scholarly journals Ambulatory Surgery Centers and Interventional Techniques: A Look at Long-Term Survival

2011 ◽  
Vol 3;14 (2;3) ◽  
pp. E177-E212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Ambulatory Surgery ◽  
Health Care Expenditures ◽  
The United States ◽  
Payment System ◽  
Ambulatory Surgery Centers ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Outpatient Procedures ◽  
Interventional Pain Management

With health care expenditures skyrocketing, coupled with pervasive quality deficits, pressures to provide better and more proficient care continue to shape the landscape of the U.S. health care system. Payers, both federal and private, have laid out several initiatives designed to curtail costs, including value-based reimbursement programs, cost-shifting expenses to the consumer, reducing reimbursements for physicians, steering health care to more efficient settings, and finally affordable health care reform. Consequently, one of the major aspects in the expansion of health care for improving quality and reducing costs is surgical services. Nearly 57 million outpatient procedures are performed annually in the United States, 14 million of which occur in elderly patients. Increasing use of these minor, yet common, procedures contributes to rising health care expenditures. Once exclusive within hospitals, more and more outpatient procedures are being performed in freestanding ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), physician offices, visits to which have increased over 300% during the past decade. Concurrent with this growing demand, the number of ASCs has more than doubled since the 1990s, with more than 5,000 facilities currently in operation nationwide. Further, total surgical center ASC payments have increased from $1.2 billion in 1999 to $3.2 billion in 2009, a 167% increase. On the same lines, growth and expenditures for hospital outpatient department (HOPD) services and office procedures also have been evident at similar levels. Recent surveys have illustrated on overall annual growth per capita in Medicare allowed ASC services of pain management of 23%, with 27% growth seen in ASCs and 16% of the growth seen in HOPD. Further, the proportion of interventional pain management which was 4% of Medicare ASC spending in 2000 has increased to 10% in 2007. Thus, interventional pain management as an evolving specialty is one of the most commonly performed procedures in ASC settings apart from HOPDs and well-equipped offices. In June 1998, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) proposed an ASC rule in which at least 60% of interventional procedures were eliminated from ASCs, and the remaining 40% faced substantial cuts in payments. Following the publication of this rule, based on public comments and demand, Congress intervened and delayed implementation of the rule for several years. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published its proposed outpatient prospective system for ASCs in 2006, setting ASC payments at 62% of HOPD payments. Following multiple changes, the rule was incorporated with a 4-year transition formula which ended in 2010, with full effect occurring in 2011 with ASCs reimbursed at 57% of HOPD payments. Thus, the landscape of interventional pain management in ambulatory surgery centers has been constantly changing with declining reimbursements, issues of fraud and abuse, and ever-increasing regulations. Key words: Outpatient prospective payment system, ambulatory surgery center payment system, Government Accountability Office, Medicare Modernization and Improvement Act, interventional techniques

scholarly journals Saga of Payment Systems of Ambulatory Surgery Centers for Interventional Techniques: An Update

2012 ◽  
Vol 2;15 (2;3) ◽  
pp. 109-130
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Health Care System ◽  
Ambulatory Surgery ◽  
Payment System ◽  
Payment Systems ◽  
Ambulatory Surgery Centers ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Hospital Outpatient ◽  
Interventional Pain Management

