Prioritizing solutions to incorporate Prosthetics and Orthotics services into Iranian health benefits package: Using an analytic hierarchy process.

INTRODUCTION: Health benefits package (HBP) is regarded as one of the main dimensions of health financing strategy. Even with increasing demands for prosthetics and orthotics (P&O) services to approximately 0.5% of the world's population, only 15% of vulnerable groups have the chance to make use of such benefits. Inadequate coverage of P&O services in the HBP is accordingly one of the leading reasons for this situation in many countries, including Iran. AIMS: The main objective of this study was to find and prioritize solutions in order to facilitate and promote P&O services in the Iranian HBP. STUDY DESIGN: A mixed-methods (qualitative-quantitative) research design was employed in this study. METHODS: This study was conducted in two phases. First, semi-structured interviews were undertaken to retrieve potential solutions. Then an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) reflecting on seven criteria of acceptability, effectiveness, time, cost, feasibility, burden of disease, and fairness was performed to prioritize them. RESULTS: In total, 26 individuals participated in semi-structured interviews and several policy solutions were proposed. Following the AHP, preventive interventions, infant-specific interventions, inpatient interventions, interventions until 6 years of age, and emergency interventions gained the highest priority to incorporate in the Iranian HBP. CONCLUSION: A number of policy solutions were explored and prioritized for P&O services in the Iranian HBP. Our findings provide a framework for decision- and policy-makers in Iran and other countries aiming to curb the financial burdens of P&O users, especially in vulnerable groups.

Use and Cost of Orthosis in Conservative Treatment of Acute Thoracolumbar Fractures: A Survey of European and North American Experts.

STUDY DESIGN: Survey study. OBJECTIVE: Assess practices and opinions of spine specialists from Europe and North America on orthosis use in adult patients with acute thoracolumbar (TL) fractures. Evaluate cost of the devices. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although orthosis are traditionally used in conservative treatment of TL fractures, recent systematic reviews showed no benefit in patient's outcomes. METHODS: A search for contact authors with publications on spine fractures from all European and North American countries was performed. An online questionnaire was sent on demographic data, practice setting, mean number of fractures treated, use of orthosis upon choice for conservative treatment, and average orthosis cost. Data was analyzed based in world regions, economic rank of the country, and health expenditure. RESULTS: We received 130 answers, from 28 European and five North American countries. Most responders had more than 9 years of practice and worked at a public hospital. 6.2% did not prescribe a brace in any patient with acute TL fractures conservatively treated and 11.5% brace all patients. In a scale from 1 to 5, 21 considered that there is no/low benefit (1) and 14 that bracing is essential (5), with a mean of 3.18. Europeans use orthosis less commonly than North Americans (P < 0.05). Orthosis mean cost was $611.4 ±â€Š716.0, significantly higher in North America compared with Europe and in high income, when compared with upper middle income countries (both P < 0.05). Although hospital costs were not evaluated, orthosis is costlier when it involves admission of the patient (P < 0.05). An increase in orthosis cost associated with higher gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and higher health expenditure was found. CONCLUSION: More than 90% of spine specialists still use orthosis in conservative treatment of adult patients with acute TL fractures. Orthosis cost vary significantly between continents, and it is influenced by the country's economy.Level of Evidence: 4.

A scoping literature review of studies assessing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prosthetic and orthotic interventions.

Purpose: Approximately 1.5% of the world's population (∼100 million people) need a prosthesis/orthosis. The objective of the study was to establish an overview of the literature that has examined prosthetic and orthotic interventions with a view to inform policy development.Methods: Fourteen databases were searched from 1995-2015. Studies reporting primary research on the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of prosthetic and orthotic interventions were examined. Metadata and information on study characteristics were extracted from the included studies.Results: The searches resulted in a total of 28,958 articles, a focus on studies with the words "randomized" OR "randomized" OR "cost" OR "economic" in their citation reduced this total to 2644. Research has predominantly been conducted in Australia, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, UK and USA. A total of 346 randomized controlled trials were identified, with only four randomized controlled trials examining prosthetic interventions. The majority of research examined lower limb orthoses in the adult population and used a wide range of outcome measures.Conclusions: While various international organizations have highlighted the value of providing prosthetic and orthotic services, both to the user and society as a whole, the availability of scientific research to inform policy is limited. Future structured evaluation of prosthetic and orthotic interventions/services is warranted to inform future policy developments.Implications for rehabilitationResearch into prosthetic and orthotic interventions has grown substantially in the last 20 years, with most of this research conducted in a small number of countries and focusing on the use of lower limb orthotics in adult populations.Research to date has utilized an extensive range of outcome measures, the development of agreed standardized sets of outcomes would allow comparison and combination of results in future research.This study highlights the need for further research in this area, especially studies which examine the cost-effectiveness of prosthetic and orthotic provision.

