate and misguided step backward for access to affordable health care.

“The DOJ’s action is based on a flawed analysis and misunderstanding of the dynamic, competitive, and highly regulated health care landscape and is inconsistent with the way that the DOJ has reviewed past health care transactions,” Anthem officials said in a statement. “Anthem has an unwavering commitment to enhancing access to affordable health care, and the benefits and efficiencies from its merger with Cigna is one way that Anthem will continue its mission of improving consumer choice, quality, and affordability.”

In a statement, Cigna officials said that company is evaluating its options given the nature of the concerns raised by the DOJ. Aetna and Humana meanwhile, vowed to vigorously defend their pending merger.

“A combined company will result in a broader choice of products, access to higher quality, and more affordable care, and a better overall experience for consumers,” according to a joint statement. “Aetna and Humana look forward to making this clear in court, where a judge will review the transaction based on its merits.”

Anthem’s proposed acquisition of Cigna would be the largest merger in the history of the health insurance industry, according to the DOJ. The companies began talks of a possible merger in early 2014 and Anthem agreed to acquire Cigna for $54 billion in 2015, according to court documents.

Meanwhile, Aetna began inquiring about a deal with Humana in March 2015, entering into a definitive agreement to acquire Humana for $37 billion later that year. The two proposed mergers have been closely watched by the DOJ and other regulatory agencies from the start.

The DOJ’s suit against Anthem and Cigna alleges the merger would substantially reduce competition for millions of patients who receive commercial health insurance coverage, from large-group employers in at least 35 metropolitan areas and from public exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act. The elimination of Cigna also threatens competition among commercial insurers for the purchase of health care services from hospitals, physicians, and other providers, the suit alleges. Eleven states and the District of Columbia joined the department’s challenge of the Cigna acquisition.

The government’s challenge against Aetna and Humana alleges the merger would greatly reduce Medicare Advantage competition in more than 350 counties in 21 states, affecting more than 1.5 million Medicare Advantage patients. The lawsuit also claims that Aetna’s purchase of Humana would substantially reduce competition to sell commercial health insurance to individuals and families on the public exchanges in 17 counties in Florida, Georgia, and Missouri. Eight states and the District of Columbia joined the department’s challenge of the Humana acquisition.

The American Medical Association voiced support for the lawsuit, condemning the proposed transactions as moves that will lessen competition and choice. In 2015, AMA issued special analyses showing that the combined impact of the proposed Anthem/Cigna and Aetna/Humana mergers and urged the federal government to block the transactions.

“The prospect of reducing five national health insurance carriers to just three is unacceptable,” AMA President Andrew W. Gurman, MD, said in a statement. “[The] action by the DOJ acknowledges the AMA’s concern that patients’ interests can be harmed when big insurers acquire rivals and develop strangleholds on local markets. Allowing commercial health insurers to become too big and exert control over the delivery of health care would be bad for patients and vitality of the nation’s health care system.”

aallegos@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @legal_med

WASHINGTON – As practices merge, how hard is it to merge EHRs?

Even in what might seem to be the best circumstances, it can be a huge challenge, according to Jacqueline Fincher, MD, of McDuffie Medical Associates, Thompson, Ga.

One appealing aspect of the merger of Dr. Fincher’s practice with another was that each practice used an EHR from the same vendor and each was operating with the same updates.

Gregory Twachtman/Frontline Medical News

“This is the perfect setup,” she said at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians. “We don’t have to go to Epic. We can stay on the same EHR. In fact, this group had gone on the same EHR back in 2006 within a month of the time that we went on; we were on the exact same version and the same everything. We were totally even. The thought among the corporate and IT staff of the new entity was that this is going to be seamless. We’re just going to renumber the accounts and everything will be just fine.”

A call to the EHR vendor, whom she did not name, revealed that the process would be anything but seamless.

“Our IT staff contacted our common EHR vendor and said we want to merge this practice with our bigger practice and the EHR company said, ‘Wow, we’ve never done that before.’ What? In this day of consolidation and integration, they had never done it before? Nor did they have a business model to do so, much less a digital plan to do so. That was pretty shocking,” she said.

Dr. Fincher noted that the EHR vendor recommended a third party vendor to handle creating an interface between the two EHRs. “Most EHR companies do not, I say, do not have a dedicated service to migrate data. It’s almost always going out to a third-party conversion service that doesn’t know you, doesn’t know your work flow, and makes everything even more difficult.”

