Wired Health – Proteus Digital Pill Presentation

Proteus occupy an interesting position… ingestibles are the ultimate in wearables. It’s smart also to be backed a big flailing incumbent player. It will be interesting to see if this stuff works.

http://www.proteus.com/andrew-thompson-on-transforming-healthcare-at-wired-health-2014/

Andrew Thompson on transforming healthcare at Wired Health 2014

Published On: May 5, 2014

Watch Proteus CEO Andrew Thompson present at Wired Health 2014 on transforming healthcare through digital medicines:  http://bit.ly/1lS7RLe 

WIRED Health is a one-day summit designed to introduce, explain and predict the coming trends facing the medical and personal healthcare industries. The inaugural event was held on Tuesday April 29, at the new home of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 30 Euston Square, London.Andrew Thompson at Wired

Peter Martin nails the daftness of the budget health cuts…

…with some help from SRL. The  last par nails it:

Withdrawing from  measures we know will work in order to fund new measures we think might work seems a daft way to manage our health. But it’ll help cut the deficit.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/when-deep-cuts-are-not-healthy-20140602-zrukf.html

When deep cuts are not healthy

Date

Economics Editor, The Age

View more articles from Peter Martin

Illustration: Andrew Dyson

Illustration: Andrew Dyson.

It took Mark Latham to say the unsayable. “If a cure to cancer is to be found, most likely it will happen in Europe or the United States,” he wrote in the Weekend Financial Review. Spending scarce funds to find a cure ourselves is a waste of money, a political fig leaf to cover the electoral pain of the GP co-payment.

Anyone who doubts that the Medical Research Future Fund is a fig leaf or an afterthought, needs to only look at the pattern of leaks and speeches leading up to the budget. Ministers spoke often about the need to restrain the cost of Medicare, scarcely at all about the need to boost medical research.

They weren’t able to prepare the way for the medical research future fund because it didn’t come first. It isn’t that pharmaceutical benefits, doctors rebates and future hospital funding are being cut to pay for the fund. It’s that the fund was evoked late in the piece to smooth the edges of the cuts.

Under the descriptions of 23 separate cuts in the budget are  the words: “The savings from this measure will be invested by the government in the Medical Research Future Fund”.

The cuts hit dental health, mental health, funding for eye examinations, measures to improve diagnostic images, research into preventive health, a trial of e-health and $55 billion of hospital funding over the next 10 years.

We’re told the cuts are to build a $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund, but the immediate purpose is to cut the deficit.

The wonders of budget accounting mean that the savings notionally allocated to the fund will actually be used to bring down the budget deficit except for when money is withdrawn from the fund to pay for research.

It’s the same trick Peter Costello pulled with the Future Fund. The government gets two gold stars for the price of one. It can both cut the deficit and build up the funds for medical research. And it isn’t yet too sure about what type of research.

Under questioning by senators on Monday, health department officials revealed that they didn’t even know about the fund until late in the budget process and even then provided no advice on how it would work.

Asked about the kind of things the fund would finance, the department’s secretary Jane Halton said the questions were hypothetical.

Would it include evaluations of potentially life-saving preventive health measures such as SunSmart and anti-tobacco programs? “I think it’s unlikely based on the description I have seen, but again we are in an area that we probably can’t yet answer,” she replied.

A few minutes later she asked for her words to be expunged saying she really didn’t know. “We need to work through this level of detail” she told the senators.

We know that cures for cancer, Alzheimer’s and heart disease will be part of fund’s remit, because the Treasurer told us so. “One day someone will find a cure for cancer,” he said after the budget. “Let it be an Australian and let it be us investing in our own health care.”

Latham’s point is that the idea is silly. By all means contribute proportionately to a global effort to find cures for diseases, but don’t try and lead the pack by taking scarce dollars away from applying the medical lessons we have already learnt.

Small countries like Australia are for the most part users rather than creators of technology, and our funds are limited as Joe Hockey well knows.

The Medical Journal of Australia isn’t fooled. This month’s editorial says a government genuinely concerned about extending the working lives of Australians would be investing more in preventing chronic disease, not less.

“The direct effects of the proposed federal budget on prevention include cuts to funding for the National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health, loss of much of the money previously administered through the now-defunct Australian National Preventive Health Agency, and reductions in social media campaigns, for example, on smoking cessation,” it says.

“Increased funding for bowel cancer screening, the Sporting Schools initiative, the proposed National Diabetes Strategy and for dementia research are positive developments, but do not balance the losses.”

It’s the indirect effects of the measures the fund seeks to make palatable that have it really worried. The $7 co-payment will work out at $14 for patients with chronic diseases. They’ll pay once to see the doctor and then again to have a test. The editorial quoted four studies which have each found that visits for preventive reasons are the ones co-payments are most likely to cut back.

“The effects of these co-payments on preventive behaviour are greatest among those who can least afford the additional costs,” it observes. Which is a pity because “the potential for prevention is greatest among poorer patients, who are often at a health disadvantage”.

We’ll all suffer if co-payments cut vaccination rates, even those of us who aren’t poor, and even if the Medical Research Future Fund finds a cure cancer.

The journal’s biggest concern is that the cuts to hospital services will hit preventive health measures because they are seen as less urgent.

“The greatest pity of all is that the proposed cuts to funding for health come at the time when the first evidence is at hand of potential benefits of the large-scale preventive programs implemented under the national partnership agreements,” the journal writes. “A slowing in the rate of increase in childhood obesity and reductions in smoking rates among indigenous populations have been hard-won achievements.”