The health care system in the United States has been criticized for skyrocketing expenditures and quality deficits. Simultaneously, health care providers and systems are under pressure to provide better and more proficient care. The landscape of the US health care system is shaped by federal and private payers which continue to develop initiatives designed to curtail costs. These include value-based reimbursement programs; cost-shifting expenses to the consumer and reducing reimbursement of providers and facilities. Moreover, there is an underlying thought to steer provision of health care to theoretically more efficient settings. Many of these initiatives are based on affordable health care reform. The major aspects of curtailing health care costs include hospital and other facility payments as well as physician payments and reductions in the approved services. Consequently, ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) are not immune to these changes. Until 1970, all surgery was performed in hospitals The development of ASCs and site of service differential payments for in-office procedures have changed the dynamics of surgical trends with outpatient surgeries outpacing inpatient surgeries by as early as 1989. By 2008, approximately 65% of procedures were performed in all outpatient settings including hospital outpatient departments. ASCs claim that improved efficiency in health care delivery allows patients to spend less time in the health care setting with quicker turn over, improving the productivity of the health care team. However, since the majority of the ASCs are owned, in part, by the physicians who staff them, the financial incentives related to ownership have been alleged to potentially alter provider behavior. The number of Medicare certified ASCs and total Medicare payments from 1999 to 2010 increased significantly, but more recent year-to-year changes are far less substantial when compared to previous years. Net percent revenue growth from 2008 to 2009 was 3.2% and from 2009 to 2010 was 6.2% with an overall increase from 1999 of 183% over a period of 11 years. Similarly, the number of Medicare certified ASCs increased from 2,786 in 1999 to 5,316 in 2010, 1.1% increased from 2009 to 2010, however, a 91% increase from 1999 over a period of 11 years. Interventional pain management is one of the fastest growing specialties with a footprint in multiple disciplines. Interventional pain management in ASC settings has come a long way since June 1998 proposed Health Care Financing Administration’s ASC rule which seriously compromised interventional pain management in the ASC setting. There are many payment challenges facing interventional pain management (IPM) in 2012. Significant changes continue to occur in the payment systems with policies of paying a certain percent of hospital outpatient department payments to ASCs which declined from 63% in 2008 to 56% in 2011, with substantial reductions for add-on codes. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) evaluation of IPM codes also consists of multiple misvalued codes. In conclusion, overall the future of ASCs may appear optimistic, but in the near perspective, specifically in 2012 to 2014, there will be challenging times specifically for interventional pain management centers with the regulatory environment and rapid changes taking place with or without implementation of Affordable Care Act. Key words: Outpatient prospective payment system, ambulatory surgery center payment system, Government Accountability Office, Medicare Modernization and Improvement Act, interventional techniques

scholarly journals Physician Refer Thyself: Is Stark II, Phase III the Final Voyage?

2007 ◽  
Vol 6;10 (6;11) ◽  
pp. 725-741
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Ambulatory Surgery ◽  
The United States ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Healthcare Budget ◽  
Ambulatory Surgery Centers ◽  
Physician Practices ◽  
Legal Advice ◽  
Medicare Program ◽  
Interventional Pain Management

The United States spends more of its wealth on healthcare than any other developed country, and that share is rising. Supporters of the free market system point to the regulatory burden on the healthcare industry. Estimates of the regulatory costs of US healthcare range from $58 billion to $339 billion. A recent report indicates that approximately $8 billion of the US healthcare budget of $1.9 trillion is spent on physicians’ extra income derived from their ownership in outpatient facilities, such as ambulatory surgery centers, diagnostic imaging centers, and diagnostic testing and procedure laboratories. It is essential for an interventionalist to understand fraud and abuse, self-referrals, and the implications of the Stark law and anti-kickback statutes, among a maze of other regulations. It is important for interventionalists to understand and also be able to invest in protected and approved investments and also be involved in business dealings which are within the law. Various reasons include: decreasing reimbursements by Medicare, Medicaid, managed care, and all other third-party payors; increased competition in providing interventional pain management; increasing costs of overhead and doing business; the popularity of interventional pain management, leading each and every pain physician to want to provide the service; concerns in multiple settings, including offices, ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), hospitals, private practices, and academic settings; and finally, the failure to develop strategies to remove oneself from questionable investments and business associations. Self-referrals occur when physicians refer to medical facilities in which they have financial interest. Multiple concerns related to self-referral, including conflict of interest and increased costs to the Medicare program, resulted in a ban on self-referral arrangements for clinical laboratory services under the Medicare program in 1989 known as Stark I. In 1993, the Stark I prohibition on self-referrals by physicians expanded to include 10 additional healthcare services known as designated health services or DHS. The 1993 expansion of Stark I was enacted in 1995 as Stark II. In 2007, CMS adopted Phase III of the regulations interpreting Stark II. Phase III made multiple changes and clarified many previous issues, and it becomes effective December 4, 2007. While it is mandatory to obtain expert legal advice and this manuscript in no way provides the extensive navigation required through the maze of Stark laws and other anti-kickback statutes, it is incumbent on interventionalists in all settings of practice to have appropriate knowledge of the Stark laws and exceptions and of the anti-kickback statute and safe harbors. Penalties for violating the Stark laws are severe, including fines of up to $15,000 per service and the economic threat of exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, which may result in exclusion of any type of healthcare program and loss of privileges at hospitals and surgery centers. This manuscript reviews physician practices in general, physician payments, and self-referral patterns in particular, the evolution of the Stark law and regulations and its implications for physician practices. This article is not, and should not be, construed as legal advice or an opinion on specific situations. Key words: Self-referral, Stark I, Stark II, Phase I, Phase II, Phase III, regulations and laws, imaging services, ambulatory surgery centers, incident-to services, in-office ancillary services, antikickback statute

scholarly journals Facility Payments for Interventional Pain Management Procedures: Impact of Proposed Rules

