ABIM Overhauling MOC

Yesterday, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) announced proposed changes to their controversial Maintenance of Certification (MOC) (1). One of the biggest changes is an alternative path to recertification. For most physicians, that would mean they would not have to take the long-form test every 10 years, but instead would have a series of more frequent, but less onerous, assessments. To determine the MOC content ABIM will be using physician crowd-sourcing to determine what knowledge is essential for various physicians and what is most relevant to their practices. ABIM is also changing the format for scores so that physicians get more detailed feedback.

ABIM’s MOC program has been controversial (2). MOC has been viewed by most physicians as being irrelevant to their daily practice and a burden (3). This led to the formation of National Board of Physicians and Surgeons which is challenging ABIM’s monopoly on physician internal medicine certification (4).

ABIM claims that MOC is still the best way of assuring physician knowledge and skills in a particular field (1). Two studies were cited. One asserts that the cost of care for Medicare beneficiaries is 2.5% lower among physicians who were obliged to complete MOC than among those who were not (5). The second states death and emergency coronary artery bypass grafting is lower when patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions are treated by board-certified interventional cardiologists (6).

However, Paul Teirstein, MD, chief of cardiology and the director of interventional cardiology at Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, California takes issue with ABIM’s assertion. "There's no evidence that MOC, recertification or take-home computer modules improve patient outcomes," he told Medscape Medical News (7). "This is a money-making operation for [ABIM]. It's a tollbooth, and there's no evidence that it helps anybody, and it takes a ton of time." Teirstein also takes issue with the 2.5% reduction in costs which he points out was a reduction in the growth differences in cost, which is much smaller than the 2.5% lower cost the ABIM claims. That same study also shows an increase in emergency room use for patients treated by MOC-required physicians, he added. The second study concluded no “… consistent association between ICARD certification and the outcomes of PCI procedures.” (6).

References

1. Baron RJ, Braddock CH III. Perspective: knowing what we don’t know — improving maintenance of certification. New Engl J Med. November 30, 2016 Nov 30 [Epub ahead of print] [CrossRef]
2. Lowes R. ABIM suspends controversial MOC requirements through 2018. Medscape Medical News December 16, 2015. Available at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/856076 (accessed 12/1/16).
3. Cook DA, Blachman MJ, West CP, Wittich CM. Physician Attitudes About Maintenance of Certification: A Cross-Specialty National Survey. Mayo Clin Proc. 2016 Oct;91(10):1336-45. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. https://nbpas.org/ (accessed 12/1/16).
5. Gray BM, Vandergrift JL, Johnston MM, et al. Association between imposition of a Maintenance of Certification requirement and ambulatory care-sensitive hospitalizations and health care costs. JAMA. 2014 Dec 10;312(22):2348-57. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Fiorilli PN, Minges KE, Herrin J, et al. Association of physician certification in interventional cardiology with in-hospital outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation. 2015 Nov 10;132(19):1816-24. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. ABIM leaders say they are revamping MOC requirements. Medscape Medical News. December 1, 2016. Available at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/872593?nlid=110968_2863&src=wnl_dne_161201_mscpedit&uac=9273DT&impID=1244926&faf=1 (accessed 12/1/16).

Cite as: Robbins RA. ABIM overhaulding MOC. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2016:13(6):276-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc128-16 PDF

Substitution of Assistants for Nurses Increases Mortality, Decreases Quality

Substituting nursing assistants for professional nurses is associated with poorer quality of care and increased mortality according to a study published in BMJ Quality & Safety (1). Linda H. Aiken PhD and colleagues analyzed the effect of increasing the proportion of less extensively trained nurses at 243 acute care hospitals in Belgium, England, Finland, Ireland, Spain, and Switzerland. They surveyed 13,077 nurses and 18,828 patients who had been in 182 hospitals between 2009 and 2010. They also consulted mortality records for 275,519 patients who had had surgery in 188 of the hospitals between 2007 and 2009.

Overall, 47% of the professional nurses in the study had bachelor's degrees, although they were unevenly distributed, with some hospitals having none. In a hospital that has average nurse staffing levels and skill mix, the researchers estimated that replacing one professional nurse with a lower-skilled worker increased the odds of a patient dying by 21%. Conversely, each 10% increase in the proportion of nurses with high-level skills was associated with an 11% decrease in the odds of a patient dying postoperatively and a 10% decrease in the odds of a patient giving the hospital a low rating.

Overall, the findings paralleled those from the United States and are consistent with the concept that a higher level of education leads to improved care. "We find a nursing skill mix in hospitals with a higher proportion of professional nurses is associated with significantly lower mortality, higher patient ratings of their care and fewer adverse care outcomes," the researchers write. They conclude "that caution should be taken in implementing policies to reduce hospital nursing skill mix because the consequences can be life-threatening for patients."

