Trends in Hospital Lawsuits Filed Against Patients for Unpaid Bills Following Published Research About This Activity.

Importance: Suing patients and garnishing their wages for unpaid medical bills can be a predatory form of financial activity that may be inconsistent with the mission of a hospital. Many hospitals in the state of Virginia were discovered to be suing patients for unpaid medical bills, as first presented in a 2019 research article that launched 2.5 months of media attention on hospital billing practices and a grassroots public demand for hospitals to stop the practice. Objective: To evaluate the association of a research publication and subsequent media coverage with the number of hospital lawsuits filed against patients for unpaid medical bills. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of Virginia hospitals that sued patients for unpaid medical bills used an interrupted time series analysis. Data on hospitals suing patients for unpaid medical bills were collected during a preintervention period (June 25, 2018, to June 24, 2019), an intervention period (June 25, 2019, to September 10, 2019), and a postintervention period (September 11, 2019, to September 10, 2020). Exposures: Publication of a research article and subsequent media coverage. Main Outcomes and Measures: The total number of warrant in debt and wage garnishment lawsuits filed by Virginia hospitals and the frequency of those lawsuits filed before, during, and after the intervention period on a weekly basis. Results: A total of 50 387 lawsuits, filed by 67 Virginia hospitals, were included; 33 204 (65.9%) were warrant in debt lawsuits, and 17 183 (34.1%) were wage garnishment lawsuits. From the preintervention period to the postintervention period, there was a 59% decrease in the number of lawsuits filed (from 30 760 lawsuits to 12 510 lawsuits), a 55% decrease in the number of warrant in debt cases filed (from 19 329 to 8651), a 66% decrease in the number of wage garnishments filed (from 11 431 to 3859), and a 64% decrease in the dollar amount pursued in court (from $38 700 209 to $13 960 300). During the study period, 11 hospitals banned the practice of suing patients for unpaid medical bills. The interrupted time series analysis showed a significant decrease of 5% (incidence rate ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.94-0.96) in the total weekly number of lawsuits in the postintervention period. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that research leading to public awareness can shift hospital billing practices.

Management Strategies and Patient Selection After a Hospital Funding Reform for Prostate Cancer Surgery in Canada.

Importance: Hospital funding reforms for prostate cancer surgery may have altered management of localized prostate cancer in the province of Ontario, Canada. Objective: To determine whether changes in hospital funding policy aimed at improving health care quality and value were associated with changes in the management of localized prostate cancer or the characteristics of patients receiving radical prostatectomy (RP) for localized prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, interrupted time series study used linked population-based administrative data regarding adults in Ontario with incidental localized prostate cancer and those who underwent RP for localized prostate cancer. Patients who underwent RP were compared with patients who underwent surgical procedures for localized renal cell carcinoma, which was not included in the policy change but was subjected to similar secular trends and potential confounders. Monthly outcomes were analyzed using interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models. Data were collected from January 2011 to November 2017 and analyzed in January 2019. Exposures: Funding policy change in April 2015 from flexible block funding for all hospital-based care to prespecified payment amounts per procedure for treatment of localized prostate cancer, coupled with the dissemination of a diagnosis-specific handbook outlining best practices. Main Outcomes and Measures: Initial management (RP vs radiation therapy vs active surveillance) and tumor risk profiles per management strategy among incident cases of localized prostate cancer. Additional outcomes were case volume, mean length of stay, proportion of patients returning to hospital or emergency department within 30 days, proportion of patients older than 65 years, mean Charlson Comorbidity Index, and proportion of minimally invasive surgical procedures among patients undergoing RP for localized prostate cancer. Results: A total of 33 128 patients with incident localized prostate cancer (median [interquartile range (IQR)] age, 67 [61-73] years; median [IQR] cases per monthly observation interval, 466 [420-516]), 17 159 patients who received radical prostatectomy (median [IQR] age, 63 [58-68] years; median [IQR] cases per monthly observation interval, 209 [183-225]), and 5762 individuals who underwent surgery for renal cell carcinoma (median [IQR] age, 62 [53-70] years; median [IQR] cases per monthly observation interval, 71 [61-77]) were identified. By the end of the observation period, radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy were used in comparable proportions (30.3% and 28.9%, respectively) and included only a small fraction of low-risk patients (6.4% and 2.9%, respectively). No statistically significant association of the funding policy change with most outcomes was found. Conclusions and Relevance: The implementation of funding reform for hospitals offering RP was not associated with changes in the management of localized prostate cancer, although it may have encouraged more appropriate selection of patients for RP. Mostly preexisting trends toward guideline-conforming practice were observed. Co-occurring policy changes and/or guideline revisions may have weakened signals from the policy change.

Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2018 Rates; Quality Reporting Requirements for Specific Providers; Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program Requirements for Eligible Hospitals, Critical Access Hospitals, and Eligible Professionals; Provider-Based Status of Indian Health Service and Tribal Facilities and Organizations; Costs Reporting and Provider Requirements; Agreement Termination Notices. Final rule.

We are revising the Medicare hospital inpatient prospective payment systems (IPPS) for operating and capital-related costs of acute care hospitals to implement changes arising from our continuing experience with these systems for FY 2018. Some of these changes implement certain statutory provisions contained in the Pathway for Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) Reform Act of 2013, the Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation Act of 2014, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, the 21st Century Cures Act, and other legislation. We also are making changes relating to the provider-based status of Indian Health Service (IHS) and Tribal facilities and organizations and to the low-volume hospital payment adjustment for hospitals operated by the IHS or a Tribe. In addition, we are providing the market basket update that will apply to the rate-of-increase limits for certain hospitals excluded from the IPPS that are paid on a reasonable cost basis subject to these limits for FY 2018. We are updating the payment policies and the annual payment rates for the Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) for inpatient hospital services provided by long-term care hospitals (LTCHs) for FY 2018. In addition, we are establishing new requirements or revising existing requirements for quality reporting by specific Medicare providers (acute care hospitals, PPS-exempt cancer hospitals, LTCHs, and inpatient psychiatric facilities). We also are establishing new requirements or revising existing requirements for eligible professionals (EPs), eligible hospitals, and critical access hospitals (CAHs) participating in the Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs. We are updating policies relating to the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program, the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, and the Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program. We also are making changes relating to transparency of accrediting organization survey reports and plans of correction of providers and suppliers; electronic signature and electronic submission of the Certification and Settlement Summary page of the Medicare cost reports; and clarification of provider disposal of assets.

Tracking rural hospital closures.

(1) Over 50 percent of primary care health professional shortage areas (HPSAs) were in rural areas in November 2016, according to the Health Resources and Services Administration. (2) Rural areas face a higher uninsured rate than metropolitan areas. (3) Rural hospitals tend to have low patient volume, a high portion of patients on Medicare and Medicaid, and a high number of uninsured patients.

Assessing Medicare's hospital pay-for-performance programs and whether they are achieving their goals.

Three separate pay-for-performance programs affect the amount of Medicare payment for inpatient services to about 3,400 US hospitals. These payments are based on hospital performance on specified measures of quality of care. A growing share of Medicare hospital payments (6 percent by 2017) are dependent upon how hospitals perform under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, the Value-Based Purchasing Program, and the Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program. In 2015 four of five hospitals subject to these programs will be penalized under one or more of them, and more than one in three major teaching hospitals will be penalized under all three. Interactions among these programs should be considered going forward, including overlap among measures and differences in scoring performance.

Why Medicare Advantage Plans Pay hospitals traditional Medicare prices.

The policy community generally has assumed Medicare Advantage (MA) plans negotiate hospital payment rates similar to those for commercial insurance products and well above those in traditional Medicare. After surveying senior hospital and health plan executives, we found, however, that MA plans nominally pay only 100-105 percent of traditional Medicare rates and, in real economic terms, possibly less. Respondents broadly identified three primary reasons for near-payment equivalence: statutory and regulatory provisions that limit out-of-network payments to traditional Medicare rates, de facto budget constraints that MA plans face because of the need to compete with traditional Medicare and other MA plans, and a market equilibrium that permits relatively lower MA rates as long as commercial rates remain well above the traditional Medicare rates. We explored a number of policy implications not only for the MA program but also for the problem of high and variable hospital prices in commercial insurance markets.