2016 ◽  
Vol 7;19 (7;9) ◽  
pp. E957-E984
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Ambulatory Surgery ◽  
Health Care Expenditure ◽  
Regulatory Regime ◽  
Incentive Payment ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Hospital Outpatient ◽  
Management Procedures ◽  
Interventional Pain Management

In the face of the progressive implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a significant regulatory regime, and the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released its proposed 2017 hospital outpatient department (HOPD) and ambulatory surgery center (ASC) payment rules on July 14, 2016, and the physician payment schedule was released July 15, 2016. U.S. health care costs continue to increase, occupying 17.5% of the gross domestic product (GDP) in 2014 and surpassing $3 trillion in overall health care expenditure. Solo and independent practices face unique challenges and many are being acquired by hospitals or larger groups. This transfer of services to hospital settings is indisputably leading to an increase in the net cost to the system. Comparison of facility payments for interventional techniques in HOPD, ASC, and in-office settings shows wide variation for multiple interventional techniques. Major discrepancies in payment schedules are related to higher payments for hospitals than comparable treatments in in-office settings and ASCs. In-office procedures, which have been converted to ASC procedures, are reimbursed at as high as 1,366% higher than ASCs and 2,156% higher than in-office settings. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has made recommendations on avoiding the discrepancies and site-of-service differentials in in-office settings, hospital outpatient settings, and ASCs. These have not been implemented by CMS. In addition, there have been slow reductions in reimbursements over the recent years, which continue to accumulate, leading to significant reductions in payments In conclusion, equalization of site-of-service differentials will simultaneously improve reimbursement patterns for interventional pain management procedures, increase access and quality of care, and finally, reduce costs for CMS, extending Medicare solvency. Key words: Hospital outpatient departments, ambulatory surgery centers, physician inoffice services, interventional pain management, interventional techniques

scholarly journals Interventional Techniques in Ambulatory Surgical Centers: A Look at the New Payment System

2007 ◽  
Vol 5;10 (9;5) ◽  
pp. 627-650
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Prospective Payment System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Payment System ◽  
Government Accountability ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Statutory Authority ◽  
Transition Formula ◽  
Management Procedures ◽  
Interventional Pain Management

There has been an explosive increase in procedures performed in surgery centers, with approximately 4,700 Medicare-certified surgery centers in the United States. Total ambulatory surgical center (ASC) payments have increased substantially: $1 billion in 1996, and $2.9 billion in 2006. In June 1998, the Healthcare Financing Administration (HCFA; CMS), proposed an ASC rule in which at least 60% of interventional procedures were eliminated from ASCs and the remaining 40% faced substantial cuts in payments. Following the publication of this rule, based on public comments and demand, Congress intervened and delayed implementation of the rule for several years. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) granted broad statutory authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to design a new ASC payment system based on the hospital outpatient payment system. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) published its proposed outpatient prospective system for ASCs in 2006, setting ASC payments at 62% of HOPD payments. This rule faced substantial opposition from providers, patients, and Congress. Consequently, CMS revised the rule with a 4-year transition formula to provide ASCs with 65% of HOPD payments. Based on the new proposed rule, most interventional pain management procedures in ASCs will lose approximately 3% to 5% without taking into account that there have not been any increments since 2004, except for a few small increases for some procedures, along with the addition of office procedures, which can now be performed in an ASC setting. However, payments for procedures moved from the office setting to ASCs remain at the lower office rates, which face substantial cuts on their own. The proposed CMS rule will have widespread effects on physician payments, ASC payments, and particularly interventional pain management physicians. Key words: Outpatient prospective payment system, ambulatory surgery center payment system, Government Accountability Office, Medicare Modernization and Improvement Act, interventional techniques

scholarly journals Analysis of Growth of Interventional Techniques in Managing Chronic Pain in the Medicare Population: A 10-Year Evaluation from 1997 to 2006

2009 ◽  
Vol 1;12 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 9-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Ambulatory Surgery ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Medicare Beneficiaries ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Ambulatory Surgery Center ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Joint Injections ◽  
Surgery Center