Two and a half months – and 10 interfaces – later, the launch of the combined EHR was a disaster, Dr. Fincher said.

Even though both practices were using the exact same version of the EHR, each had very different work flows, defaults, and other nuances that meant data didn’t transfer smoothly – cheaply.

Among the surprise expenses: about $55,000 for additional hardware, network cabling and interfaces; $35,000 for additional servers; and at least $100,000 for personnel expenses related to the data migration.

Given her experience, Dr. Fincher advised her peers “to start at least 6 months in advance to map and convert the data.”

And it is vital to get input and participation from all office stakeholders – both clinical and administrative staff – regarding how the data is migrated, she said. Be sure to completely understand all work flows from both practices so that you know how the data is going to migrate.

“Understanding work flow, that is absolutely critical. Every single office has a different work flow for every type of encounter by any method. How these work flows are the same or different between your office and the new practice or your EHR and the new EHR that you’re going to, they are different. You have to understand the differences,” she added.

“We didn’t perceive that there was that much difference but when everything crashed, we discovered there were because they had different work flows, they had different defaults in place, those types of things.”

Other key questions: Which data needs to be migrated? How long should the old system remain in place? Should the data be migrated manually or digitally? How much time will the EHR merger take?

“You want to establish that structured planning time,” Dr. Fincher said. “You’ve got to carve out scheduled time with the group in order to do this. Establish the tasks that need to be accomplished, so just making a to-do list every week and who’s going to be accountable to accomplish those parts of the list” is important.

gtwachtman@frontlinemedcom.com

WASHINGTON – As practices merge, how hard is it to merge EHRs?

Even in what might seem to be the best circumstances, it can be a huge challenge, according to Jacqueline Fincher, MD, of McDuffie Medical Associates, Thompson, Ga.

One appealing aspect of the merger of Dr. Fincher’s practice with another was that each practice used an EHR from the same vendor and each was operating with the same updates.

Gregory Twachtman/Frontline Medical News

“This is the perfect setup,” she said at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians. “We don’t have to go to Epic. We can stay on the same EHR. In fact, this group had gone on the same EHR back in 2006 within a month of the time that we went on; we were on the exact same version and the same everything. We were totally even. The thought among the corporate and IT staff of the new entity was that this is going to be seamless. We’re just going to renumber the accounts and everything will be just fine.”

A call to the EHR vendor, whom she did not name, revealed that the process would be anything but seamless.

“Our IT staff contacted our common EHR vendor and said we want to merge this practice with our bigger practice and the EHR company said, ‘Wow, we’ve never done that before.’ What? In this day of consolidation and integration, they had never done it before? Nor did they have a business model to do so, much less a digital plan to do so. That was pretty shocking,” she said.

Dr. Fincher noted that the EHR vendor recommended a third party vendor to handle creating an interface between the two EHRs. “Most EHR companies do not, I say, do not have a dedicated service to migrate data. It’s almost always going out to a third-party conversion service that doesn’t know you, doesn’t know your work flow, and makes everything even more difficult.”

Two and a half months – and 10 interfaces – later, the launch of the combined EHR was a disaster, Dr. Fincher said.

Even though both practices were using the exact same version of the EHR, each had very different work flows, defaults, and other nuances that meant data didn’t transfer smoothly – cheaply.

Among the surprise expenses: about $55,000 for additional hardware, network cabling and interfaces; $35,000 for additional servers; and at least $100,000 for personnel expenses related to the data migration.

Given her experience, Dr. Fincher advised her peers “to start at least 6 months in advance to map and convert the data.”

And it is vital to get input and participation from all office stakeholders – both clinical and administrative staff – regarding how the data is migrated, she said. Be sure to completely understand all work flows from both practices so that you know how the data is going to migrate.

“Understanding work flow, that is absolutely critical. Every single office has a different work flow for every type of encounter by any method. How these work flows are the same or different between your office and the new practice or your EHR and the new EHR that you’re going to, they are different. You have to understand the differences,” she added.

“We didn’t perceive that there was that much difference but when everything crashed, we discovered there were because they had different work flows, they had different defaults in place, those types of things.”

Other key questions: Which data needs to be migrated? How long should the old system remain in place? Should the data be migrated manually or digitally? How much time will the EHR merger take?