Orthotic management of instability of the knee related to neuromuscular and central nervous system disorders: qualitative interview study of patient perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: Adults with knee instability related to neuromuscular disorders or central nervous conditions often experience mobility problems and rely on orthoses to improve function and mobility. Patient views of device effectiveness and acceptability are underexplored. Our study aimed to elicit device users' perspectives regarding fitting, acceptability, effectiveness and use of orthoses, and identify important treatment outcomes. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study using in-depth semistructured interviews. Interview transcriptions were coded and thematically analysed, using 'Framework'. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A purposive sample of 24 adult users of orthotic devices. Nineteen patients were recruited across three National Health Service sites, and five people through charities/patient support groups in England. Half of the participants had been diagnosed with poliomyelitis, and the remainder with multiple sclerosis, Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, spinal injury or spina bifida, and stroke. The median age of participants was 64.5 years (range 36-80 years). RESULTS: Patients' medical condition impacted significantly on daily life. Participants relied on orthotic devices to enable engagement in daily activities. Patient goals for mobility were linked to individual circumstances. Desired treatment outcomes included reduction in pain, trips and falls, with improved balance and stability. Effectiveness, reliability, comfort and durability were the most valued features of orthoses and associated with reported use. Obtaining suitable footwear alongside orthotic devices was a significant concern. Time pressures during device fitting were viewed negatively. CONCLUSIONS: Orthotic devices for knee instability play a crucial role in promoting, maintaining and enhancing physical and psychological health and well-being, enabling patients to work, engage in family life and enjoy social activities. Future research should consider how best to measure the impact of orthotic devices on patient quality of life and daily functioning outside the clinic setting, as well as device use and any adverse effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This qualitative study was retrospectively registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN65240228.

Health economic evaluation in orthotics and prosthetics: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Health economic evaluations are essential to support health care policy and investment decisions. To date, health economic evaluations in orthotics and prosthetics have focused on discrete components of an orthosis/prosthesis (e.g. a microprocessor controlled prosthetic knee joint) rather than the broader service provided by orthotist/prosthetists. As such, the contribution to orthotic/prosthetic policy and investment decisions is unclear. Whilst there are opportunities to conduct more informative health economic evaluations that describe the costs and benefits of the orthotic/prosthetic service, it is important that prospective research is informed by a critical review of the method design challenges and an understanding of how this research can be improved. The aim of this systematic review is to critically appraise the existing orthotic/prosthetic health economic evaluation literature and therefore determine evidence gaps, critical method design issues and the extent to which the literature informs orthotic/prosthetic policy and investment decisions. METHODS: A comprehensive range of databases-AMED, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsychINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and specialty health economic databases-will be searched using National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms as well as the title, abstract, and keyword terms. Search terms related to the intervention (e.g. orthosis), including variants used by varying professional disciplines (e.g. brace), will be used in preference to defining the populations that use orthotic and prosthetic services (e.g. people living with rheumatoid arthritis). Search terms related to health economic evaluations will be guided by previously developed and tested search strings and align with recommendations by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria will be hand-searched for relevant citations, and a forward citation search using Google Scholar will also be conducted to identify early online articles not yet indexed in traditional databases. Original research published in the English language and after 1 January 2000 will be included. The Checklist for Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC)-Extended list will be used to appraise the methodological quality and identify sources of bias. Data extraction and appraisal will be conducted by one reviewer independently using appraisal instrument guidelines and a content specific decision aid with exemplars. A subsequent review by a second researcher will be undertaken to confirm the accuracy of the extraction and appraisal, and a final review by a third where consensus cannot be reached. The data will be extracted to a purpose-built data extraction template with decision-making guidelines to support consistency. Where possible, the findings of the review will be reported as a meta-analysis, although the heterogeneity of the literature will likely mean a narrative review that illuminates method design issues that contribute to imprecision and variation will be more appropriate. DISCUSSION: This protocol has been purposefully designed to summarise the existing evidence and appraise the methodological approaches used and the quality of the health economic evaluations in orthotics and prosthetics. What we learn from this review will be used to guide further work in this area and design more rigorous health economic evaluations into the future. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018116910.

