Final Medicare no-pay rule targets 10 hospital-acquired conditions

Physicians had called for the reform to include only condition categories that can be eliminated through evidence-based practices.

By — Posted Aug. 25, 2008

Print  |   Email  |   Respond  |   Reprints  |   Like Facebook  |   Share Twitter  |   Tweet Linkedin

A new effort to reduce hospital Medicare pay for preventable medical complications won't result in a significant number of rejected claims, according to federal officials. But physicians insisted the initiative needs to be reworked to account for patient risk factors and other issues largely beyond doctors' control.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on July 31 finalized a rule that lists 10 categories of hospital-acquired conditions for which it will limit inpatient Medicare payment starting Oct. 1. The list includes two additional categories of conditions from a previously proposed list of eight and an expansion of a proposed surgical infection category. If patients develop any of these medical problems during their hospital stays, Medicare will not reimburse the hospital at the higher rate for treating these complications. It will still pay to treat the primary diagnosis and other complications. The rule does not alter payment for the physicians who provide that care.

CMS estimates the effort will reduce Medicare spending by only about $21 million per year. In contrast, the program spent about $20 billion last year on total care for patients with these problems. That's in part because patients often have complications that are not listed in the rule and thus do trigger higher Medicare payments.

CMS Acting Administrator Kerry Weems downplayed the dollars at stake and said the pay reforms have a larger goal than reducing spending.

"This is really about making hospitals and the health system just a safer place to be," Weems said. The rule also applies to private Medicare plans.

Doctors agreed that some of the listed conditions, such as a foreign object inside a surgery patient, should be prevented all of the time. But CMS should not apply the same rules to conditions that doctors cannot always prevent, such as surgical infections, said American Medical Association President-elect J. James Rohack, MD.

"To be reasonably preventable, there should be solid evidence that by following guidelines, the occurrence of an event can be reduced to zero or near zero," he said. "This is not the case for many of the now-banned conditions."

The CMS effort will actually increase spending on tests to determine whether patients have the conditions, which could negate some of the savings CMS anticipates, Dr. Rohack said. "A more effective patient safety approach would be to encourage compliance with evidence-based guidelines by health care professionals."

Conditions omitted, for now

CMS had proposed including up to 17 condition categories with 22 individual items in the final rule. Public comments critical of the rule convinced the agency to exclude many of them, officials said.

"We had a lot of robust discussion in the comments concerning the hospital-acquired conditions. We responded ... by removing some of those for reconsideration," said Jeffrey Rich, MD, director of CMS' Center for Medicare Management.

Two of the more controversial conditions CMS proposed but did not include in the rule were ventilator-associated pneumonia and Clostridium difficile-associated disease, Dr. Rich said. The conditions cost Medicare a combined $10 billion to treat last year. The AMA and other organizations objected to their inclusion because they were not "reasonably preventable," as required by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. That law instructed CMS to limit payment for avoidable hospital-acquired conditions.

CMS will continue to work with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Quality Forum to develop evidence-based guidelines in advance of including these and other omitted conditions in future Medicare no-pay rules, Dr. Rich said. "We think these are very serious infections that are important to the health care system and to the patients of the United States. So we will continue to look at these."

The rule does not address payment for errors involving physicians performing the wrong surgery or operating on the wrong patient or body part. CMS will finalize these policies by April 2009.

CMS also has plans to expand the hospital-acquired conditions payment policy outside of the inpatient setting. The agency eventually anticipates applying this rule to nursing homes, home health agencies and ambulatory care settings, said CMS Chief Medical Officer Barry Straube, MD. But a spokesman said the agency would need approval from Congress before subjecting physician practices to the same policy.

The risk factor

The rule could lead physicians and hospitals to be wary about treating higher-risk beneficiaries, doctors said. Every patient has the same risk for having a foreign object left inside him or her, but not everyone has the same risk for a pulmonary embolism, said Kevin J. Bozic, MD, an American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons board member. Patients who have had a previous embolism or who are morbidly obese are more likely to have one, but the CMS rule excludes payment for embolisms related to knee and hip replacements without recognizing this risk.

