Apr 11, 2018 | Compliance, Legal, and Malpractice, Laboratory News, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
Some experts in medical community question value of health screenings of older patients with shortened life expectancies, though many aging adults are skeptical of calls to skip tests
What does it mean when a credible health organization makes the assertion that there is an “epidemic” of clinical laboratory testing being ordered on the nation’s elderly? Clinical laboratory leaders and anatomic pathologists know that lab tests are a critical part of screening patients.
Health screenings, particularly those for chronic diseases, such as cancer, can save lives by detecting diseases in their early stages. However, as consumers become more engaged with the quality of their care, one trend is for healthcare policymakers to point out that many medical procedures and care protocols may not bring benefit—and may, instead, bring harm.
No less an authority than Kaiser Health News (KHN) also is questioning what it calls an “epidemic” of testing in geriatric patients. Since medical laboratory tests are part of many screening programs, a rethinking of what tests are necessary in older patients would likely impact clinical laboratories and pathology groups going forward.
Treatment Overkill or Necessary Clinical Laboratory Tests?
“In patients well into their 80s, with other chronic conditions, it’s highly unlikely that they will receive any benefit from screening, and [it is] more likely that the harms will outweigh the benefits,” Cary Gross, MD, Professor of Medicine and Director of the National Clinician Scholars Program at the Yale School of Medicine, told KHN as part of an investigative series called “Treatment Overkill.”
That opinion is supported by a 2014 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Internal Medicine. The researchers concluded, “A substantial proportion of the US population with limited life expectancy received prostate, breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening that is unlikely to provide net benefit. These results raise concerns about over screening in these individuals, which not only increases healthcare expenditure but can lead to patient harm.”
Yet, seniors and their family members often request health screenings for themselves or their elderly parents, even those with dementia, if they perceive doing so will improve their quality of life, KHN noted.
Cary Gross, MD, Professor of Medicine and Director of the National Clinician Scholars Program at Yale University, told Kaiser Health News patients “well into their 80s, with other health conditions” are unlikely candidates for the many routine health screening tests administered to elderly patients. Were this to become a trend, medical laboratories could see a drop in physician-ordered screening tests. (Photo copyright: Yale University.)
Meanwhile, an earlier study in JAMA Internal Medicine found older adults perceived screening tests as “morally obligatory” and were skeptical of stopping routine screenings.
In its series, KHN noted two studies that outlined the frequency of screening tests in seniors with limited life expectancies due to dementia or other diseases:
- According to the American Journal of Public Health, nearly one in five women with severe cognitive impairment are still getting regular mammograms;
- Likewise, 55% of older men with a high risk of death over the next decade still receive PSA tests for prostate cancer, the 2014 JAMA Internal Medicine study found.
“Screening tests are often done in elderly patients as a knee-jerk reaction,” Damon Raskin, MD, a board-certified internist in Pacific Palisades, Calif., who also serves as Medical Director for two skilled nursing facilities, told AgingCare.com.
Correct Age or Correct Test?
While a movement may be afoot to reduce screening tests in older patients, a one-size-fits-all answer to who should continue to be tested may not be possible.
“You can have an 80-year-old who’s really like a 60-year-old in terms of [his or her] health,” Raskin noted. “In these instances, screening tests such as mammograms and colonoscopies, can be extremely valuable. However, I’ve seen 55-year-olds who have end-stage Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s disease. For those individuals, I probably wouldn’t recommend screenings, for quality of life reasons.”
However, for the general population, researchers have emphasized that the focus should not be on whether physicians are ordering “unnecessary” lab tests, but whether they are ordering the “correct” tests.
A 2013 study published in the online journal PLOS ONE analyzed 1.6 million results from 46 of medicine’s 50 most commonly ordered lab tests. Researchers found, on average, the number of unnecessary tests ordered (30%) was offset by an equal number of necessary tests that went unordered.
“It’s not ordering more tests or fewer tests that we should be aiming for. It’s ordering the right tests, however few or many that is,” senior author Ramy Arnaout, MD, Harvard Medical School, Assistant Professor of Pathology and Associate Director of the Clinical Microbiology Laboratories at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, stated in a news release. “Remember, lab tests are inexpensive. Ordering one more test or one less test isn’t going to ‘bend the curve,’ even if we do it across the board. It’s everything that happens next—the downstream visits, the surgeries, the hospital stays—that matters to patients and to the economy and should matter to us.”