Economic value of orthotic and prosthetic services among medicare beneficiaries: a claims-based retrospective cohort study, 2011-2014.

BACKGROUND: There are few studies of the economic value of orthotic and prosthetic services. A prior cohort study of orthotic and prosthetic Medicare beneficiaries based on Medicare Parts A and B claims from 2007 to 2010 concluded that patients who received timely orthotic or prosthetic care had comparable or lower total health care costs than a comparison group of untreated patients. This follow-up study reports on a parallel analysis based on Medicare claims from 2011 to 2014 and includes Part D in addition to Parts A and B services and expenditures. Its purpose is to validate earlier findings on the extent to which Medicare patients who received select orthotic and prosthetic services had less health care utilization, lower Medicare payments, and potentially fewer negative outcomes compared to matched patients not receiving these services. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort analysis of 78,707 matched pairs of Medicare beneficiaries with clinical need for orthotic and prosthetic services (N = 157,414) using 2011-2014 Medicare claims data. It uses propensity score matching techniques to control for observable selection bias. Economically, a cost-consequence evaluation over a four-year time horizon was performed. RESULTS: Patients who received lower extremity orthotics had 18-month episode costs that were $1939 lower than comparable patients who did not receive orthotic treatment ($22,734 vs $24,673). Patients who received spinal orthotic treatment had 18-month episode costs that were $2094 lower than comparable non-treated patients ($23,560 vs $25,655). Study group beneficiaries receiving both types of orthotics had significantly lower Part D spending than those not receiving treatment (p < 0.05). Patients who received lower extremity prostheses had comparable 15-month episode payments to matched beneficiaries not receiving prostheses ($68,877 vs $68,893) despite the relatively high cost of the prosthesis. CONCLUSIONS: These results were consistent with those found in the prior study and suggest that orthotic and prosthetic services provide value to the Medicare program and to the patient.

Medicare Program; Update to the Required Prior Authorization List of Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) Items That Require Prior Authorization as a Condition of Payment. Update to list.

This document announces the addition of 31 Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes to the Required Prior Authorization List of Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) Items that require prior authorization as a condition of payment. Prior authorization for these codes will be implemented nationwide.

Medicare Program; Prior Authorization Process for Certain Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) Items; Update to the Master List of Items Frequently Subject to Unnecessary Utilization. Master list deletions.

This document announces the deletion of four Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes from the Master List of Items Frequently Subject to Unnecessary Utilization that could be potentially subject to Prior Authorization as a condition of payment.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for falls prevention in older people: a multicentre cohort randomised controlled trial (the REducing Falls with ORthoses and a Multifaceted podiatry intervention trial).

