CMS Rule Would Kick “Problematic” Doctors Out of Medicare/Medicaid

Last week CMS announced that beginning January 1, 2020, they assumed a new power to bar clinicians' participation if agency officials can cite potential harm to patients based on specific incidents (1). CMS created this new authority through the 2020 Medicare physician fee schedule. CMS claimed that it had no pathway to address "demonstrated cases of patient harm" in cases where clinicians maintain their licenses (2).

The rule drew criticism from multiple physician groups with none supporting it. The Alliance of Specialty Medicine said CMS has been using "vague and subjective" criteria to evaluate physicians for some time. The new revocation authority "just compounds the problem," the Alliance told Medscape Medical News (2).

In drafting the final version of the rule, CMS rejected many suggestions offered in comments about the revocation authority. The AMA pointed out that CMS hid such a major change in the annual physician fee schedule under the opioid treatment program section (2). The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) said CMS should defer to state medical boards and other state oversight entities regarding issues associated with protecting beneficiaries from patient harm (2). In the final rule, CMS argued that it needs the new revocation authority due to cases where "problematic" behavior persists despite detection by state boards.

During the past week two examples of CMS’ bureaucratic nature were observed in my practice. First, I was told from a durable medical equipment provider that a new CMS requirement was that when reordering patient continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) supplies that I would need to check, initial and date each item from a long list of supplies whether it was ordered or not. Second, an asthma patient was referred to me that was using daily albuterol. I recommended a long-acting beta agonist/corticosteroid combination but was told that the patient must fail corticosteroids alone before prescribing the more expensive combination therapy. Nearly every physician and many patients have seen some nameless and faceless clerk at CMS give them the “ol’ run around”. CMS’ argument that they are improving quality and protecting patients would be more believable if these and the many other instances of bureaucratic overreach were rare rather than common. 

Many “quality” programs have been thrust on clinicians in the past without any demonstrable improvement in healthcare for patients (3). Rather quickly these programs morph from a quality program to a hammer used to control clinicians and suppress dissent. In seems likely that CMS’ new self-assumed authority will be the same. If CMS wishes to improve care, they should deal with examples such as those above and many more instances of time wasting paper work and poor care that they mandate. Two recommendations to reduce these poor decisions are: 1. List the name of the licensed practitioner responsible for each CMS decision; and 2. Establish an efficient appeals process not controlled by CMS. These would reduce the instances of poor, anonymous decision makers hiding behind the anonymity of the CMS bureaucracy and could go a long way in improving patient care.

Richard A. Robbins, MD

Editor, SWJPCC

References

1. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. November, 2019. Available at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2019-24086.pdf (accessed 11/9/19). Scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 11/15/2019 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2019-24086.
2. Young KD. CMS sharpens weapon to kick 'problematic' docs out of Medicare. Medscape Medical News. November 7, 2019. Available at: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/920994?nlid=132505_5461&src=wnl_dne_191108_mscpedit&uac=9273DT&impID=2159379&faf=1 (accessed 11/9/19).
3. Robbins RA. The unfulfilled promise of the quality movement. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2014;8(1):50-63. [CrossRef]

Cite as: Robbins RA. CMS rule would kick “problematic” doctors out of Medicare/Medicaid. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2019;19(5):146-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc066-19 PDF 

The Hands of a Healer

The article in this month’s SWJPCC - "Physical Examination in the Intensive Care Unit. Opinions of Physicians at Three Teaching Hospitals" (1), is a fascinating insight to medical practice and how it has changed with the advent of new technology. The study at three large teaching facilities addressed the questions of how often a physical exam was performed in the ICU, what the perceived utility of the physical exam was, who examines patients most,  and an interesting question pertaining to what exactly constitutes a physical exam. Participants were given theoretical scenarios and answered questions pertaining to the role of a physical exam.  Even though the format was a questionnaire and not direct observation, the results support what I see in clinical practice. The results show that the physical exam, at least in the ICU, is not deemed a critical tool in our armamentarium and that reliance on technology has supplanted the traditional exam. One point that has yet to be formally addressed by this or other studies, is actually how often the physical exam changes the clinical course.