Richard A. Robbins, MD

Editor, SWJPCC

Reference

1. Aiken LH, Sloane D, Griffiths P, et al. Nursing skill mix in European hospitals: cross-sectional study of the association with mortality, patient ratings, and quality of care. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016. Published on-line 11/15/16. [CrossRef] 

Cite as: Robbins RA. Substitution of assistants for nurses increases mortality, decreases quality. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2016;13(5):252. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc121-16 PDF

CMS Releases Data on Drug Spending

Yesterday (11/14/16) the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released data on spending for drugs under Medicare and Medicaid (1,2). Medicare paid $137.4 billion on drugs covered by its prescription drug benefit in 2015. About $8.7 billion of that spending occurred on drugs that had "large" price hikes, defined as a more than 25 percent increase between 2014 and 2015. In 2015, Medicaid paid $57.3 billion about $5.1 billion of which was spent on drugs that had large price increases.

The Medicare spending database highlights 11 drugs that doubled in price. The Medicaid database identified 20 drugs that more than doubled in price with 9 of these being old, generic drugs. Medicare drugs were led by Glumetza, a Type 2 diabetes drug which saw its price soar 380 percent and hydroxychloroquine sulfate, a generic malaria drug, which went up 370 percent. Medicaid drugs were led by Ativan, an anti-anxiety medication approved in 1977, which increased by 1,264 percent in price between 2014 and 2015. Daraprim, a decades-old antiparasitic drug that helped spark political attention to the issue of high drug prices after former pharmaceutical executive Martin Shkreli hiked the price, leapt up in average cost by 874 percent.

However, drugs commonly used in respiratory diseases also increased in price. These were led by mitomycin, an anticancer drug sometimes used in lung cancer, an antidepressant also used as a smoking cessation aid (Table 1).

Table 1. Medicare Spending on Respiratory Drugs. (Open table in separate window)

The data on price on small prices rises can be deceiving when calculating total costs. For example, Advair Diskus, a bronchodilator, ranked in the top-five of Medicare expenditures, with $2.3 billion in spending in 2015. However, he utilization of the drug has actually declined a little over the last five years. Meanwhile, the total spending has not gone down, but increased. Fueled by relatively modest price increases, from $3.81 per unit in 2011 to $5.28 in 2015, the spending on the drug increased by more than half a billion dollars over that period.

Of particular concern is a rise in price of some generics, a class of drugs that are intended to decrease drug prices and spending. Drugs that were responsible for large amounts of overall spending tended to see smaller increases that gradually increased the government outlay. In one outlier, the price of the hepatitis C treatment, Harvoni, decreased slightly in 2015, even as it led overall spending.

The prices do not include the impact of rebates, which are prohibited by law from being released (3). Those discounts can be significant, and not knowing what they are means the numbers almost certainly overstate how much the government actually paid for these drugs. CMS disclosed that, on average, rebates for brand name drugs were 17.5 percent for medicines covered by Medicare's "part D" prescription drug benefit in 2014.

Richard A. Robbins, MD

Editor, SWJPCC

References

1. CMS. 2015 Medicare drug spending dashboard. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/Information-on-Prescription-Drugs/2015Medicare.html (accessed 11/15/16.
2. CMS. 2015 Medicaid drug spending dashboard. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/Information-on-Prescription-Drugs/2015Medicaid.html (accessed 11/15/16).
3. Johnson CY. Drugs for hepatitis C and diabetes drove Medicare spending in 2015. Washington Post. November 14, 2016. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/14/the-drugs-driving-up-medicare-spending/ (accessed 11/15/16).

Cite as: Robbins RA. CMS releases data on drug spending. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2016;13(5):242-3. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc118-16 PDF 

Trump Proposes Initial Healthcare Agenda

On Friday, November 11, President-elect Trump proposed a healthcare agenda on his website greatagain.gov (1). Yesterday, November 12, he gave an interview on 60 Minutes clarifying his positions (2). Trump said that he wanted to focus on healthcare and has proposed to:

• Repeal all of the Affordable Care Act;
• Allow the sale of health insurance across state lines;
• Make the purchase of health insurance fully tax deductible;
• Expand access to the health savings accounts;
• Increase price transparency;
• Block grant Medicaid;
• Lower entrance barriers to new producers of drugs.

In his 60 Minutes interview Trump reiterated that two provisions of the ACA – prohibition of pre-existing conditions exclusion and ability for adult children to stay on parents insurance plans until age 26 – have his support (2). Other aspects of the ACA that might receive his support were not discussed.

On the Department of Veterans’ Affairs Trump proposed to make the VA great again by removing corrupt and incompetent individuals who let our veterans down (1).  The website goes on to say that only honest and dedicated public servants in the VA have their jobs protected, and will be put in line for promotions.

Several aspects of healthcare were not addressed. Universal healthcare which Trump has supported in the past was not discussed (3). Trump did not make major policy proposals for Medicare during the campaign and Medicare was not addressed on his website or during his interview.