“You want to establish that structured planning time,” Dr. Fincher said. “You’ve got to carve out scheduled time with the group in order to do this. Establish the tasks that need to be accomplished, so just making a to-do list every week and who’s going to be accountable to accomplish those parts of the list” is important.

gtwachtman@frontlinemedcom.com

WASHINGTON – As practices merge, how hard is it to merge EHRs?

Even in what might seem to be the best circumstances, it can be a huge challenge, according to Jacqueline Fincher, MD, of McDuffie Medical Associates, Thompson, Ga.

One appealing aspect of the merger of Dr. Fincher’s practice with another was that each practice used an EHR from the same vendor and each was operating with the same updates.

Gregory Twachtman/Frontline Medical News

“This is the perfect setup,” she said at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians. “We don’t have to go to Epic. We can stay on the same EHR. In fact, this group had gone on the same EHR back in 2006 within a month of the time that we went on; we were on the exact same version and the same everything. We were totally even. The thought among the corporate and IT staff of the new entity was that this is going to be seamless. We’re just going to renumber the accounts and everything will be just fine.”

A call to the EHR vendor, whom she did not name, revealed that the process would be anything but seamless.

“Our IT staff contacted our common EHR vendor and said we want to merge this practice with our bigger practice and the EHR company said, ‘Wow, we’ve never done that before.’ What? In this day of consolidation and integration, they had never done it before? Nor did they have a business model to do so, much less a digital plan to do so. That was pretty shocking,” she said.

Dr. Fincher noted that the EHR vendor recommended a third party vendor to handle creating an interface between the two EHRs. “Most EHR companies do not, I say, do not have a dedicated service to migrate data. It’s almost always going out to a third-party conversion service that doesn’t know you, doesn’t know your work flow, and makes everything even more difficult.”

Two and a half months – and 10 interfaces – later, the launch of the combined EHR was a disaster, Dr. Fincher said.

Even though both practices were using the exact same version of the EHR, each had very different work flows, defaults, and other nuances that meant data didn’t transfer smoothly – cheaply.

Among the surprise expenses: about $55,000 for additional hardware, network cabling and interfaces; $35,000 for additional servers; and at least $100,000 for personnel expenses related to the data migration.

Given her experience, Dr. Fincher advised her peers “to start at least 6 months in advance to map and convert the data.”

And it is vital to get input and participation from all office stakeholders – both clinical and administrative staff – regarding how the data is migrated, she said. Be sure to completely understand all work flows from both practices so that you know how the data is going to migrate.

“Understanding work flow, that is absolutely critical. Every single office has a different work flow for every type of encounter by any method. How these work flows are the same or different between your office and the new practice or your EHR and the new EHR that you’re going to, they are different. You have to understand the differences,” she added.

“We didn’t perceive that there was that much difference but when everything crashed, we discovered there were because they had different work flows, they had different defaults in place, those types of things.”

Other key questions: Which data needs to be migrated? How long should the old system remain in place? Should the data be migrated manually or digitally? How much time will the EHR merger take?

“You want to establish that structured planning time,” Dr. Fincher said. “You’ve got to carve out scheduled time with the group in order to do this. Establish the tasks that need to be accomplished, so just making a to-do list every week and who’s going to be accountable to accomplish those parts of the list” is important.

gtwachtman@frontlinemedcom.com

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling that expands liability under the federal False Claims Act (FCA) could have both positive and negative implications for physicians accused of submitting false claims to the government.

Justices ruled June 16 that health care providers can be held liable under the FCA if they bill for a service, but fail to comply with underlying regulations, even if the violation is not explicit in the claim. The decision upholds use of the “implied false certification theory” in FCA cases, which provides that any submission for government payment include an implicit certification of compliance with all applicable contract requirements, laws, and regulations.

The ruling allows a lawsuit by a patient’s family to continue against Universal Health Services, a national hospital management company. The plaintiff, Julio Escobar, claims that Universal presented false claims to Medicaid by seeking payments for services provided by unlicensed, unsupervised health care providers. Although the reimbursement claims submitted to the government accurately described the services provided and cited the correct charges, the plaintiffs alleged that because the clinic’s operations violated state requirements to participate in Medicaid, Universal had also violated the FCA. Universal argued the FCA suit was invalid because a reimbursement claim cannot be false unless its details are untrue or inaccurate.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. By using National Provider Identification numbers that corresponded to specific job titles without disclosing many violations of staff and licensing requirements, Universal’s claims constituted misrepresentations, the justices said.