Withdrawing from  measures we know will work in order to fund new measures we think might work seems a daft way to manage our health. But it’ll help cut the deficit.

Peter Martin is economics editor of The Age.

Twitter: @1petermartin

Doggett backs in Professor Halton

In the context of recent experiences, this analysis does not stand up:

Blaming a public servant – even one as senior and reputedly influential as Professor Halton – for a bad Government decision not only lets Minister Peter Dutton off the hook on this issue, it undermines the fundamental accountability of the Government.  Both critics and supporters of the Government and its 2014/15 Budget initiatives should focus on ensuring Ministers are fully answerable to the community for their decisions and not look to public servants as scapegoats.

Also annoying to see Terry continuing to dig a hole:

Former Liberal adviser Terry Barnes took to Twitter over the weekend to publicly criticise Department of Health Secretary Professor Jane Halton for her role in the Government’s GP co-payment Budget initiative.  Among his comments were “Jane Halton was chief designer of the GP co-pay package. Send her to Geneva, not Finance’.

 

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/2014/06/02/senate-estimates-what-they-reveal-about-federal-budget-201415/

Senate Estimates – what they reveal about Federal Budget 2014/15

Estimates are an important part of Government accountability and transparency processes and can often reveal some key details of funding measures which may not have been disclosed in the official Budget papers or, through some political ‘oversight’, left out of the Budget night communications.

For example, last week Senator Penny Wong relentless pursued a line of inquiry on the cuts to Indigenous health services – revealing that despite the significantly poorer status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, services to them were being cut by over half a billion dollars with the future a broad range of health, social welfare and education programmes still in budgetary limbo.

Senator Rachel Siewert has also been active in Estimates on this issue sending out a number of Tweets, including the following:

OMG Govt health ppl responsible for Aboriginal Medical Services haven’t modelled impact of $7 GP co-payment on those services

Govt cutting $165.8m from Aboriginal health to put in Health Research Future Fund – as if the health problems aren’t urgent now
 
Sorry apparently these aren’t cuts to Aboriginal health programmes they are pauses

Due to its potential for ferretting out nuggets of media-friendly and politically damaging information, the Estimates process has become a much more intense and partisan process than perhaps it was ever intended to be.  With politicians interrogating public servants for their own political ends and using the opportunity for some grandstanding of their own, the pressure on bureaucrats to maintain their a-political positions is intense. Surely it can’t be easy for a senior public servant, no doubt impacted themselves by Government cuts to the bureaucracy and worried about their own job security, to have to explain Government policies and funding cuts they often had little influence over and in many cases don’t agree with?

Despite the potential for ‘free and fearless advice’ to be overshadowed by political machinations, it’s important not to blur the lines between the political and bureaucratic processes when looking at the Senate Estimates process.  Former Liberal adviser Terry Barnes took to Twitter over the weekend to publicly criticise Department of Health Secretary Professor Jane Halton for her role in the Government’s GP co-payment Budget initiative.  Among his comments were “Jane Halton was chief designer of the GP co-pay package. Send her to Geneva, not Finance’.

I am not privy to the communications between the Department and the Minister’s Office on the co-payment issue and I am not a fan of this fundamentally flawed policy.  However, regardless of the advice Professor Halton and her Department provided to the Minister, she cannot be held in any way responsible for the Government’s policy decisions on this, or any other, issue.  As an unelected public servant, her role is to give advice and it is the role of the Government to then act on this advice, if it so wishes. Fundamental to our Westminster system of Government is the accountability of Ministers for their decisions and the ability of the public to remove them from office via an election if these decisions prove unpopular. This accountability exists regardless of the quality of the advice they receive on the issue (although it has to be said there were plenty of people around who could have pointed out the problems with the co-payment policy).

Blaming a public servant – even one as senior and reputedly influential as Professor Halton – for a bad Government decision not only lets Minister Peter Dutton off the hook on this issue, it undermines the fundamental accountability of the Government.  Both critics and supporters of the Government and its 2014/15 Budget initiatives should focus on ensuring Ministers are fully answerable to the community for their decisions and not look to public servants as scapegoats.

Dept of Justice on Organised Healthcare Fraud

 

http://www.fiercehealthpayer.com/antifraud/story/dojs-rebecca-pyne-fighting-fraud-organized-crime/2014-05-25?page=full

http://www.stopmedicarefraud.gov/

 

 

DOJ’s Rebecca Pyne on fighting fraud by organized crime

FierceHealthPayer: Anti-Fraud: Why are organized crime syndicates and gangs turning to health insurance fraud, and is this type of criminal behavior the work of American syndicates, international ones or both?

Rebecca Pyne: “Organized crime” is a phrase that can be interpreted in many ways. Our office is interested in international organized crime and traditional mafia/La Cosa Nostra (LCN) organized crime activity. So our office has a more limited focus in the world of healthcare rather than broadly [examining] any organized activity.

There are a number of reasons why organized crime groups would find it attractive to be involved in healthcare fraud. They’re simply following the money, since successful fraudulent billing schemes can generate millions of dollars in a relatively short period. Healthcare fraud is also attractive because once a fraud scheme is perfected, it can be duplicated locally, regionally and even nationwide. This multiplies the profits from a particular scheme.

Also, there may be a belief that there’s a low risk of detection in healthcare fraud. At least when the analysis is done between risk and reward, the analysis may weigh in terms of the reward side. Sophisticated schemes can be layered so that those who mastermind them are removed from actual criminal conduct. They can direct the scheme and profit from it but insulate themselves from directly engaging in the front-line criminal act.