Privatización o liderazgo profesional / Privatization or professional leadership

No disponible

Medicare program; hospital inpatient prospective payment systems for acute care hospitals and the long-term care hospital prospective payment system and fiscal year 2015 rates; quality reporting requirements for specific providers; reasonable compensation equivalents for physician services in excluded hospitals and certain teaching hospitals; provider administrative appeals and judicial review; enforcement provisions for organ transplant centers; and electronic health record (EHR) incentive program. Final rule.

We are revising the Medicare hospital inpatient prospective payment systems (IPPS) for operating and capital-related costs of acute care hospitals to implement changes arising from our continuing experience with these systems. Some of these changes implement certain statutory provisions contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively known as the Affordable Care Act), the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014, and other legislation. These changes are applicable to discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2014, unless otherwise specified in this final rule. We also are updating the rate-of-increase limits for certain hospitals excluded from the IPPS that are paid on a reasonable cost basis subject to these limits. The updated rate-of-increase limits are effective for cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 2014. We also are updating the payment policies and the annual payment rates for the Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) for inpatient hospital services provided by long-term care hospitals (LTCHs) and implementing certain statutory changes to the LTCH PPS under the Affordable Care Act and the Pathway for Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) Reform Act of 2013 and the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014. In addition, we discuss our proposals on the interruption of stay policy for LTCHs and on retiring the "5 percent" payment adjustment for collocated LTCHs. While many of the statutory mandates of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act apply to discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2014, others will not begin to apply until 2016 and beyond. In addition, we are making a number of changes relating to direct graduate medical education (GME) and indirect medical education (IME) payments. We are establishing new requirements or revising requirements for quality reporting by specific providers (acute care hospitals, PPS-exempt cancer hospitals, and LTCHs) that are participating in Medicare. We are updating policies relating to the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program, the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, and the Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program. In addition, we are making technical corrections to the regulations governing provider administrative appeals and judicial review; updating the reasonable compensation equivalent (RCE) limits, and revising the methodology for determining such limits, for services furnished by physicians to certain teaching hospitals and hospitals excluded from the IPPS; making regulatory revisions to broaden the specified uses of Medicare Advantage (MA) risk adjustment data and to specify the conditions for release of such risk adjustment data to entities outside of CMS; and making changes to the enforcement procedures for organ transplant centers. We are aligning the reporting and submission timelines for clinical quality measures for the Medicare HER Incentive Program for eligible hospitals and critical access hospitals (CAHs) with the reporting and submission timelines for the Hospital IQR Program. In addition, we provide guidance and clarification of certain policies for eligible hospitals and CAHs such as our policy for reporting zero denominators on clinical quality measures and our policy for case threshold exemptions. In this document, we are finalizing two interim final rules with comment period relating to criteria for disproportionate share hospital uncompensated care payments and extensions of temporary changes to the payment adjustment for low-volume hospitals and of the Medicare-Dependent, Small Rural Hospital (MDH) Program.

Influence of health-insurance access and hospital retention policies on childhood cancer treatment in Kenya.

BACKGROUND: Kenyan national policies for public hospitals dictate that patients are retained on hospital wards until their hospital bills are paid, but this payment process differs for patients with or without access to National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF) at diagnosis. Whether these differences impact treatment outcomes has not been described. Our study explores whether childhood cancer treatment outcomes in Kenya are influenced by health-insurance status and hospital retention policies. PROCEDURE: This study combined retrospective review of medical records with an illustrative case report. We identified children diagnosed with malignancies at a large Kenyan academic hospital between 2007 and 2009, their treatment outcomes, and health-insurance status at diagnosis. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2009, 222 children were diagnosed with malignancies. Among 180 patients with documented treatment outcome, 54% abandoned treatment, 22% had treatment-related death, 4% progressive/relapsed disease, and 19% event-free survival. Health-insurance status at diagnosis was recorded in 148 children: 23% had NHIF and 77% had no NHIF. For children whose families had NHIF compared with those who did not, the relative risk for treatment abandonment relative to event-free survival was significantly smaller (relative-risk ratio = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.12-0.81, P = 0.016). The case report illustrates difficulties that Kenyan families might face when their child is diagnosed with cancer, has no NHIF, and is retained in hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Children with NHIF at diagnosis had significantly lower chance of abandoning treatment and higher chance of survival. Childhood cancer treatment outcomes could be improved by interventions that prevent treatment abandonment and improve access to NHIF. Hospital retention of patients over unpaid medical bills must stop.