BACKGROUND: Falls are a serious cause of morbidity and cost to individuals and society. Evidence suggests that foot problems and inappropriate footwear may increase the risk of falling. Podiatric interventions could help reduce falls; however, there is limited evidence regarding their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for preventing falls in community-dwelling older people at risk of falling, relative to usual care. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentred, cohort randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation and qualitative study. SETTING: Nine NHS trusts in the UK and one site in Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 1010 participants aged ≥ 65 years were randomised (intervention, n = 493; usual care, n = 517) via a secure, remote service. Blinding was not possible. INTERVENTIONS: All participants received a falls prevention leaflet and routine care from their podiatrist and general practitioner. The intervention also consisted of footwear advice, footwear provision if required, foot orthoses and foot- and ankle-strengthening exercises. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the incidence rate of falls per participant in the 12 months following randomisation. The secondary outcomes included the proportion of fallers and multiple fallers, time to first fall, fear of falling, fracture rate, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The primary analysis consisted of 484 (98.2%) intervention and 507 (98.1%) usual-care participants. There was a non-statistically significant reduction in the incidence rate of falls in the intervention group [adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.05; p = 0.16]. The proportion of participants experiencing a fall was lower (50% vs. 55%, adjusted odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.00; p = 0.05). No differences were observed in key secondary outcomes. No serious, unexpected and related adverse events were reported. The intervention costs £252.17 more per participant (95% CI -£69.48 to £589.38) than usual care, was marginally more beneficial in terms of HRQoL measured via the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions [mean quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) difference 0.0129, 95% CI -0.0050 to 0.0314 QALYs] and had a 65% probability of being cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained. The intervention was generally acceptable to podiatrists and trial participants. LIMITATIONS: Owing to the difficulty in calculating a sample size for a count outcome, the sample size was based on detecting a difference in the proportion of participants experiencing at least one fall, and not the primary outcome. We are therefore unable to confirm if the trial was sufficiently powered for the primary outcome. The findings are not generalisable to patients who are not receiving podiatry care. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was safe and potentially effective. Although the primary outcome measure did not reach significance, a lower fall rate was observed in the intervention group. The reduction in the proportion of older adults who experienced a fall was of borderline statistical significance. The economic evaluation suggests that the intervention could be cost-effective. FUTURE WORK: Further research could examine whether or not the intervention could be delivered in group sessions, by physiotherapists, or in high-risk patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68240461. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Current Trends in the Management of Lateral Ankle Sprain in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize trends in the acute management (within 30 days) after lateral ankle sprain (LAS) in the United States. DESIGN: Descriptive epidemiology study. PATIENTS: Of note, 825 718 ankle sprain patients were identified; 96.2% were patients with LAS. Seven percent had an associated fracture and were excluded from the remaining analysis. SETTING: Primary and tertiary care settings. INTERVENTIONS: We queried a database of national health insurance records for 2007 to 2011 by ICD-9 codes for patients with LAS while excluding medial and syndesmotic sprains and any LAS with an associated foot or ankle fracture. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The percentage of patients to receive specific diagnostic imaging, orthopedic devices, or physical therapy treatments within 30 days of the LAS diagnosis and the associated costs. RESULTS: Over two-thirds of patients with LAS without an associated fracture received radiographs, 9% received an ankle brace, 8.1% received a walking boot, 6.5% were splinted, and 4.8% were prescribed crutches. Only 6.8% received physical therapy within 30 days of their LAS diagnosis, 94.1% of which performed therapeutic exercise, 52.3% received manual therapy, and 50.2% received modalities. The annual cost associated with physician visits, diagnostic imaging, orthopedic devices, and physical therapy was 152 million USD, 81.5% was from physician evaluations, 7.9% from physical therapy, 7.2% from diagnostic imaging, and 3.4% from orthopedic devices. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with LAS do not receive supervised rehabilitation. The small proportion of patients with LAS to receive physical therapy get rehabilitation prescribed in accordance with clinical practice guidelines. The majority (>80%) of the LAS financial burden is associated with physician evaluations.

Medication, rehabilitation and health care consumption in adults with cerebral palsy: a population based study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate medication, rehabilitation and healthcare consumption in adults with CP as a function of Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) level. DESIGN: Questionnaire-based cross-sectional study. SETTING: Brittany, a French county. SUBJECTS: Adults with cerebral palsy. INTERVENTIONS: Questionnaires relating to drugs, orthotic devices, mobility aids, rehabilitation and medical input were sent to 435 members of a unique regional French network dedicated to adults with cerebral palsy. The questionnaire was completed by the participant or a helper if necessary. RESULTS: Of the 282 responders, 7.8% had a GMFCS level of I, 14.2% II, 17.7% III, 29.1% IV and 31.2% V. Participants consumed a large amount of healthcare. Almost three-quarters took orally administered drugs, of which antispastic and antiepileptic drugs were among the most frequent. Nearly all patients had at least one type of rehabilitation, 87.2% had physiotherapy, 78% used at least one mobility aid and 69.5% used at least one orthotic device. The frequency of numerous inputs increased with GMFCS level. Specificities were found for each GMFCS level, e.g. participants with GMFCS level IV and V had a high level of medical input and a greater use of trunk-supporting devices, antireflux and laxative. Profiles could be established based on GMFCS levels. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with cerebral palsy use a large amount of drugs, mobility aids, orthotic devices, rehabilitation and medical input. Healthcare is targeted at cerebral palsy-related issues. GMFCS is a determinant of healthcare consumption and thus a useful tool for clinical practice to target care appropriately.

Medicare Program; End-Stage Renal Disease Prospective Payment System, Coverage and Payment for Renal Dialysis Services Furnished to Individuals With Acute Kidney Injury, End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program, Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics and Supplies Competitive Bidding Program Bid Surety Bonds, State Licensure and Appeals Process for Breach of Contract Actions, Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics and Supplies Competitive Bidding Program and Fee Schedule Adjustments, Access to Care Issues for Durable Medical Equipment; and the Comprehensive End-Stage Renal Disease Care Model. Final rule.