In the past, there was also a perception that punishments for healthcare fraud may be less severe than other crimes, but I think that’s no longer true. Federal statutes and the sentencing guidelines have enhanced enforcement and also increased sentences for healthcare fraud.

FHPAF: What are some typical schemes?

Pyne: With respect to international organized crime groups and LCN involvement in healthcare fraud, we see sophisticated healthcare fraud schemes carried out. For example, one of the largest Medicare fraud  schemes ever perpetrated by a single enterprise was conducted by an international organized crime group with members and associates located in the United States and Armenia. That scheme operated phantom clinics all across the country and drove more than $100 million in bogus bills to Medicare.

That international organization was linked to the highest level of Russian organized crime. It was operated with the assistance of a Russian “vor,” a person high-ranking in criminal leadership in the former Soviet Union.

One of the problems when existing organized crime groups get involved in healthcare fraud is that they can employ their associates and members to carry out the scheme. Often the international organized crime groups draw from ethnic communities for assistance in perpetrating their offenses. We’ve seen this with Armenian and Russian groups. And we’ve also seen leaders overseas and proceeds moving overseas.

The types of schemes we’ve seen with international organized crime involve purely bogus medical claims. Patients were paid bribes for access to their Medicare numbers or for going in for services or testing. Medical claims can be billed under provider numbers stolen from doctors, so criminals combine stolen Medicare patient and provider information to submit fictional claims.

There are variations involving claims for medically unnecessary procedures. There may actually be a patient and a doctor, but the procedures aren’t performed and false bills are generated. And in those types of situations, patients can be recruited or doctors can be bribed or paid kickbacks to participate. So theft of doctor and patient identities is a big factor in some cases we see.

This can occur with durable medical equipment or ambulance companies that bill for transportation of patients that is medically unnecessary or which never occurred. We also see sophisticated schemes where nursing home facilities and hospice facilities billed for services not rendered to patients.

FHPAF: What can you tell us about organized crime’s involvement in staged car accidents?

Pyne: One area that is solely a private insurance matter is the history of Eurasian organized crime involvement in staging auto accidents. In those scenarios, the accident can be purely fictional, or they can recruit people to fabricate a car accident. These patients can be recruited to act as victims and could be paid to participate. And private insurance companies are billed for medical tests that are false and fraudulent or for medically unnecessary treatments. Those schemes can have similarities to Medicare fraud, but they really target private insurers.

FHPAF: What can health insurers do to make it harder for organized criminals to access health insurance identification numbers of patients and providers (and thereby make it harder for criminals to get into Medicare and Medicaid in the first place)?

Pyne: Putting together patient health insurance numbers and provider numbers can facilitate large fraudulent billing schemes. We’ve seen organized crime cases where blocks of patient information have been stolen from hospitals and then used to generate bogus claims.

So insurers could evaluate safeguards they have in their own systems on patient health insurance numbers and provider numbers to protect these from being available through corruption of databases. Educate employees on safeguarding information as well as patients and providers about the importance of protecting those numbers. Both paper and electronic files can fuel fraud schemes if they fall into the wrong hands.

FHPAF: What role does data analytics technology play in this fight?

Pyne: With any healthcare fraud scheme, data analytics can identify unusual billing patterns, which could indicate possible fraud to investigate further. Large fraudulent billing schemes involving purely fictional claims may be picked up through finding unusual billing patterns.

Here are examples: A new provider appears with large volumes of patient claims. Or claims are generated from providers in unusual locations relative to a patient’s home. Or there are unusually large volumes of tests or procedures for a single patient or unusual combinations of procedures for a specific patient.

FHPAF: What’s your best advice for special investigations units to combat fraud by organized crime?

Pyne: Many schemes are difficult to unravel and require extensive federal investigation; but watch for unusual claims or provider conduct, and train employees to report irregularities they see in billings or in their contacts with patients or providers.

Educate patients to report irregular medical claims they see under their name. And refer potentially fraudulent activity to law enforcement investigators early. Sharing information is so important because these schemes can involve multiple insurance companies and Medicare and be widespread, affecting many different entities.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the DOJ have a public/private insurance initiative underway designed to share information and best practices. The goal is to improve detection and prevent payment of fraudulent healthcare billings by both public and private payers. The Healthcare Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team website is a place to look for information and potentially become involved in that partnership.

But in general, keeping abreast of developments in your state and new schemes reported in the press can certainly be helpful. Even basic practices such as conducting internet research on suspicious providers can be fruitful. We’ve seen insurers discover that they are victims of a targeted billing scheme when they learn that their provider has been indicted on a scheme.

Editor’s Note: This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Story-telling important in anti-fraud efforts

A bit obvious, but should remember to include this in our report

http://www.fiercehealthpayer.com/antifraud/story/storytelling-draws-stakeholders-fraud-fighting-flame/2014-05-26

Storytelling draws stakeholders to the fraud fighting flame

“A rapidly growing number of leading companies have discovered the power of story as a communication tool,” according to Insurance Thought Leadership. “When stories are told consistently and systematically, everyone in the organization works together better, stays focused on the mission and remains productive, ensuring continued success in the midst of change.”

Whether it’s detecting a fraud scheme, preparing a case referral for law enforcement, training staff to recognize and report misconduct, or demonstrating the value of SIU efforts, fraud fighting is a story-rich function. Though proprietary aspects of investigations can’t be shared, here are examples of how SIUs have leveraged the power of stories:

When corporate executives see the value of SIU operations in combating health insurance fraud, they typically support their operations well. “If you do a good job telling your story, it gets the leadership’s attention and they see the importance of having an effective SIU,” consultant Jack Price told FierceHealthPayer: Anti-Fraud.Recognizing this, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania-based United Concordia dedicated awebsite page to success stories of its dental SIU.