The opinion includes language that is both helpful and harmful to physicians, according to health law attorneys. On the one hand, the justices supported the implied certification theory, thus expanding the scope of potential liability under the FCA in certain circumstances, said George B. Breen, a Washington-based health law attorney.

“The court’s decision is significant for health care providers and suppliers that submit claims to federally funded health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, because the FCA remains one of the federal government’s primary enforcement tools,” Mr. Breen said in an interview. “In the court’s view, half-truths in a claim for reimbursement from a government program … [are] just as actionable as an outright lie if the failure to disclose noncompliance with a statute, regulation, or contract term makes those representations misleading half-truths.”

However, the Supreme Court rejected the government’s notion that every omission, regulatory violation, or contract breach can result in fines and damages under the FCA. The compliance violation must be material to the government’s payment decision, the justices said. This means an alleged regulatory or contractual violation must have mattered to the agency’s payment decision to be actionable under the FCA, said David L. Douglass, a Washington-based health law attorney.

In their written opinion, the justices offered this example: If the government adds a requirement that health providers who participate in Medicaid must buy American-made staplers, and a health provider submits a claim but fails to disclose the use of foreign staplers, that provider should not be held liable under the FCA.

“An undisclosed fact is material if, for instance, no one can say with reason that the plaintiff would have signed this contract if informed of the likelihood of the undisclosed fact,” the justices wrote. “A misrepresentation cannot be deemed material merely because the government designates compliance with a particular requirement as a condition of payment. … The False Claims Act does not adopt such an extraordinarily expansive view of liability.”

This aspect of the ruling is good news for defendants and potential FCA targets, Mr. Douglass said in an interview.

“The court has restored the role of the materiality element,” he said. “The materiality element is a stringent protection against the risk that technical instances of noncompliance can become the basis for punitive liability.”

The high court also noted that if the underlying violation is known to widely occur and, nonetheless, Medicare regularly pays such claims, the violation is likely not material to payment, added William W. Horton, a Birmingham, Ala.–based health law attorney and chair of the American Bar Association Health Law Section.

“What I think this does, from the standpoint of defense of these claims, is open up new possibilities for arguing about whether a technical violation of a legal requirement, in fact, satisfies this test,” Mr. Horton said in an interview. “Whether, if CMS had known the violation occurred, would that have been material to CMS’s decision to pay the claim or not?”

But attorneys for plaintiffs and whistle-blowers are also hailing the Supreme Court opinion as positive for their clients.

Stephen M. Kohn, executive director of the National Whistleblower Center, said the Supreme Court correctly ruled on the issue.

“The legal position taken by the Chamber of Commerce and health care industry in this case was dumbfounding,” Mr. Kohn said in a statement. “Had the court agreed with the chamber and its allies – that you can bill the taxpayers for the services of a so-called doctor who was in fact unlicensed, and whose degree came from an unaccredited Internet college – then the floodgates would be opened for fraud in government contracting.”

Houston-based plaintiffs’ attorney Joel Androphy, who represents whistle-blowers, called the opinion “very favorable” for implied certification claims.

“Eliminating barriers such as the mandated condition of payment language in statutes or regulations was a proper change in direction for evaluating pleadings,” Mr. Androphy said in an interview. “If the defendant cheats, there should not be a free pass because Congress did not include magic wording in statute or regulation to support a false claims case. Materiality may be a lingering area of dispute; however the court made clear that a commonsense approach should be applied.”

agallegos@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @legal_med

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling that expands liability under the federal False Claims Act (FCA) could have both positive and negative implications for physicians accused of submitting false claims to the government.

Justices ruled June 16 that health care providers can be held liable under the FCA if they bill for a service, but fail to comply with underlying regulations, even if the violation is not explicit in the claim. The decision upholds use of the “implied false certification theory” in FCA cases, which provides that any submission for government payment include an implicit certification of compliance with all applicable contract requirements, laws, and regulations.