Those of us in my generation remember the days when physical exam was paramount. Indeed, when I was in medical school in England, it was essential and when we presented cases, we had to make a differential diagnosis solely based on the history and physical exam, and then, and only then, would we order specific tests. That was about 25 years ago in London. I suspect that many of my colleagues from that era or earlier, had similar experiences. Modern US practice is to use the physical exam, order a battery of tests and imaging, then come up with the diagnosis.  It has not been shown unequivocally that our reliance on modern imaging and labs is necessarily better.

There are still some scenarios that no laboratory test can pick up. Even in pulmonary medicine, we still teach to treat the patient, not the ABG; and the diagnosis of respiratory failure does not require anything other than a look at the patient. Wheezing shows up on no commonly use lab or imaging in the ICU (excluding less commonly used techniques such as measurement of respiratory system resistance using the ventilator’s sensors and algorithms). There is no question that modern testing is more accurate and provides much more information to us than any, even Oslerian levels of clinical examination could. It also leads to work ups for incidentalomas that may have no real relevance. Conversely all of us probably have anecdotal stories of an exam changing the course. For example, I recall the physical exam that picked the cause of the patient’s agitation, an ulcer on the back of a ventilated, heavily sedated patient. This led to less use of benzodiazepines and a focus on pain control perhaps preventing or mitigating the clinical detriments of excess sedative use in the ICU.

Ordering tests and imaging is usually quicker for the MD than doing a physical exam – one can order three CT scans on three patients in less time than it takes to physically go and exam three patients. This is clearly an improved efficiency for the MD’s work load. The question is then whether the improved efficiency for the MD and added information about the patient from the ancillary testing is worth the extra cost. The physical exam is free except insofar as the time it takes and the effect this has on billing, i.e. that it is still a necessary part of the billing matrix.

The nature of what is a physical exam is also changing. Incorporating bedside imaging with ultrasound is no more a stretch than was incorporating the auscultatory findings when the stethoscope was first introduced. Palpation and percussion in this study, were not deemed necessary parts of the physical exam, which is in sharp contrast the traditional teaching. The perception amongst US physicians that physical exam is more utilized outside the US (England being a typical example) may or may not be true. From the results of this particular study, it seems not to be the case, as there was no difference in responses amongst those who had medical school training outside the US. However even currently, it is impossible to progress in England to higher postgraduate training MRCP or FRCP (member or fellow of the Royal College of Physicians) without being grilled on a physical exam (2).

So where then is the correct balance? As the authors point out, the classic physical findings we were taught are usually present in extreme or end stage disease whereas our purportedly better technology now finds these processes earlier in the clinical course. Pure reliance on either the physical exam or the ancillary testing is not likely to be the correct approach. The answer has yet to be ascertained. A study addressing how often the clinical exam changes the course of a patient’s care significantly (however one may define this) has yet to be done. My prediction is that within 20-30 years, the physical exam will be almost never done in clinical practice.

Clement U. Singarajah, MD

Associate Editor

Southwest Journal of Pulmonary and Critical Care

References

1. Vazquez R, Vazquez Guillamet C, Adeel Rishi M, Florindez J, Dhawan PS, Allen SE, Manthous CA, Lighthall G.  Physical examination in the intensive care unit: opinions of physicians at three teaching hospitals. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2015;10(1):34-43. [CrossRef]
2. Royal College of Physicians of the United Kingdom. MRCP(UK) part 2 clinical examination (paces) guide notes for candidates 2014. Available at: http://www.mrcpuk.org/sites/default/files/documents/Candidate%20guide%20notes%202014_1.pdf (accessed 1/6/15).

Reference as: Singarajah CU. The hands of a healer. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2015;10(1):32-3. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc002-15 PDF