Fraud detection requires pattern recognition, and patterns are story forms. “The claims tell a story. The data tell a story. You just have to decipher it,” WellPoint Director of Enterprise Investigations Alanna Lavelle told FierceHealthPayer: Anti-Fraud.

Further, storytelling can be used in anti-fraud staff training programs. One insurer developed training based on fraud schemes portrayed in films, all of which told stories employees remembered long afterward.

It’s a modern application of an old idea: “Stories reach people at deeper level than a litany of facts and figures, and stay with people longer,” the Insurance Thought Leadership article noted. This led Harvard University professor Howard Gardner to conclude that “storytelling is the single most powerful tool in a leader’s toolkit.”

Stories connect employees with corporate culture, the article noted. “By incorporating storytelling as a part of your business practices and regularly including relevant stories on the agenda for meetings …  you will propel your organization toward its goals. Red-hot stories will keep everyone fired up and eager to pass them along to everyone they encounter.”

For more:
– here’s the Insurance Thought Leadership article
– see United Concordia’s list of anti-fraud success stories

Related Articles:     
Jack Price on building a top-notch SIU
Reel value: Use movies for anti-fraud training
How to work effectively with law enforcement to fight fraud
Wellpoint’s Alanna Lavelle on improving witness interviews

Economist: US Medicare Fraud

 

New word: A Pill Mill

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21603078-why-thieves-love-americas-health-care-system-272-billion-swindle

Health-care fraud

The $272 billion swindle

Why thieves love America’s health-care system

INVESTIGATORS in New York were looking for health-care fraud hot-spots. Agents suggested Oceana, a cluster of luxury condos in Brighton Beach. The 865-unit complex had a garage full of Porsches and Aston Martins—and 500 residents claiming Medicaid, which is meant for the poor and disabled. Though many claims had been filed legitimately, some looked iffy. Last August six residents were charged. Within weeks another 150 had stopped claiming assistance, says Robert Byrnes, one of the investigators.

Health care is a tempting target for thieves. Medicaid doles out $415 billion a year; Medicare (a federal scheme for the elderly), nearly $600 billion. Total health spending in America is a massive $2.7 trillion, or 17% of GDP. No one knows for sure how much of that is embezzled, but in 2012 Donald Berwick, a former head of the Centres for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and Andrew Hackbarth of the RAND Corporation, estimated that fraud (and the extra rules and inspections required to fight it) added as much as $98 billion, or roughly 10%, to annual Medicare and Medicaid spending—and up to $272 billion across the entire health system.

Federal prosecutors had over 2,000 health-fraud probes open at the end of 2013. A Medicare “strike force”, which was formed in 2007, boasts of seven nationwide “takedowns”. In the latest, on May 13th, 90 people, including 16 doctors, were rounded up in six cities—more than half of them in Miami, the capital city of medical fraud. One doctor is alleged to have fraudulently charged for $24m of kit, including 1,000 power wheelchairs.

Punishments have grown tougher: last year the owner of a mental-health clinic got 30 years for false billing. Efforts to claw back stolen cash are highly cost-effective: in 2011-13 the government’s main fraud-control programme, run jointly by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Justice, recovered $8 for every $1 it spent.

As fraud-fighting has intensified, dodgy billing has tumbled in areas that were most prone to abuse, such as durable medical kit and home visits (see chart). Home-health fraud—such as charging for non-existent visits to give insulin injections—got so bad that the CMS, which runs the programmes, called a moratorium on enrolling new providers in several large cities last year. Since tighter screening was introduced under Obamacare, the CMS has stripped 17,000 providers of their licence to bill Medicare. Thousands of suppliers also quit after being required to seek accreditation and to post surety bonds of $50,000.

Economist_HealthcareFraud_20140531_USC154

Yet the sheer volume of transactions makes it easier for miscreants to hide: every day, for instance, Medicare’s contractors process 4.5m claims. In this context the $4.3 billion recovered by fraud-busters in 2013, though a record, looks paltry.

Better than cocaine

Fraud migrates. Take one popular scam: overbilling for HIV infusion, an outdated therapy that Medicare still covers despite the existence of cheaper, better alternatives. This scam waned in Florida after a crackdown, only to pop up in Detroit, run by relatives of the original perpetrators.

Fraud mutates, too. As old hustles are rumbled, fraudsters invent new ones. “We’ve taken out much of the low-hanging fruit,” says Gary Cantrell, an investigator at HHS—an example being the thousands of bogus equipment suppliers registered to empty shopfronts. Scams now need to be more sophisticated to succeed, he argues. Doctors, pharmacies, and patients act in league. Scammers over-bill for real services rather than charging for non-existent ones. That makes them harder to spot.

Some criminals are switching from cocaine trafficking to prescription-drug fraud because the risk-adjusted rewards are higher: the money is still good, the work safer and the penalties lighter. Medicare gumshoes in Florida regularly find stockpiles of weapons when making arrests. The gangs are often bound by ethnic ties: Russians in New York, Cubans in Miami, Nigerians in Houston and so on.

Stealing patients’ identities is lucrative. Medical records are worth more to crooks than credit-card numbers. They contain more information, and can be used to obtain prescriptions for controlled drugs. Usually, it takes victims longer to notice that their details have been pinched. The Government Accountability Office has recommended that the CMS remove Social Security numbers from Medicare cards to prevent fraud. It has yet to do so.