The ruling allows a lawsuit by a patient’s family to continue against Universal Health Services, a national hospital management company. The plaintiff, Julio Escobar, claims that Universal presented false claims to Medicaid by seeking payments for services provided by unlicensed, unsupervised health care providers. Although the reimbursement claims submitted to the government accurately described the services provided and cited the correct charges, the plaintiffs alleged that because the clinic’s operations violated state requirements to participate in Medicaid, Universal had also violated the FCA. Universal argued the FCA suit was invalid because a reimbursement claim cannot be false unless its details are untrue or inaccurate.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. By using National Provider Identification numbers that corresponded to specific job titles without disclosing many violations of staff and licensing requirements, Universal’s claims constituted misrepresentations, the justices said.

The opinion includes language that is both helpful and harmful to physicians, according to health law attorneys. On the one hand, the justices supported the implied certification theory, thus expanding the scope of potential liability under the FCA in certain circumstances, said George B. Breen, a Washington-based health law attorney.

“The court’s decision is significant for health care providers and suppliers that submit claims to federally funded health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, because the FCA remains one of the federal government’s primary enforcement tools,” Mr. Breen said in an interview. “In the court’s view, half-truths in a claim for reimbursement from a government program … [are] just as actionable as an outright lie if the failure to disclose noncompliance with a statute, regulation, or contract term makes those representations misleading half-truths.”

However, the Supreme Court rejected the government’s notion that every omission, regulatory violation, or contract breach can result in fines and damages under the FCA. The compliance violation must be material to the government’s payment decision, the justices said. This means an alleged regulatory or contractual violation must have mattered to the agency’s payment decision to be actionable under the FCA, said David L. Douglass, a Washington-based health law attorney.

In their written opinion, the justices offered this example: If the government adds a requirement that health providers who participate in Medicaid must buy American-made staplers, and a health provider submits a claim but fails to disclose the use of foreign staplers, that provider should not be held liable under the FCA.

“An undisclosed fact is material if, for instance, no one can say with reason that the plaintiff would have signed this contract if informed of the likelihood of the undisclosed fact,” the justices wrote. “A misrepresentation cannot be deemed material merely because the government designates compliance with a particular requirement as a condition of payment. … The False Claims Act does not adopt such an extraordinarily expansive view of liability.”

This aspect of the ruling is good news for defendants and potential FCA targets, Mr. Douglass said in an interview.

“The court has restored the role of the materiality element,” he said. “The materiality element is a stringent protection against the risk that technical instances of noncompliance can become the basis for punitive liability.”

The high court also noted that if the underlying violation is known to widely occur and, nonetheless, Medicare regularly pays such claims, the violation is likely not material to payment, added William W. Horton, a Birmingham, Ala.–based health law attorney and chair of the American Bar Association Health Law Section.

“What I think this does, from the standpoint of defense of these claims, is open up new possibilities for arguing about whether a technical violation of a legal requirement, in fact, satisfies this test,” Mr. Horton said in an interview. “Whether, if CMS had known the violation occurred, would that have been material to CMS’s decision to pay the claim or not?”

But attorneys for plaintiffs and whistle-blowers are also hailing the Supreme Court opinion as positive for their clients.

Stephen M. Kohn, executive director of the National Whistleblower Center, said the Supreme Court correctly ruled on the issue.

“The legal position taken by the Chamber of Commerce and health care industry in this case was dumbfounding,” Mr. Kohn said in a statement. “Had the court agreed with the chamber and its allies – that you can bill the taxpayers for the services of a so-called doctor who was in fact unlicensed, and whose degree came from an unaccredited Internet college – then the floodgates would be opened for fraud in government contracting.”

Houston-based plaintiffs’ attorney Joel Androphy, who represents whistle-blowers, called the opinion “very favorable” for implied certification claims.

“Eliminating barriers such as the mandated condition of payment language in statutes or regulations was a proper change in direction for evaluating pleadings,” Mr. Androphy said in an interview. “If the defendant cheats, there should not be a free pass because Congress did not include magic wording in statute or regulation to support a false claims case. Materiality may be a lingering area of dispute; however the court made clear that a commonsense approach should be applied.”

agallegos@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @legal_med

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling that expands liability under the federal False Claims Act (FCA) could have both positive and negative implications for physicians accused of submitting false claims to the government.

Justices ruled June 16 that health care providers can be held liable under the FCA if they bill for a service, but fail to comply with underlying regulations, even if the violation is not explicit in the claim. The decision upholds use of the “implied false certification theory” in FCA cases, which provides that any submission for government payment include an implicit certification of compliance with all applicable contract requirements, laws, and regulations.