This rule updates and makes revisions to the End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Prospective Payment System (PPS) for calendar year 2017. It also finalizes policies for coverage and payment for renal dialysis services furnished by an ESRD facility to individuals with acute kidney injury. This rule also sets forth requirements for the ESRD Quality Incentive Program, including the inclusion of new quality measures beginning with payment year (PY) 2020 and provides updates to programmatic policies for the PY 2018 and PY 2019 ESRD QIP. This rule also implements statutory requirements for bid surety bonds and state licensure for the Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) Competitive Bidding Program (CBP). This rule also expands suppliers' appeal rights in the event of a breach of contract action taken by CMS, by revising the appeals regulation to extend the appeals process to all types of actions taken by CMS for a supplier's breach of contract, rather than limit an appeal for the termination of a competitive bidding contract. The rule also finalizes changes to the methodologies for adjusting fee schedule amounts for DMEPOS using information from CBPs and for submitting bids and establishing single payment amounts under the CBPs for certain groupings of similar items with different features to address price inversions. Final changes also are made to the method for establishing bid limits for items under the DMEPOS CBPs. In addition, this rule summarizes comments on the impacts of coordinating Medicare and Medicaid Durable Medical Equipment for dually eligible beneficiaries. Finally, this rule also summarizes comments received in response to a request for information related to the Comprehensive ESRD Care Model and future payment models affecting renal care.

Orthotic management of instability of the knee related to neuromuscular and central nervous system disorders: systematic review, qualitative study, survey and costing analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients who have knee instability that is associated with neuromuscular disease (NMD) and central nervous system (CNS) conditions can be treated using orthoses, such as knee-ankle-foot orthoses (KAFOs). OBJECTIVES: To assess existing evidence on the effectiveness of orthoses; patient perspectives; types of orthotic devices prescribed in the UK NHS; and associated costs. METHODS: Qualitative study of views of orthoses users - a qualitative in-depth interview study was undertaken. Data were analysed for thematic content. A coding scheme was developed and an inductive approach was used to identify themes. Systematic review - 18 databases were searched up to November 2014: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, EMBASE, PASCAL, Scopus, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS Previews, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Recal Legacy, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Conference Proceedings Citation Index: Science, Health Management Consortium, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and National Technical Information Service. Studies of adults using an orthosis for instability of the knee related to NMD or a CNS disorder were included. Data were extracted and quality was assessed by two researchers. Narrative synthesis was undertaken. Survey and costing analysis - a web survey of orthotists, physiotherapists and rehabilitation medicine physicians was undertaken. Telephone interviews with orthotists informed a costing analysis. RESULTS: Qualitative study - a total of 24 people participated. Potential for engagement in daily activities was of vital importance to patients; the extent to which their device enabled this was the yardstick by which it was measured. Patients' prime desired outcome was a reduction in pain, falls or trips, with improved balance and stability. Effectiveness, reliability, comfort and durability were the most valued features of orthoses. Many expressed frustration with perceived deficiencies in service provision relating to appointment and administrative systems and referral pathways. Systematic review - a total of 21 studies (478 participants) were included of people who had post-polio syndrome, inclusion body myositis, were post stroke or had spinal cord injury. The studies evaluated KAFOs (mainly carbon fibre), stance control KAFO and hip KAFOs. All of the studies were at risk of bias and, in general, were poorly reported. Survey and costing analysis - in total, 238 health-care professionals responded. A range of orthoses is prescribed for knee instability that is related to NMD or CNS conditions, approximately half being custom-made. At least 50% of respondents thought that comfort and confidence in mobility were extremely important treatment outcomes. The cost of individual KAFOs was highly variable, ranging from £73 to £3553. CONCLUSIONS: Various types of orthoses are used in the NHS to manage patients with NMD/CNS conditions and knee instability, both custom-made and prefabricated, of variable cost. Evidence on the effectiveness of the orthoses is limited, especially in relation to the outcomes that are important to orthoses users. LIMITATIONS: The population included was broad, limiting any in-depth consideration of specific conditions. The response rate to the survey was low, and the costing analysis was based on some assumptions that may not reflect the true costs of providing KAFOs. FUTURE WORK: Future work should include high-quality research on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of orthoses; development of a core set of outcome measures; further exploration of the views and experiences of patients; and the best models of service delivery. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014010180. The qualitative study is registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN65240228. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Suggested Guidelines for the Prescription of Orthotic Services, Device Delivery, Education, and Follow-up Care: A Multidisciplinary White Paper.