In one fast-growing area of fraud, involving pharmacies and prescription drugs, federal investigators have seen caseloads quadruple over the past five years. Elderly patients may receive kickbacks to sell their details to a pharmacist. He will then provide them with drugs they need while billing Medicare for costlier ones.

Paid recruiters scour nursing homes for accomplices. Some pharmacies also pay wholesalers to produce phoney invoices. Others bribe medical workers for leftover pills: in April a pharmacy-owner in Louisiana admitted to paying nursing-home staff a few hundred dollars a time to bring her unused drugs, which she repackaged and sold as new, billing Medicare $2.2m for the recycled meds between 2008 and 2013.

Another scam is to turn a doctor’s clinic into a prescription-writing factory for painkillers (or “pill mill”) and resell them on the street. A clinic in New York was recently charged with fraudulently producing prescriptions for more than 5m oxycodone tablets, which were sold locally for $30-$90 each. The alleged conspirators included doctors and traffickers who ran crews of “patients” so large that long queues sometimes formed outside the clinic. The doctors charged $300 per large prescription. One raked in $12m. To cover their backs they would ask for scans or urine samples purporting to show injuries. The fake patients typically obtained these from the traffickers at the clinic door.

False billing by pharmacies is rife. New York’s Medicaid sleuths have stepped up spot checks to see if the drugs in the back room square with invoices. But this is a lot of work, so most outlets are never checked.

Dozens of operators of ambulances and ambulettes (vans designed to take wheelchairs) have been caught offering kickbacks to patients to pretend they can’t walk. This lets them qualify for “emergency” pick-ups, for which the company can charge $400 per patient. New York has clamped down with roadside checks. But in one case, word that a checkpoint had been set up spread so quickly—as drivers called each other and a local Russian-language radio station put out a warning—that the number of ambulettes on the main street “went from several to none in a few minutes as they re-routed down side streets”, says Chris Bedell, who took part.

This sort of pavement-pounding investigative work remains important. Another approach is the “desk audit”, where possible overpayment is identified but the only way to ascertain losses is to sift through heaps of records manually. Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) has recovered up to $50m a year solely from hospitals billing for treatment of illegal aliens that is wrongly coded as “emergency care”. But the work is labour-intensive. Data-crunching technologies are increasingly being used to complement the human eye. “When I started in 1996 we had little access to data,” says HHS’s Mr Cantrell. “It had to be requested ad hoc from CMS contractors.” Now a central database houses near-real-time information for Medicare. This helps the 300 workers at the inspector-general’s office who are trained in data analytics to “triage” the tips that flow in. “We receive far more than we can investigate closely,” says Mr Cantrell.

The CMS is still getting to grips with a new predictive-analysis system, which was introduced in 2011 to catch Medicare fraud earlier and is modelled on tools used by credit-card firms. This identified $115m of dodgy payments in 2012, its first full year. (The number for the second year has yet to be released.) Another useful tool is voice-recognition technology. In Florida, health workers who conduct home visits have to call in from the patient’s phone during each appointment to have their voice pattern matched against the one stored electronically. This has greatly reduced billing for non-visits.

Technology is no panacea, however. Medicare’s computers were pumping out thousands of payments a year for patients who had been struck off the programme before receiving their treatment, until human hands began to intervene this year. The electronification of patient records can allow “cloning”, in which treatments automatically trigger excessive billing codes by defaulting to set templates.

This is the medical world’s “dirty secret”, says John Holcomb of the Texas Medical Association. Everyone talks about it in the doctor’s lounge, but few complain. (What doctors do complain about is the complexity of the bill-coding system: see article.) Moreover, there are gaps in the data picture—some of which could grow. Federal investigators complain that there is no proper national repository for Medicaid information, which is held state-by-state.

A bigger worry is that, as ever more Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries move to “managed  care” (privately administered) plans, government sleuths will have access to less data. This could lead to lower fraud-related recoveries.

Efforts have been made to improve information-sharing between government and private insurers, including the creation of a public-private forum, the National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association (NHCAA). But some insurers are reluctant to take part, fearing that being too open with their data would invite lawsuits over privacy. Fraudsters bank on public and private payers not working together to connect the dots, said Louis Saccoccio, the head of the NHCAA, at a recent hearing.

The NCHAA is pushing for federal immunity guarantees for insurers that share fraud-related information. On May 20th a bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill to make it easier for insurers to share data with Medicare. It would also require Medicare to check new providers for links to firms that have previously swindled the taxpayer (which you might have thought it was already doing).

Obamacare has had a big impact, says Shantanu Agrawal of the CMS. One thing it requires is that when a state kicks out a dodgy Medicaid provider, it shares that information with Medicare, and vice versa. Previously there were legal impediments to doing this, for some reason.

Resources are tight for investigators. New York has a Medicaid investigations division of 110 souls (including support staff) to scrutinise $55 billion of annual payments and 137,000 providers. Gloria Jarmon, an auditor with the HHS, told a recent hearing that budget cuts will probably force it to cut its oversight of Medicare and Medicaid by 20% in this fiscal year. “Everyone [in Congress] is excited that we bring in eight times more than we cost, but that hasn’t translated into more funding,” laments Mr Cantrell.

This squeeze makes it all the more important to enlist help. More than 5,000 old folk have joined “Medicare patrols”, which hold local meetings to raise awareness of common scams. A crucial part of the anti-fraud effort is the new, simpler Explanation of Benefits (summary statement) that lets recipients see who has billed the programme with their identification numbers. This is “a landmark change”, a CMS executive told Congress last year, adding: “Our best weapon in fighting fraud is our 50m Medicare beneficiaries.”

