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 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 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 Proposed Medicare Physician Payment Schedule for 2017: Impact on Interventional Pain Management Practices

2016 ◽  
Vol 7;19 (7;9) ◽  
pp. E935-E955
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Payment System ◽  
Incentive Payment ◽  
Physician Payment ◽  
Office Setting ◽  
Hospital Outpatient ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Fee Schedule

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released the proposed 2017 Medicare physician fee schedule on July 7, 2016, addressing Medicare payments for physicians providing services either in an office or facility setting, which also includes payments for office expenses and quality provisions for physicians. This proposed rule occurs in the context of numerous policy changes, most notably related to the Medicare Access & CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) and its Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). The proposed rule affects interventional pain management specialists in reimbursement for evaluation and management services, as well as procedures performed in a facility or in-office setting. Changes in the proposed fee schedule impacting interventional pain management practices include adjustments to the meaningful use (MU) program, care management in patientcentered services, identification and review of potentially misvalued services, evaluation of moderate sedation services, Medicare telehealth services, updated geographic practice cost index, data collection on resources used in furnishing global services, reporting of modifier 25 for zero day global services, Medicare Advantage Part C provider and supplier enrollment, appropriate use criteria (AUC) for advanced imaging services, and Medicare shared savings programs. The proposed schedule has provided rates for new epidural codes with or without imaging (fluoroscopy or computed tomography [CT]) and a fee schedule for a new code covering endoscopic spinal decompression. Review of payment rates show major discrepancies in payment schedules with high payments for hospitals, 2,156% higher than in-office procedures. Some procedures which were converted from in-office settings to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) are being reimbursed at 1,366% higher than ASCs. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) recommendation on avoiding the discrepancies and site-of-service differentials in in-office settings, hospital outpatient settings, and ASCs has not been agreed to by CMS. Thus, even though the changes appear to be minor in physician services and in-office service payment, these changes cumulatively have been reducing payments for interventional procedures. Further, in-office reimbursement is overall significantly lower than ASCs and hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) specifically for intraarticular injections, peripheral nerve blocks, and peripheral neurolytic injections. The significant advantage also continues for hospitals in their reimbursement for facility fee for evaluation and management services. This health policy review describes various issues related to health care expenses, health care reform, and finally its effects on physician payments for all services and also for the services provided in an office setting. Key words: Physician payment policy, physician fee schedule, Medicare, Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, interventional pain management, regulatory tsunami, Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015

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 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 Assessment of Infection Control Practices for Interventional Techniques: A Best Evidence Synthesis of Safe Injection Practices and Use of Single-Dose Medication Vials

2012 ◽  
Vol 5;15 (5;9) ◽  
pp. E573-E614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Single Dose ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Infection Control ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Management Procedures ◽  
Best Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Multiple Patients

Background: It is universally accepted that transmission of bloodborne pathogens during health care procedures continues to occur because of the use of unsafe and improper injection, infusion, and medication administration practices by health care professionals in various clinical settings. This resulted in development of multiple guidelines based on case reports; however, these case reports are confounded by multiple factors without causal relationship to a single factor. Even then, singledose vials used for multiple patients have been singled out and became the focus of infection control policies resulting in inordinate expenses for practices without improving patient safety. The cost of implementation of single dose vial policy in Interventional Pain Management for drugs alone may cost $750 million, whereas with single use radional gloves may exceed $1 billion per year. Study Design: Best evidence synthesis. Objective: To critically appraise and synthesize the literature on infection control practices for interventional techniques, including safe injection and medication vial utilization. Methods: The available literature on infection control practices was reviewed. Due to the nature of the studies involved, with the majority being case reports, and a few prospective evaluations, quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria were not applied. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 through June 2012, literature from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was correlating infection to a breach of standards in infection control practices. The secondary objective was to assess the contribution of single-dose vials independently for infection. Results: A total of 60 reports met inclusion criteria, with 16 reports related to pain management and other procedures, of which 9 reports were attributed to issues related to interventional techniques. Based on an estimated 37 infections occurring during 200 million interventional techniques from 1997 through 2011, the rate of infection is speculated to be one infection for every 5 million interventional pain management procedures. However, if 10 times more infections are estimated, the infection rate appears to be one infection for every 500,000 interventional pain management procedures. The evidence is good for infection related to a breach of infection control practices. There is good evidence that contamination of multi-dose or single-dose vials can contribute to infection. There was poor evidence that the use of single-dose vials on multiple patients with appropriate infection control practices cause infection in interventional pain management. Limitations: The limitations of this comprehensive best evidence synthesis include the paucity of literature and dependence of governmental agencies on their literature without applying Institute of Medicine (IOM) criteria for guideline synthesis