Since the elderly are the fastest growing population in America, and since diagnosing and treating chronic diseases is a multi-billion-dollar industry, it seems unlikely that such a trend to move away from medical laboratory health screenings for the very old will gain much traction. Still, with increasing focus on healthcare costs, the federal government may pressure doctors to do just that.
—Andrea Downing Peck
Related Information:
Cancer Screening Rates in Individuals with Different Life Expectancies
Doing More Harm Than Good? Epidemic of Screening Burdens Nation’s Older Patients
Large-Scale Analysis Describes Inappropriate Lab Testing Throughout Medicine
Preventive Screening for Seniors: Is that Test Really Necessary?
Impact of Cognitive Impairment on Screening Mammography Use in Older US Women
Cancer Screening Rates in Individuals with Different Life Expectancies
The Landscape of Inappropriate Laboratory Testing
Older Adults and Forgoing Cancer Screening: ‘Think it would be Strange’
May 19, 2017 | Compliance, Legal, and Malpractice, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Managed Care Contracts & Payer Reimbursement
Clinical laboratories must stay informed about the success of bundled-payment initiatives because they will need to negotiate a share of these payments where medical laboratory testing is involved
Research published this year concluded that bundled payments for joint replacement services performed on Medicare patients reduce Medicare’s costs without negatively affecting patient outcomes. Because these types of surgeries do not generally utilize many lab tests, the question is still out as to whether bundled payments allow clinical laboratories to be adequately reimbursed for their services.
The study of the bundled payment program was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The researchers sought to determine the cause of the reduction in Medicare payments and hospital savings when bundled payment models for joint replacement surgeries were used.
The research was performed by staff at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn). They examined hospital costs and Medicare claims for patients requiring hip and knee replacements at the 5-hospital Baptist Health System (BHS) in San Antonio. (more…)
Apr 27, 2016 | Compliance, Legal, and Malpractice, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Sales and Marketing, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
Binder argues that groups opposing ‘value’ often diminish clinicians’ role in hospital quality and patient outcomes; clinical labs often have the data on the outcomes generated by different clinicians
As healthcare moves steadily toward a value-based reimbursement model, Leapfrog Group CEO Leah Binder is urging healthcare providers to rethink their opposition to quality measures and criteria that reward improved medical outcomes.
“Clinicians have a choice: Seize the momentum of the value movement to finally get rewarded for excellence, or recite tired political talking points that minimize your life’s work,” Binder stated in an editorial she penned for Modern Healthcare. “Value will succeed either way, but it will be so much better infused with the knowledge and gifts of practicing providers.”
Many clinical laboratory managers and pathologists know that the Leapfrog Group carries quite a bit of clout in healthcare. Its members include some of the largest corporations in the United States. Collectively, Leapfrog’s members provide health benefits to more than 37 million Americans in all 50 states, and spend tens of billions of dollars on healthcare each year, according to this 2009 Leapfrog Group Fact Sheet. This is why health insurers, hospitals, and physicians pay attention to Leapfrog’s programs and public statements.
“If all hospitals implemented just the first three of Leapfrog’s four ‘leaps’ (our recommended quality and safety practices): over 57,000 lives could be saved, more than 3 million medication errors could be avoided, and up to $12.0 billion could be saved each year,” states the fact sheet.
Physician Opposition to Value-based Reimbursement Models Will Backfire
Leapfrog’s Binder argues the value-based reimbursement movement will succeed for three reasons:
1. “Value” is enshrined in the Affordable Care Act, with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) now tying almost 6% of hospital Medicare reimbursement to performance, and Congress replacing the sustainable growth-rate (SGR) with a value-based formula.
2. Private insurers also are transitioning their payment models, with 40% of commercial payments linked to value, up from 9% a year earlier. In addition, consumers, who are paying more out of pocket, are increasingly sensitive to value.