Endoscopic overservicing

 

Upper endoscopies may bilk Medicare

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterubel/2014/05/22/are-gastroenterologists-scoping-for-dollars-on-medicare-patients/

Peter Ubel

Peter Ubel, Contributor

I explore medical controversies thru behavioral econ and bioethics.

5/22/2014 @ 11:23AM |801 views

Inappropriate Medicare Incentives Lead To Unnecessary Subspecialty Procedures

Sometimes people flat out need cameras shoved down into their stomachs.  A long history of reflux disease, for example, could prompt a gastroenterologist to perform an “upper endoscopy”—to run a thin tube down the patient’s throat in order to view their esophagus and stomach and look for signs of serious illness.  Medicare has correctly decided that such upper endoscopies are valuable medical tests, and reimburse physicians relatively generously for performing them.  But what should Medicare do when gastroenterologists unnecessarily repeat these tests in patients who do not show signs of serious illness on their first exam?

I became aware of this issue after reading an article in the Annals of Internal Medicine by Pohl and colleagues.  Pohl glanced at billing data from a random sample of almost 1 million Medicare enrollees. (I am pleased with myself when I pull together a study of a few hundred patients.  Perhaps I won’t be so pleased in the future.)

Pohl and colleagues analyzed how many patients received more than one upper endoscopy within a three year period.  They then tried to figure out how often these repeat procedures were necessary, because of abnormalities discovered in the initial exam.

Let’s start with the bad news.  Among those patients who should have received repeat tests, only half did so.  That means even when doctors found bad things that needed to be followed up, it was practically a flip of a coin whether they would do so.

Now for the worse news.  Among those who should not have received a follow-up test, a full 30% did, for a total of 20,000 such tests in this population.  Here is a picture summarizing the results:

repeat upper endoscopies

Here is another way to look at these results.  Among patients receiving upper endoscopies, the majority –54%—should not have received these tests.

Now for some back-of-the-envelope math.  The sample of patients Pohl and colleagues looked at made up 5% of the Medicare population.  That means if you take their estimates of how many gastroenterologists performed unnecessary upper endoscopies over the three year period of their study, and multiply that estimate by 20, you end up with 4 million unnecessary endoscopies nationwide.  With the average costs of such a procedure being around $3,000, that amounts to $1.2 billion of our tax dollars wasted on an unnecessary and, I should mention, uncomfortable and potentially harmful procedure.  (Warning: I don’t know what Medicare pays for this test.  But we are still talking hundreds of millions of dollars, in a best case scenario.)

In an editorial accompanying the Annals study, a gastroenterologist bemoaned these unnecessary procedures and recommended several steps we could take to reduce such testing.  First, the editorialist said we should help physicians better understand when they should and should not use such procedures.  Second, he said we “must also educate patients about the modest yield” of such tests.

I find this last idea…what’s a nice way to put this…highly naïve.  (Haive?)

What we need to do is to stop paying doctors for unnecessary tests.  Or alternatively, we need to pay doctors in ways that reduce their incentive to perform unnecessary tests, like lump sums to take care of all of their patients’ needs.

While some gastroenterologists may be cynically scoping patients for dollars—performing questionable tests because it pays for their kid’s private school tuition—I expect most believe such testing is in their patient’s best interests.  We need an incentive system that forces them to think more carefully about when—or whether—these expensive tests are necessary.

 

The case for eating steak and cream

 

 

http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21602984-why-everything-you-heard-about-fat-wrong-case-eating-steak-and-cream

Economist Book Review

The Case For Eating Steak and Cream

Shifting the argument

The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet. By Nina Teicholz. Simon & Schuster; 479 pages; $27.99. Buy from Amazon.com,Amazon.co.uk

“EATING foods that contain saturated fats raises the level of cholesterol in your blood,” according to the American Heart Association (AHA). “High levels of blood cholesterol increase your risk of heart disease and stroke.” So goes the warning from the AHA, the supposed authority on the subject. Governments and doctors wag their fingers to this tune the world over. Gobble too much bacon and butter and you may well die young. But what if that were wrong?

Nina Teicholz, an American journalist, makes just that argument in her compelling new book, “The Big Fat Surprise”. The debate is not confined to nutritionists. Warnings about fat have changed how food companies do business, what people eat, and how and how long they live. Heart disease is the top cause of death not just in America, but around the world. The question is whether saturated fat is truly to blame. Ms Teicholz’s book is a gripping read for anyone who has ever tried to eat healthily.

The case against fat would seem simple. Fat contains more calories, per gram, than do carbohydrates. Eating saturated fat raises cholesterol levels, which in turn is thought to bring on cardiovascular problems. Ms Teicholz dissects this argument slowly. Her book, which includes well over 100 pages of notes and citations, covers decades of nutrition research, including careful explorations of academics’ methodology. This is not an obvious page-turner. But it is.

Ms Teicholz describes the early academics who demonised fat and those who have kept up the crusade. Top among them was Ancel Keys, a professor at the University of Minnesota, whose work landed him on the cover of Time magazine in 1961. He provided an answer to why middle-aged men were dropping dead from heart attacks, as well as a solution: eat less fat. Work by Keys and others propelled the American government’s first set of dietary guidelines, in 1980. Cut back on red meat, whole milk and other sources of saturated fat. The few sceptics of this theory were, for decades, marginalised.

But the vilification of fat, argues Ms Teicholz, does not stand up to closer examination. She pokes holes in famous pieces of research—the Framingham heart study, the Seven Countries study, the Los Angeles Veterans Trial, to name a few—describing methodological problems or overlooked results, until the foundations of this nutritional advice look increasingly shaky.