OBJECTIVES: This article establishes needed guidelines for determining orthotic prescriber authority, documenting medical necessity, and ensuring continuity of care for patients needing orthoses. It also identifies "off-the-shelf" (OTS) devices that can safely and appropriately be delivered to patients without professional adjustment as well as those that cannot. METHODS: A multidisciplinary task force made up of experts in orthopedics and physical medicine physicians, along with therapists and certified orthotists, applied a consensus approach to answer key questions: (i) When can a device be safely, effectively delivered to the patient OTS without professional guidance or education, and which caregivers have a role in that decision? (ii) What documentation is appropriate for physicians and other caregivers to determine medical necessity? (iii) What documentation/communication ensures continuity of care among physicians, therapists, and orthotists? RESULTS: Guidelines developed for consideration of OTS orthoses include accepting documentation from collaborating caregivers, including therapists and orthotists; keeping that documentation as part of the patient's total medical record for clinical, medical necessity determinations and reimbursement purposes; and using the physician's prescription for the device as the key determinant of whether a device is delivered OTS or as a custom-fitted device. CONCLUSION: This review provides expert guidance for patient safety, minimizing wasted expenditures, maximizing clinical outcomes, and providing efficient delivery of care for Medicare and other patients. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services guidelines should be directed toward recognizing the level of expertise of the orthotist, the value of their patient encounters, and their role in facilitating the timely, safe, and effective use of orthotic devices.

Medicare Program; Prior Authorization Process for Certain Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies. Final rule.

This final rule establishes a prior authorization program for certain durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS) items that are frequently subject to unnecessary utilization. This rule defines unnecessary utilization and creates a new requirement that claims for certain DMEPOS items must have an associated provisional affirmed prior authorization decision as a condition of payment. This rule also adds the review contractor's decision regarding prior authorization of coverage of DMEPOS items to the list of actions that are not initial determinations and therefore not appealable.

Medicare program; End-Stage Renal Disease prospective payment system, quality incentive program, and Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies. Final rule.

This final rule will update and make revisions to the End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) prospective payment system (PPS) for calendar year (CY) 2015. This rule also finalizes requirements for the ESRD quality incentive program (QIP), including for payment years (PYs) 2017 and 2018. This rule will also make a technical correction to remove outdated terms and definitions. In addition, this final rule sets forth the methodology for adjusting Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) fee schedule payment amounts using information from the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program (CBP); makes alternative payment rules for certain DME under the Medicare DMEPOS CBP; clarifies the statutory Medicare hearing aid coverage exclusion and specifies devices not subject to the hearing aid exclusion; will not update the definition of minimal self-adjustment; clarifies the Change of Ownership (CHOW) and provides for an exception to the current requirements; revises the appeal provisions for termination of a CBP contract, including the beneficiary notification requirement under the Medicare DMEPOS CBP, and makes a technical change to the regulation related to the conditions for awarding contracts for furnishing infusion drugs under the Medicare DMEPOS CBP.

Use of locally made off-loading techniques for diabetic plantar foot ulcer in Karachi, Pakistan.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of applying locally made pressure off-loading techniques on plantar foot ulcer in individuals with diabetes. This prospective study of 70 diabetic patients was conducted at the foot clinic of Baqai Institute of Diabetology & Endocrinology. Plantar foot ulcer, stages 1A and 2A according to the University of Texas classification, was treated by using three off-loading techniques: modified foot wear (sandal), modified plaster of Paris cast with plywood platform and Scotchcast boot. The outcome was assessed at either complete wound healing (defined as complete epithelialisation) or at 12 weeks, whichever came first. Of the 70 patients, 24 were in modified foot wear group, 23 in modified plaster of Paris cast and 23 in Scotchcast boot group. There was almost equal proportion of patients healed within 12 weeks period treated with these three off-loading techniques, i.e. 22 (95·7%) for modified foot wear group, 19 (95%) for modified plaster cast and 18 (94·7%) for Scotchcast boot group. No significant difference was observed in median healing time and cumulative wound survival at 12 weeks in the three off-loading techniques. Modified foot wear group was the most cost effective ($7) amongst the three off-loading techniques. It is concluded that in this cohort, no significant difference in healing time was observed in the three off-loading techniques, although modified foot wear (sandal) was found to be a more cost-effective treatment modality.