According to a survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation the top three healthcare issues concerning voters were:

• Ensuring that high-cost drugs for chronic conditions such as hepatitis and cancer become affordable;
• Lowering prescription drug costs in general;
• Making sure health plans have enough physicians and hospitals in their networks (4).

None were addressed on Trump's website or during his interview.

Richard A. Robbins, MD

Editor, SWJPCC

References

1. https://www.greatagain.gov/policy/healthcare.html (accessed 11/14/16).
2. CBS News. President-elect Trump speaks to a divided country on 60 Minutes. November 13, 2016. Available at: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-donald-trump-family-melania-ivanka-lesley-stahl/ (accessed 11/14/16).
3. CBS News. Trump gets down to business on 60 Minutes. September 27, 2015. Available at: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-60-minutes-scott-pelley/
4. Kirzinger A, Sugarman E, Brodie M. Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: October 2016. Available at: http://kff.org/health-costs/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-october-2016/ (accessed 11/14/16). 

Cite as: Robbins RA. Trump proposes initial healthcare agenda. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2016;13(5):240-1. doi: https://doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc117-16 PDF 

Election Results of Southwest Ballot Measures Affecting Healthcare

Earlier this week an article was posted listing Southwest ballot measures that affect healthcare. Below are the results obtained from various internet sources.

States

Arizona

1. Recreational marijuana. Proposition 205: Legalizes recreational marijuana use for people 21 and older. Opponents of the measure include the Arizona Health and Hospital Association and Insys Therapeutics, a company that makes a cannabis-based pain medication.

   Defeated: Yes    929,518 (48%)

                   No 1,011,836 (52%)

California 

1. Medi-Cal hospital fee program. Proposition 52: Requires the legislature to get voter approval to use fee revenue for purposes other than generating federal matching funds and funding enhanced Medicaid payments and grants for hospitals. The initiative, which was written by the California Hospital Association and is supported by most state lawmakers, would also make the program permanent, requiring a supermajority in the legislature to end it.

   Passed: Yes 5,950,642 (70%)

                No 2,599,764 (30%)

2. Tobacco tax. Proposition 56: Increases the state's cigarette tax by $2 a pack and impose an "equivalent increase on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes containing nicotine." The revenue primarily would support healthcare programs.

   Passed: Yes 5,551,236 (63%)

                No 3,271,626 (37%)

3. Prescription drug price regulations. Proposition 61: Ties the prices California state agencies pay for prescription drugs to the discounts negotiated by the U.S. Veterans Affairs Department. The initiative, backed by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, has drawn more than $100 million in spending from opponents, most of it from the pharmaceutical industry.

   Defeated: Yes 3,933,084 (46%)

                   No 4,570,245 (54%)

4. Legalization of recreational marijuana. Proposition 64: Legalizes recreational marijuana use for people 21 and older and creates taxes on the cultivation and retail sale of the drug.

   Passed: Yes 4,957,215 (56%)

                No 3,923,777 (44%)

Colorado

1. ColoradoCare, a single-payer health system. Amendment 69: Amends the state's constitution to establish a universal healthcare system financed by payroll taxes and governed by an elected 21-member board of trustees. The plan is opposed by Colorado Hospital Association.

   Defeated: Yes   478,107 (20%)

                   No 1,876,618 (80%)        

2. Cigarette tax. Amendment 72: Amends the state's constitution to increase the cigarette tax from 84 cents a pack to $2.59 a pack. Most of the revenue would fund health-related programs, research into tobacco-related health issues and education and prevention. E-cigarettes are exempt.

   Defeated: Yes 1,115,022 (46%)

                   No 1,291,961 (54%)

3. Physician-assisted suicide. Proposition 106: The End of Life Options Act allows physicians to prescribe a lethal drug to their terminally ill patients and allows terminally ill patients to be prescribed lethal drugs to end their life.

   Passed: Yes 1,542,219 (65%)

                No    847,978 (35%)

Nevada

1. Recreational marijuana. Question 2: Legalizes recreational marijuana use for people 21 and older.  

   Passed: Yes 602,400 (54%)

                No 503,615 (46%)

2. Medical equipment tax. Question 4: Exempts medical equipment like oxygen machines and hospital beds from the state sales tax.

   Passed: Yes 768,803 (72%)

                No 301,944 (28%)

Cities

1. Albany, CA. Soda tax: A 1 cent per ounce tax on sugary beverages.

   Passed

2. San Francisco, CA. Soda tax: A 1 cent per ounce tax on sugary beverages.

   Passed

3. Oakland, CA. Soda tax: A 1 cent per ounce tax on sugary beverages.

   Passed

4. Boulder, CO. Soda tax: Imposes a 2 cent per ounce tax on sugary beverages.

   Passed

Richard A. Robbins, MD

Editor, SWJPCC

Cite as: Robbins RA. Election results of Southwest ballot measures affecting healthcare. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2016;13(5):223-4. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13175/swjpcc115-16 PDF