Background: Recent reports of the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) expressed significant concern with overall fiscal sustainability of Medicare and exponential increase in costs for interventional pain management techniques. Interventional pain management (IPM) is an evolving specialty amenable to multiple influences. Evaluation and isolation of appropriate factors for increasing growth patterns have not been performed. Study Design: Analysis of the growth of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain in Medicare beneficiaries from 1997 to 2006. Objective: To evaluate the use of all interventional techniques. Methods: The standard 5% national sample of the CMS carrier claim record data for 1997, 2002, and 2006 was utilized. This data set provides information on Medicare enrollees in the feefor-service Medicare program. Current procedural technology (CPT) codes for 1997, 2002, and 2006 were used to identify the number of procedures performed each year, and trends in expenditures. Results: Interventional techniques increased significantly in Medicare beneficiaries from 1997 to 2006. Overall, there was an increase of 137% in patients utilizing IPM services with an increase of 197% in IPM services, per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries. The majority of the increases were attributed to exponential growth in the performance of facet joint interventions. There was a 13.9-fold difference in the increase between the state with the lowest rate and the state with the highest rate in utilization patterns of interventional techniques (California 37% vs. Connecticut 514%), with an 11.6-fold difference between Florida and California (431% vs. 37% increase). In 2006, Florida showed a 12.7-fold difference compared to Hawaii with the lowest utilization rate. Hospital outpatient department (HOPD) expenses constituted the highest increase with fewer patients treated either in an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) or in-office setting. Overall HOPD payments constituted 5% of total 2006 Medicare payments, in contrast to 57% of total IPM payments, an 11.4-fold difference. Limitations: The limitations of this study include a lack of inclusion of Medicare participants in Medicare Advantage plans and potential documentation, coding, and billing errors. Conclusion: This study shows an overall increase of IPM services of 197% compared to an increase of 137% in patients utilizing IPM services from 1997 to 2006. Key words: Interventional techniques, interventional pain management, facet joint injections, epidural steroid injections, sacroiliac joint injections, chronic pain, chronic spinal pain, ambulatory surgery center (ASC), hospital outpatient department (HOPD)

scholarly journals Accountable Interventional Pain Management: A Collaboration Among Practitioners, Patients, Payers, and Government

2013 ◽  
Vol 6;16 (6;11) ◽  
pp. E635-E670
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Sacroiliac Joint ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fee For Service ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Facet Joint Interventions

The prevalence, costs, and disability associated with chronic pain continue to escalate. So too, the numerous modalities of treatments applied in managing these patients continue to increase as well. In the period from 2000 to 2011 interventional techniques increased 228%. In addition, analysis of utilization trends and expenditures for spinal interventional techniques alone from 2000 to 2008 illustrated an increase in Medicare fee-for-service expenditures of 240% in terms of dollars spent in the United States. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services showed an increase in facet joint and transforaminal epidural injections, with a significant proportion of these services did not meet the medical necessity criteria. The increasing utilization of interventional techniques is also associated with significant variations among specialty groups and regional variations among states. Overall procedures have increased by 173%, with rate of 130% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries for epidural injections; 383%, with a rate of 308% for facet joint interventions; and overall 410%, or a rate of 331% for sacroiliac joint interventions. Certain high volume interventions such as lumbar transforaminal epidural injections and lumbar facet joint neurolysis have actually increased a staggering 806% and 662%. Coverage policies across ambulatory settings and by multiple payers are highly variable. Apart from variability in the development of coverage policies, payments also substantially vary by site of service. In general, amongst the various ambulatory settings the highest payments are made to hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) the lowest to in-office procedures, and payment to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) falling somewhere in the middle. This manuscript describes the many differences that exist between the various settings, and includes suggestions for accountable interventional pain management with coverage for techniques with evidence, addressing excessive use of specific techniques, and equalizing payments across multiple ambulatory settings. Key words: Accountable interventional pain management, Medicare, Medicare Evidence Development & Coverage Advisory Committee, epidural injections, facet joint interventions, sacroiliac joint injections, payment policies

scholarly journals Physician Payment Outlook for 2012: Déjà Vu

2012 ◽  
Vol 1;15 (1;1) ◽  
pp. E27-E52
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Growth Rate ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Conversion Factor ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sustainable Growth ◽  
Physician Payment ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Fee Schedule ◽  
The Impact