"You need to appropriately factor in the patient risk when determining whether a condition is reasonably avoidable," Dr. Bozic said.

Every no-pay condition must also have evidence-based prevention standards for physicians to follow, said Nancy Foster, the American Hospital Assn.'s vice president for quality and patient safety. Even straightforward-sounding complications such as falls are difficult to eliminate because there are no evidence-based guidelines to accomplish that, she said.

"It's like wishing you could cure cancer or heart disease. It won't happen just because you change the payment system," Foster said.

Hospital administrative staff will rely on physicians' notes to determine whether patients had any conditions when they were admitted, Dr. Bozic said. That means doctors will need to spend more time documenting existing infections and signs of pressure ulcers on incoming patients.

The rule should allow for a third-party review of the events that led to the condition to see if it was a truly preventable occurrence, said Bruce Auerbach, MD, a member of the American College of Emergency Physicians' Quality and Performance Committee. "It's not always as clear-cut as the rules appear to indicate."

Still, the rule could have included more conditions and increased doctors' workload even more dramatically, Dr. Auerbach said. "Overall, people are somewhat reassured by the fact that the list was not larger."

Back to top


The no-pay list

Medicare finalized a list of types of conditions for which, starting Oct. 1, it will no longer reimburse hospitals at the higher diagnosis-related group rate.

  • Stage III, IV pressure ulcers
  • Fall or trauma resulting in serious injury
  • Vascular catheter-associated infection
  • Catheter-associated urinary tract infection
  • Foreign object retained after surgery
  • Certain surgical site infections
  • Air embolism
  • Blood incompatibility
  • Certain manifestations of poor blood sugar control
  • Certain deep vein thromboses or pulmonary embolisms

Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

Back to top

Hospitals to have more measures to report

Medicare in late July announced 13 additional quality measures hospitals must report, starting Oct. 1, to receive full payment in fiscal year 2010. CMS is retiring one measure -- pneumonia oxygenation assessment -- due to near 100% compliance, which brings the total required reported measures to 42. The new measures are:

  • Heart failure 30-day risk standardized readmission measure
  • Failure to rescue
  • Surgery patients on a beta-blocker prior to arrival who received one during the perioperative period
  • Death among surgical patients with treatable serious complications
  • Adult collapsed lung
  • Postoperative wound reopening
  • Accidental puncture or laceration
  • Abdominal aortic aneurysm mortality rate
  • Hip fracture mortality rate
  • Mortality for a composite of selected medical conditions
  • Mortality for a composite of selected surgical procedures
  • Complication and patient safety for a composite of selected indicators
  • Participation in a systematic database for cardiac surgery

Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

Back to top



Read story

Confronting bias against obese patients

Medical educators are starting to raise awareness about how weight-related stigma can impair patient-physician communication and the treatment of obesity. Read story

Read story


American Medical News is ceasing publication after 55 years of serving physicians by keeping them informed of their rapidly changing profession. Read story

Read story

Policing medical practice employees after work

Doctors can try to regulate staff actions outside the office, but they must watch what they try to stamp out and how they do it. Read story

Read story

Diabetes prevention: Set on a course for lifestyle change

The YMCA's evidence-based program is helping prediabetic patients eat right, get active and lose weight. Read story

Read story

Medicaid's muddled preventive care picture

The health system reform law promises no-cost coverage of a lengthy list of screenings and other prevention services, but some beneficiaries still might miss out. Read story

Read story

How to get tax breaks for your medical practice

Federal, state and local governments offer doctors incentives because practices are recognized as economic engines. But physicians must know how and where to find them. Read story

Read story

Advance pay ACOs: A down payment on Medicare's future

Accountable care organizations that pay doctors up-front bring practice improvements, but it's unclear yet if program actuaries will see a return on investment. Read story

Read story

Physician liability: Your team, your legal risk

When health care team members drop the ball, it's often doctors who end up in court. How can physicians improve such care and avoid risks? Read story

  • Stay informed
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • LinkedIn