The ruling allows a lawsuit by a patient’s family to continue against Universal Health Services, a national hospital management company. The plaintiff, Julio Escobar, claims that Universal presented false claims to Medicaid by seeking payments for services provided by unlicensed, unsupervised health care providers. Although the reimbursement claims submitted to the government accurately described the services provided and cited the correct charges, the plaintiffs alleged that because the clinic’s operations violated state requirements to participate in Medicaid, Universal had also violated the FCA. Universal argued the FCA suit was invalid because a reimbursement claim cannot be false unless its details are untrue or inaccurate.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. By using National Provider Identification numbers that corresponded to specific job titles without disclosing many violations of staff and licensing requirements, Universal’s claims constituted misrepresentations, the justices said.

The opinion includes language that is both helpful and harmful to physicians, according to health law attorneys. On the one hand, the justices supported the implied certification theory, thus expanding the scope of potential liability under the FCA in certain circumstances, said George B. Breen, a Washington-based health law attorney.

“The court’s decision is significant for health care providers and suppliers that submit claims to federally funded health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, because the FCA remains one of the federal government’s primary enforcement tools,” Mr. Breen said in an interview. “In the court’s view, half-truths in a claim for reimbursement from a government program … [are] just as actionable as an outright lie if the failure to disclose noncompliance with a statute, regulation, or contract term makes those representations misleading half-truths.”

However, the Supreme Court rejected the government’s notion that every omission, regulatory violation, or contract breach can result in fines and damages under the FCA. The compliance violation must be material to the government’s payment decision, the justices said. This means an alleged regulatory or contractual violation must have mattered to the agency’s payment decision to be actionable under the FCA, said David L. Douglass, a Washington-based health law attorney.

In their written opinion, the justices offered this example: If the government adds a requirement that health providers who participate in Medicaid must buy American-made staplers, and a health provider submits a claim but fails to disclose the use of foreign staplers, that provider should not be held liable under the FCA.

“An undisclosed fact is material if, for instance, no one can say with reason that the plaintiff would have signed this contract if informed of the likelihood of the undisclosed fact,” the justices wrote. “A misrepresentation cannot be deemed material merely because the government designates compliance with a particular requirement as a condition of payment. … The False Claims Act does not adopt such an extraordinarily expansive view of liability.”

This aspect of the ruling is good news for defendants and potential FCA targets, Mr. Douglass said in an interview.

“The court has restored the role of the materiality element,” he said. “The materiality element is a stringent protection against the risk that technical instances of noncompliance can become the basis for punitive liability.”

The high court also noted that if the underlying violation is known to widely occur and, nonetheless, Medicare regularly pays such claims, the violation is likely not material to payment, added William W. Horton, a Birmingham, Ala.–based health law attorney and chair of the American Bar Association Health Law Section.

“What I think this does, from the standpoint of defense of these claims, is open up new possibilities for arguing about whether a technical violation of a legal requirement, in fact, satisfies this test,” Mr. Horton said in an interview. “Whether, if CMS had known the violation occurred, would that have been material to CMS’s decision to pay the claim or not?”

But attorneys for plaintiffs and whistle-blowers are also hailing the Supreme Court opinion as positive for their clients.

Stephen M. Kohn, executive director of the National Whistleblower Center, said the Supreme Court correctly ruled on the issue.

“The legal position taken by the Chamber of Commerce and health care industry in this case was dumbfounding,” Mr. Kohn said in a statement. “Had the court agreed with the chamber and its allies – that you can bill the taxpayers for the services of a so-called doctor who was in fact unlicensed, and whose degree came from an unaccredited Internet college – then the floodgates would be opened for fraud in government contracting.”

Houston-based plaintiffs’ attorney Joel Androphy, who represents whistle-blowers, called the opinion “very favorable” for implied certification claims.

“Eliminating barriers such as the mandated condition of payment language in statutes or regulations was a proper change in direction for evaluating pleadings,” Mr. Androphy said in an interview. “If the defendant cheats, there should not be a free pass because Congress did not include magic wording in statute or regulation to support a false claims case. Materiality may be a lingering area of dispute; however the court made clear that a commonsense approach should be applied.”

agallegos@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @legal_med