Physician spending is complex related to national health care spending, government regulations, health care reform, private insurers, physician practice, and patient utilization patterns. In determining payment rates for each service on the fee schedule, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) considers the amount of work required to provide a service, expenses related to maintaining a practice, and liability insurance costs. The value of 3 types of resources are adjusted on a yearly basis of the combined total multiplied by a standard dollar amount, called the fee schedules conversion factor, which was $33.98 in 2011, to arrive at the payment amount. This factor will stay almost the same ($34.03) unless a 27.4% cut in the sustainable growth rate (SGR) takes place or CMS enacts further reductions. With a 27.4% cut, the conversion factor will be $24.67 in 2012 after the first 2 months if Congress fails to act. Since the inception of Medicare programs in 1965, several methods have been used to determine the amounts paid to physicians for each covered service. The SGR was enacted in 1997 to determine physician payment updates under Medicare Part B with intent to reduce Medicare physician payment updates to offset the growth and utilization of physician services that exceed gross domestic product (GDP) growth. This is achieved by setting an overall target amount of spending for physicians’ services and adjusting payment rates annually to reflect differences between actual spending and the spending target. Since 2002, the SGR has annually recommended reductions in Medicare reimbursements. Payments were cut in 2002 by 4.8%. Since then, Congress has intervened on 13 separate occasions to prevent additional cuts from being imposed. The Medicare physician payment rule of 2012, which is still undergoing revisions -- but considered as the final rule-- is a 1,235 page document, released in November 2011. In this manuscript, we will describe important aspects of the 2012 physician fee schedule which include potentially disvalued services under the physician fee schedule, expansion of the multiple procedure payment reduction (MPPR) policy, establishment of the valuebased payment modifier, changes to direct practice expenses (PEs), electronic prescribing, the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), and lab testing signatures, along with their implications. Additionally, the impact of multiple changes on interventional pain management will be described. In conclusion, interventional pain management is facing widespread challenges in the U.S. health care system. A historic reform, which has been passed by Congress and signed into law, whose survivability is not quite known yet, is affecting medicine drastically in the United States. Interventional pain management, like other evolving specialties, will probably most likely suffer under the new affordable health care law and regulatory burden. Key words: Health policy, physician payment policy, physician fee schedule, Medicare, sustained growth rate formula, interventional pain management, regulatory reform

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic Reviews, and Guidelines in Interventional Pain Management, Part I: Introduction and General Considerations

2008 ◽  
Vol 2;11 (3;2) ◽  
pp. 161-186
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
The United States ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Based Medicine

Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines are part of modern interventional pain management. As in other specialties in the United States, evidence-based medicine appears to motivate the search for answers to numerous questions related to costs and quality of health care as well as access to care. Scientific, relevant evidence is essential in clinical care, policy-making, dispute resolution, and law. Consequently, evidence based practice brings together pertinent, trustworthy information by systematically acquiring, analyzing, and transferring research findings into clinical, management, and policy arenas. In the United States, researchers, clinicians, professional organizations, and government are looking for a sensible approach to health care with practical evidence-based medicine. All modes of evidence-based practice, either in the form of evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, or guidelines, evolve through a methodological, rational accumulation, analysis, and understanding of the evidentiary knowledge that can be applied in clinical settings. Historically, evidence-based medicine is traceable to the 1700s, even though it was not explicitly defined and advanced until the late 1970s and early 1980s. Evidence-based medicine was initially called “critical appraisal” to describe the application of basic rules of evidence as they evolve into application in daily practices. Evidence-based medicine is defined as a conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. Evidence-based practice is defined based on 4 basic and important contingencies, which include recognition of the patient’s problem and construction of a structured clinical question, thorough search of medical literature to retrieve the best available evidence to answer the question, critical appraisal of all available evidence, and integration of the evidence with all aspects and contexts of the clinical circumstances. Systematic reviews provide the application of scientific strategies that limit bias by the systematic assembly, critical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies on a specific topic. While systematic reviews are close to meta-analysis, they are vastly different from narrative reviews and health technology assessments. Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed statements that aim to help physicians and patients reach the best health care decisions. Appropriately developed guidelines incorporate validity, reliability, reproducibility, clinical applicability and flexibility, clarity, development through a multidisciplinary process, scheduled reviews, and documentation. Thus, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines represent statements developed to improve the quality of care, patient access, treatment outcomes, appropriateness of care, efficiency and effectiveness and achieve cost containment by improving the cost benefit ratio. Part 1 of this series in evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management provides an introduction and general considerations of these 3 aspects in interventional pain management. Key words: Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, clinical guidelines, narrative reviews, health technology assessments, grading of evidence, recommendations, grading systems, strength of evidence.