The opinions of academics and governments, as presented, led to real change. Food companies were happy to replace animal fats with less expensive vegetable oils. They have now begun abolishing trans fats from their food products and replacing them with polyunsaturated vegetable oils that, when heated, may be as harmful. Advice for keeping to a low-fat diet also played directly into food companies’ sweet spot of biscuits, cereals and confectionery; when people eat less fat, they are hungry for something else. Indeed, as recently as 1995 the AHA itself recommended snacks of “low-fat cookies, low-fat crackers…hard candy, gum drops, sugar, syrup, honey” and other carbohydrate-laden foods. Americans consumed nearly 25% more carbohydrates in 2000 than they had in 1971.

In the past decade a growing number of studies have questioned the anti-fat orthodoxy. Ms Teicholz’s book follows the work of Gary Taubes, a science journalist who has cast doubts on the link between saturated fat and health for well over a decade—and been much disparaged for his pains. There is increasing evidence that a bigger culprit is most likely insulin, a hormone; insulin levels rise when one eats carbohydrates. Yet even now, with more attention devoted to the dangers posed by sugar, saturated fat remains maligned. “It seems now that what sustains it,” argues Ms Teicholz, “is not so much science as generations of bias and habit.”

Restaurants bite back with Dimmi

not sure I’m comfortable with this…

http://www.goodfood.com.au/good-food/food-news/when-restaurants-google-customers-20140601-zruc0.html

When restaurants google customers

Stevan Premutico, chief executive officer of dimmi.com.au

Stevan Premutico, chief executive officer of dimmi.com.auPhoto: Louise Kennerley

Are you a cheap tipper? A fussy eater who sends meals back to the kitchen? Whether you’re a dining dream or nightmare (and let’s be honest, the worst customers are probably the last to admit it), the internet age means for better or worse, now more than ever, your reputation precedes you.

When a diner walks into a restaurant these days, there’s a good chance the maitre d’ knows more about them than they realise, says Stevan Premutico, chief executive officer of online reservation website dimmi.com.au.

“What they look like, their job, their title, where they live, their social connections, any special celebrations and whether they are an avid foodie are all key things,” he says.

Last laugh: Restaurateur Darran Smith (pictured here, second from left, in 2009) always researches his guests.

Last laugh: Restaurateur Darran Smith (pictured here, second from left, in 2009) always researches his guests.Photo: Domino Postiglione

“It’s all part of getting to know your customers.”

Keeping notes on customers is hardly new. But as social media continues to knock gaping holes in the divide between personal and public, restaurants that bother to do their research are reaping bigger rewards for their efforts.

Shared online reservation systems like Dimmi’s ResDiary, as well as social media sites liked LinkedIn and good old Google searches, can be a double-edged sword. Systems can be used to track dining ‘performance’ – how much you ordered, whether you tipped well, how pleasantly you treated staff or whether you continued to camp out at the table long after you’d finished dessert.

The five most common pieces of information restaurants share, Premutico says, are customers’ food and wine preferences, notable habits (e.g. likes to have a drink at the bar before being seated), seating preferences (corner booth, window seat), allergies and – last but certainly not least – if the customer is a good or bad tipper.

But the Dimmi system goes even further, allowing restaurants to codify diners with attributes such as wine connoisseur, adventure eaters, quick eaters (good for table turnover) or friends of the chef or owner.

On the flip side are codes for loud talkers, frequent no-shows or PIAs – pain-in-the-ass customers with excessive demands.

Other tidbits restaurants note include postcode (you can infer a lot from four digits, Premutico says), whether someone is an ‘upgrader’ (diners who go for the works, like coffee and cognac) and, controversially, whether or not the diner is good-looking (some places may seat a diner differently based on their looks, Premutico says).

Restaurateur Darran Smith, who has worked in the industry for 20 years at venues including Icebergs Dining Room and Bar, the Hilton’s Glass restaurant and Hemmesphere at the Establishment hotel, says he always researches his guests.

“Whether it’s politicians or movie stars, lawyers or whatnot, I do my research,” Smith says.

“I remember Owen Wilson was coming in and finding out he really likes tequila so I made sure the bar was stocked up with tequila … It paid off.”

It’s the little things, which a restaurant can do without the customer even realising, that can make a good experience great or an excellent venue exceptional, he says.

Improved customer service and that personalised dining experience is the ultimate goal, restaurants say. And of course there are mutual benefits. (Smith recalls another experience when he discovered via Google that an Icebergs diner had sold his company the day before. “He came in and spent $5000,” he says.)

But Smith also admits that restaurants sometimes use online reservation systems to prepare themselves for the “one per cent” of customers who “just hate life”.

“With Dimmi, you do some research and you know they only like sitting at a particular table or they only like their salad with the dressing on the side,” he says.

“You know that if you go outside a certain circle they … will just be the worst customer in the world.”

Premutico says the practice is entirely justified. It’s a competitive industry and every bit of intelligence counts – whether you’re in front of the cash register or behind it.

“A customer that is rude, obnoxious, complains and doesn’t tip should be noted. A diner who appreciates the food concept, respects the staff, dines often and leaves tips should be given the better tables and taken care of more.”

As for the impact on customers, perhaps diners will learn to mind their Ps and Qs so as not to be labelled PIAs. After all, restaurants have been riding the rollercoaster of social media and user-generated ratings for years, Premutico says.

“This passes some of the power back to restaurants,” he says.

“Diners will behave better, tip better, treat staff better. It will help improve the industry and may help the diner get that all important upgrade next time.”