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

Interventional Pain Management Procedures

2020 ◽  
pp. 523-653
Author(s):  
Gabor Bela Racz ◽  
Gabor J. Racz ◽  
Tibor A. Racz
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Management Procedures ◽  
Interventional Pain Management

scholarly journals Reassessment of Evidence Synthesis of Occupational Medicine Practice Guidelines for Interventional Pain Management

2008 ◽  
Vol 4;11 (8;4) ◽  
pp. 393-482
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Strong Evidence ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Medial Branch ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Interventional Pain Management

Background: Appropriately developed practice guidelines present statements of best practice based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence from published studies on the outcomes of treatments, which include the application of multiple methods for collecting and evaluating evidence for a wide range of clinical interventions and disciplines. However, the guidelines are neither infallible, nor a substitute for clinical judgment. While the guideline development process is a complex phenomenon, conflict of interest in guideline development and inappropriate methodologies must be avoided. It has been alleged that the guidelines by the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) prevent injured workers from receiving the majority of medically necessary and appropriate interventional pain management services. An independent critical appraisal of both chapters of the ACOEM guidelines showed startling findings with a conclusion that these guidelines may not be applied in patient care as they scored below 30% in the majority of evaluations utilizing multiple standardized criteria. Objective: To reassess the evidence synthesis for the ACOEM guidelines for the low back pain and chronic pain chapters utilizing an expanded methodology, which includes the criteria included in the ACOEM guidelines with the addition of omitted literature and application of appropriate criteria. Methods: For reassessment, randomized trials were utilized as it was in the preparation of the guidelines. In this process, quality of evidence was assessed and recommendations were made based on grading recommendations of Guyatt et al. The level of evidence was determined utilizing the quality of evidence criteria developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), as well as the outdated quality of evidence criteria utilized by ACOEM in the guideline preparation. Methodologic quality of each individual article was assessed utilizing the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) methodologic assessment criteria for diagnostic interventions and Cochrane methodologic quality assessment criteria for therapeutic interventions. Results: The results of reassessment are vastly different from the conclusions derived by the ACOEM guidelines. The differences in strength of rating for the diagnosis of discogenic pain by provocation discography and facet joint pain by diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks is established with strong evidence. Therapeutic cervical and lumbar medial branch blocks and radiofrequency neurolysis, therapeutic thoracic medial branch blocks, cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections, caudal epidural steroid injections, lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, percutaneous and endoscopic adhesiolysis, and spinal cord stimulation qualified for moderate to strong evidence. Additional insight is also provided for evidence rating for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET), automated percutaneous disc decompression, and intrathecal implantables. Conclusion: The reassessment and reevaluation of the low back and chronic pain chapters of the ACOEM guidelines present results that are vastly different from the published and proposed guidelines. Contrary to ACOEM’s conclusions of insufficient evidence for most interventional techniques, the results illustrate moderate to strong evidence for most diagnostic and therapeutic interventional techniques. Key words: Guidelines, evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, ACOEM, interventional pain management, interventional techniques, guideline development, workers’ compensation, chronic pain guidelines, low back pain guidelines

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document