Medicare program; FY 2014 inpatient prospective payment systems: changes to certain cost reporting procedures related to disproportionate share hospital uncompensated care payments. Interim final rule with comment period.

: In the fiscal year (FY) 2014 inpatient prospective payment systems (IPPS)/long-term care hospital (LTCH) PPS final rule, we established the methodology for determining the amount of uncompensated care payments made to hospitals eligible for the disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payment adjustment in FY 2014 and a process for making interim and final payments. This interim final rule with comment period revises certain operational considerations for hospitals with Medicare cost reporting periods that span more than one Federal fiscal year and also makes changes to the data that will be used in the uncompensated care payment calculation in order to ensure that data from Indian Health Service (IHS) hospitals are included in Factor 1 and Factor 3 of that calculation.

Medicaid program; state disproportionate share hospital allotment reductions. Final rule.

The statute, as amended by the Affordable Care Act, requires aggregate reductions to state Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) allotments annually from fiscal year (FY) 2014 through FY 2020. This final rule delineates a methodology to implement the annual reductions for FY 2014 and FY 2015. The rule also includes additional DSH reporting requirements for use in implementing the DSH health reform methodology.

Medicare program; hospital inpatient prospective payment systems for acute care hospitals and the long-term care hospital prospective payment system and Fiscal Year 2014 rates; quality reporting requirements for specific providers; hospital conditions of participation; payment policies related to patient status. Final rules.

We are revising the Medicare hospital inpatient prospective payment systems (IPPS) for operating and capital-related costs of acute care hospitals to implement changes arising from our continuing experience with these systems. Some of the changes implement certain statutory provisions contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively known as the Affordable Care Act) and other legislation. These changes will be applicable to discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2013, unless otherwise specified in this final rule. We also are updating the rate-of-increase limits for certain hospitals excluded from the IPPS that are paid on a reasonable cost basis subject to these limits. The updated rate-of-increase limits will be effective for cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 2013. We also are updating the payment policies and the annual payment rates for the Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) for inpatient hospital services provided by long-term care hospitals (LTCHs) and implementing certain statutory changes that were applied to the LTCH PPS by the Affordable Care Act. Generally, these updates and statutory changes will be applicable to discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2013, unless otherwise specified in this final rule. In addition, we are making a number of changes relating to direct graduate medical education (GME) and indirect medical education (IME) payments. We are establishing new requirements or have revised requirements for quality reporting by specific providers (acute care hospitals, PPS-exempt cancer hospitals, LTCHs, and inpatient psychiatric facilities (IPFs)) that are participating in Medicare. We are updating policies relating to the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program and the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program. In addition, we are revising the conditions of participation (CoPs) for hospitals relating to the administration of vaccines by nursing staff as well as the CoPs for critical access hospitals relating to the provision of acute care inpatient services. We are finalizing proposals issued in two separate proposed rules that included payment policies related to patient status: payment of Medicare Part B inpatient services; and admission and medical review criteria for payment of hospital inpatient services under Medicare Part A.

[Hospital financing in 2013: relevant changes for rheumatology]. / Krankenhausfinanzierung 2013 : Relevantes für die internistische Rheumatologie.

Hospital financing is again subjected to a multitude of reforms that can be of relevance for rheumatology in 2013. Besides changes in the German diagnosis-related group (G-DRG) classification system and coding, modifications in the legislation and legal framework conditions have a growing impact on the economic situation and strategy of hospitals. The following article presents the major changes and discusses consequences for hospitals specialized in rheumatology.