Cth Fund: 40% of patient outcomes from social factors

Report: 1749_Bachrach_addressing_patients_social_needs_v2

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/may/addressing-patients-social-needs

As much as 40 percent of patient outcomes can be attributed to factors such as income, educational attainment, access to food and housing, and employment status—and low-income populations are particularly affected.

New Report Shows How Targeting Patients’ Social Needs Is Critical to Improving Quality and Reducing Costs

As public and private payers increasingly hold providers accountable for their patients’ health and health care costs and link payments to outcomes, providers are developing strategies to address the social factors that play so large a role in people’s health. As much as 40 percent of patient outcomes can be attributed to factors such as income, educational attainment, access to food and housing, and employment status—and low-income populations are particularly affected.

A new report prepared by Manatt Health Solutions for The Commonwealth Fund, The Skoll Foundation, and The Pershing Square Foundation explores the impact of social needs on health and the costs of care and identifies evidence-based strategies and interventions that can help providers target patients’ social needs, improve health, and reduce spending. The report examines payment models that incentivize or require providers to address not just their patients’ clinical needs but their social needs as well.

For providers unable or unwilling to invest in social interventions, the report suggests alternative opportunities for funding them. Research indicates that in addition to improving patient health, investing in these interventions can enhance patient satisfaction and loyalty, as well as satisfaction and productivity among providers.

Visit commonwealthfund.org to read Addressing Patients’ Social Needs: An Emerging Business Case for Provider Investment and learn about the variety of tools available to providers and the range of effective programs in the U.S. and abroad.

 

Addressing Patients’ Social Needs: An Emerging Business Case for Provider Investment

Extensive research documents the impact of social factors such as income, educational attainment, access to food and housing, and employment status on the health and longevity of Americans, particularly lower-income populations. These findings attribute as much as 40 percent of health outcomes to social and economic factors. Asthma is linked to living conditions, diabetes-related hospital admissions to food insecurity, and greater use of the emergency room to homelessness.

These findings are not lost on health care providers: 80 percent of physicians conclude that addressing patients’ social needs is as critical as addressing their medical needs. Yet until recently, providers rarely addressed patients’ unmet social needs in clinical settings.

However, changes in the health care landscape are catapulting social determinants of health into an on-the-ground reality for providers. The Affordable Care Act is expanding insurance coverage to millions more low- and modest-income individuals, and, for many, social and economic circumstances will define their health. Six years after analysts introduced the concept of the “Triple Aim,” its goals of improved health, improved care, and lower per capita cost of care have become the organizing framework for the health care system. As a result, growing numbers of providers are concluding that investing in interventions addressing their patients’ social as well as clinical needs makes good business sense.

The Economic Rationale for Investing in Social Interventions

Informed by the Triple Aim, public and private payers are introducing payment models that hold providers financially accountable for patient health and the costs of treatment. These models—including capitated, global, and bundled payments, shared savings arrangements, and penalties for hospital readmissions—give providers economic incentives to incorporate social interventions into their approach to care. For example, in October 2012, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services penalized 77 percent of safety-net hospitals for excess readmissions of patients with heart attack, heart failure, or pneumonia. Meanwhile a review of 70 studies found that unemployment and low income were tied to a higher risk of hospital readmission among patients with heart failure and pneumonia.

To be certified as a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) or Medicaid health home, providers must integrate social supports into their care models. And these certifications almost always trigger higher levels of reimbursement. More than 40 states have adopted PCMH programs, providing important funding opportunities for qualified providers. Even if new payment models do not require social interventions, many providers have concluded that they are essential to achieving quality metrics and earning available revenue.

Beyond these direct economic benefits, providers that incorporate social supports into their clinical models can also reap indirect economic benefits. Patient satisfaction rises when providers address patients’ social needs, engendering loyalty. Patient satisfaction can also affect the amount of shared savings a provider receives from payers. Providers that include social supports in their clinical models also report improved employee satisfaction. And interventions that address social factors allow clinicians to devote more time to their patients, allowing them to see more patients and improving satisfaction among both patients and clinicians.

Strategies to Meet Patients’ Social Needs

A range of tools, both broad and targeted, are available to providers to address patients’ unmet social needs. Broad interventions—usually provided at primary care clinics—link clinic patients to local resources that can address their unmet social needs. For example:

  • Health Leads, which operates in hospital clinics and community health centers in six cities, enables health care providers to write prescriptions for their patients’ basic needs, such as food and heat. Trained volunteers who staff desks at the hospitals and clinics connect patients to local resources to address those needs. Across all sites, Health Leads volunteers addressed at least one need of 90 percent of patients referred to them.
  • Medical-Legal Partnerships (MLPs) place lawyers and paralegals at health care institutions to help patients address legal issues linked to health status. This program has had marked success: an MLP in New York City targeting patients with moderate to severe asthma found a 91 percent decline in emergency department visits and hospital admissions among those receiving housing services.

Targeted interventions, in contrast, link individuals with chronic or debilitating medical conditions to social supports as part of larger care management efforts. For example, in the Seattle-King County Healthy Homes Project, community health workers conduct home visits to low-income families with children with uncontrolled asthma. Urgent care costs for participants in a high-intensity intervention were projected to be up to $334 per child lower than among those receiving a less intensive intervention. The share of individuals using urgent care services also fell by almost two-thirds during the intervention.

Looking Forward

As more low-income people gain health care coverage, evidence on which interventions are most cost-effective in addressing their social needs and improving their health will grow, and value-based reimbursement will become standard across payers. With these changes in the health care landscape, the economic case for provider investment in social interventions will become ever more compelling.

This publication was supported in partnership with The Skoll Foundation and The Pershing Square Foundation.