scholarly journals A Perfect Storm in Interventional Pain Management: Regulated, but Unbalanced

2010 ◽  
Vol 2;13 (1;2) ◽  
pp. 109-116
Author(s):  
Ramsin M. Benyamin
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Research Bias ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Perfect Storm

Interventional pain management now stands at the crossroads at what is described as “the perfect storm.” The confluence of several factors has led to devastating results for interventional pain management. This article seeks to provide a perspective to various issues producing conditions conducive to creating a “perfect storm” such as use and abuse of interventional pain management techniques, and in the same context, use and abuse of various non-interventional techniques. The rapid increase in opioid drug prescribing, costs to health care, large increases in death rates, and random and rampant drug testing, can also lead to increases in health care utilization. Other important aspects that are seldom discussed include medico-legal and ethical perspectives of individual and professional societal opinions and the interpretation of diagnostic accuracy of controlled diagnostic blocks. The aim of this article is to discuss the impact of several factors on interventional pain management and overuse, abuse, waste, and fraud; inappropriate application without evidence-based literature support (sometimes leading to selective use or non-use of randomized or observational studies for proving biased viewpoints — post priori rather than a priori), and issues related to multiple professional societies having their own agendas to push rather than promulgating the science of interventional pain management. This perspective is based on a review of articles published in this issue of Pain Physician, information in the public domain, and other relevant articles. Based on the results of this review, various issues of relevance to modern interventional pain management are discussed and the viewpoints of several experts debated. In conclusion, supporters of interventional pain management disagree on multiple aspects for various reasons while detractors claim that interventional pain management should not exist as a speciality. Issues to be addressed include appropriate use of evidence-based medicine (EBM), overuse, overutilization, and abuse. Key words: Interventional pain management, interventional techniques, physician payment reform, fraud, abuse, evidence-based medicine, health care costs, comparative effectiveness research, bias

scholarly journals The Effect of COVID-19 on Interventional Pain Management Practices: A Physician Burnout Survey

2020 ◽  
Vol 4S;23 (8;4S) ◽  
pp. S271-S282
Author(s):  
Amol Soin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
The United States ◽  
Online Marketing ◽  
Pain Medicine ◽  
Physician Burnout ◽  
Physician Practices ◽  
Interventional Pain Management

Background: Burnout has been a commonly discussed issue for the past ten years among physicians and other health care workers. A survey of interventional pain physicians published in 2016 reported high levels of emotional exhaustion, often considered the most taxing aspect of burnout. Job dissatisfaction appeared to be the leading agent in the development of burnout in pain medicine physicians in the United States. The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically affected the entire health care workforce and interventional pain management, with other surgical specialties, has been affected significantly. The COVID-19 pandemic has placed several physical and emotional stressors on interventional pain management physicians and this may lead to increased physician burnout. Objective: To assess the presence of burnout specific to COVID-19 pandemic among practicing interventional pain physicians. Methods: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) administered a 32 question survey to their members by contacting them via commercially available online marketing company platform. The survey was completed on www.constantcontact.com. Results: Of 179 surveys sent, 100 responses were obtained. The data from the survey demonstrated that 98% of physician practices were affected by COVID and 91% of physicians felt it had a significant financial impact. Sixty seven percent of the physicians responded that inhouse billing was responsible for their increased level of burnout, whereas 73% responded that electronic medical records (EMRs) were one of the causes. Overall, 78% were very concerned. Almost all respondents have been affected with a reduction in interventional procedures. 60% had a negative opinion about the future of their practice, whereas 66% were negative about the entire health care industry. Limitations: The survey included only a small number of member physicians. Consequently, it may not be generalized for other specialties or even pain medicine. However, it does represent the sentiment and present status of interventional pain management. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has put interventional pain practices throughout the United States under considerable financial and psychological stress. It is essential to quantify the extent of economic loss, offer strategies to actively manage provider practice/wellbeing, and minimize risk to personnel to keep patients safe. Key Words: Interventional pain management, burnout, interventional pain physician, corona COVID-19, financial stress, anxiety, depression

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document