3. Big data is enabling quality to be quantified. Binder pointed to the leadership of the National Quality Forum (NQF) and others in showing “we can defensibly measure the quality side of the value equation.”
Binder warns that arguments made in the name of clinicians to denounce specific quality measures can backfire. In particular, she pointed to a study published in the BMJ that concluded clinicians have little impact on the “standardized mortality ratio,” therefore they should not be held accountable for it.
“Here’s the damaging assumption in the study: The only way physicians or nurses improve patient survival is by avoiding killer mistakes. Surely clinical skill impacts mortality more than that,” Binder stated in her Modern Healthcare editorial.
Similarly, Binder pointed to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that also minimized the impact of clinicians. The study compared how United States hospitals scored on CMS composite safety measures versus alternative measures the researchers invented based on process quality composites. She summarized the findings as stating, “Some hospitals excel on the invented quality composites but fail on the CMS safety composite. Illogically, the researchers conclude that the CMS safety composite is flawed. One might just as well conclude that the researchers’ composites are flawed.”
“Ultimately, this paints a dismal portrait of individual clinicians. … If you excel on some but not all measures, the measures are wrong and you don’t excel at anything,” she stated.
Leapfrog Group CEO Leah Binder is urging healthcare professionals to embrace the move toward value-based reimbursement and rethink their opposition to quality measures that reward high-quality patient care. “Clinicians have a choice: Seize the momentum of the value movement to finally get rewarded for excellence, or recite tired political talking points that minimize your life’s work,” Binder says. (Photo copyright: Aaron Eckels/Crain’s Detroit Business.)
Leapfrog Group Advocates Transparency for Both Insurers and Patients
The Leapfrog Group was formed in 2000, a year after the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM’s) landmark report on medical errors, “To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System,” in which the IOM estimated that preventable medical errors caused 44,000 to 98,000 deaths annually, with an associated cost of $17 billion to $29 billion.
The watchdog organization operates out of Washington, D.C. and is made up of more than 170 of the nation’s largest purchasers of healthcare, including:
• AARP;
• Boeing;
• Lockheed Martin;
• Marriot International;
• University of Michigan; and
• the Florida Healthcare Coalition.
Through its annual hospital surveys and research, the non-profit urges insurers and patients to use transparency to improve the safety and quality of the healthcare system.
The Leapfrog Group’s movement for transparency has grown to include more than 1,700 hospitals that participate in its annual survey on safety, quality, and resource use. In 2015, a record 1,750 hospitals submitted a survey, representing 46% of hospitals nationwide. It also has focused attention on reducing early elective deliveries, launched a pay-for-performance program, and designed a Hospital Safety Score to help consumers to make better healthcare decision.
Providers Should Seek Transparency
While negotiations about quality measures have reached a fever pitch, Binder would like to see providers insist on transparency and accountability for their patients, a step she says would validate clinicians’ work and expertise.
“While thoughtful critiques of measures are important, politically-motivated denial of measures is destructive in unintended ways,” Binder stated in her editorial for Modern Healthcare. “It often follows the unfortunate pattern of these studies in assuming that providers perform at essentially the same level of quality and/or their actions can’t be linked to patient survival or healing,” she observed.
“If all physicians and nurses believed their work had such modest impact, the burnout problem might be even worse,” continued Binder. “People who choose a career in healthcare tend to be bright, competitive and caring, and they won’t last long if they believe their talents make virtually no difference.”
As noted above, since the Leapfrog Group represents many of the major purchasers of healthcare, Binder’s recent comments should grab the attention of pathologists and clinical laboratory executives. They would do well to anticipate continued calls for more quality and more measurement of quality in healthcare as the movement toward value-based reimbursement marches on. Contributing value to hospitals, physicians, and payers is quickly becoming the new paradigm for clinical laboratories and pathology groups.
—Andrea Downing Peck
Related Information:
Clinicians Must Push Back Against Critics Challenging the Role of Quality Measures
Standardized Mortality Ratios Should Not Be Used to Benchmark Hospitals, Study Concludes
Leapfrog Group Fact Sheet
Concerns About Using the Patient Safety Indicator-90 Composite in Pay-for-Performance Programs
To Err Is Human: Building a Better Health System
