Archive for August, 2022

Drawing a Line at Pharmacists Prescribing Medicine

Drawing a Line at Pharmacists Prescribing Medicine

For the 5th installment of an in-depth look into each of the Medical Association’s “Top 10 Highlights” from the 2022 regular session, we will look at the Association’s opposition to allowing pharmacists blanket authority to prescribe vaccines and immunizations

At the beginning of the 2022 Regular Session, a bill was drafted and supported by the Alabama Pharmacy Association that would have given pharmacists broad authority to prescribe vaccines and immunizations.  Currently, pharmacists may administer vaccines, but may not prescribe them. The bill would have permitted pharmacists to prescribe any vaccine or immunization that they are already allowed to administer. 

Proponents of the legislation stated their goal was to expand access to vaccines and immunizations and make permanent some of the additional privileges granted to pharmacists via the temporary COVID emergency orders. As the Association discussed possible alternatives to the bill, medicine offered multiple substitutes to the proposed legislation that would have met the stated goal, but these were all rejected by the pharmacy association. With no agreement in place, proponents failed in their attempt to move the bill forward. 

The Association believes strongly in the physician lead health team and does not support fracturing care delivery. Hence, the Association partnered with the Alabama Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Alabama Academy of Family Physicians, and the Alabama Chapter of the American College of Physicians in opposition to the bill. The coalition maintained that allowing pharmacists to prescribe vaccines – especially important childhood vaccines – would disrupt the “medical home” and actually hurt children’s access to care. The Association also believed that allowing pharmacists the ability to prescribe was ultimately a “scope creep” style bill that would blur the lines between medicine and pharmacy. The bill “passed” out of the Senate Healthcare Committee on a voice vote from Sen. Jim McClendon despite the absence of a quorum. The bill ultimately failed as it never made it to the Senate floor. The Association fully expects similar legislation to be proposed in the 2023 Regular Session.

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →

Inside the massive proposed 2023 Medicare physician pay schedule

Inside the massive proposed 2023 Medicare physician pay schedule

The Medical Association of the State of Alabama is working with the AMA and national specialties to analyze CMS’s proposed physician fee schedule for 2023 to determine its impact on physician practices. The Medical Association in partnership with these other medical organizations will provide appropriate comments to CMS once the full impact of the proposal is determined.

The following is a brief summary from the AMA of what is in the proposal:

The 2023 Medicare Physician Payment Schedule (PFS) rule contains a mix of payment cuts, policy proposals and announcements regarding payment for telehealth and evaluation-and-management (E/M) services.

Slogging through the document’s 2,066 pages can be a daunting task. The AMA, however, has released a 12-page summary (PDF) that has crystalized some of the Proposed Rule’s highlights. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has released a fact sheet that also gives the agency’s view of the highlights.

Conversion factor reduced

The first item on the payment schedule discussed in the summary is the proposed $33.0775 Medicare conversion factor (CF) for 2023, which represents a $1.53 reduction (4.42%) from the 2022 CF. The reduction is driven by the expiration of a one-time 3% CF increase Congress passed last December as part of an appropriation package that averted scheduled Medicare physician payment cuts totaling around 9.75%.

Additionally, about 1.5% of the CF reduction is attributable to a budget-neutrality statute requiring that, when there is projected growth of $20 million in spending on services included in the payment schedule, there must be corresponding cuts elsewhere.

The projected growth in spending stems from an upward adjustment for inpatient E/M services provided in hospitals, nursing homes, emergency departments and home health services.

More E/M changes proposed

CMS is building on the revisions it adopted for 2021 for E/M services provided in physician offices and other outpatient settings. The agency is proposing to generally adopt the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT®) codes and guidelines developed by the CPT Editorial Panel and the valuations recommended by the AMA RVS Update Committee (RUC) for inpatient and other settings, according to the summary.

“In total, the E/M code sets being revised for 2023 comprise approximately 20% of all allowed charges under the Medicare Physician Payment Schedule,” the summary says. “Therefore, these changes, along with other coding and valuations changes, are estimated to require a reduction of about 1.5% to the 2023 Medicare conversion factor due to statutory budget neutrality requirements.”

Along with the reduced CF, the payment schedule includes a 0% payment update that fails to account for significant inflation in practice costs.

Telehealth coverage extended

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, CMS expanded the Medicare Telehealth List with the addition of some 150 services, including emergency department and telephone visits. Some of these services were listed as “interim” with coverage lasting until the end of the public health emergency (PHE), while others would have coverage extended for another five months after the PHE ends.

For 2023, CMS proposes extending coverage for all interim telehealth services for five months after the PHE ends. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly for a bipartisan bill that extends Medicare telehealth payment and regulatory flexibilities through the end of 2024.

CMS also proposes to add a number of other services to the telehealth coverage list including therapy services, ophthalmology services, and patient education and training in self-measured blood pressure management.

Additionally, CMS proposes to raise payment rates for opioid treatment programs to better reflect the costs of the counseling services, while also proposing to pay for the initiation of buprenorphine to treat opioid-use disorder via telehealth, rather than just in person, to further improve access.

.

The AMA, in collaboration with 120 other physician and health care organizations, is working to develop specific recommendations (PDF) to Congress and CMS that will put the nation’s health care system on solid and sustainable financial ground.

Posted in: Medicare

Leave a Comment (0) →

I Have to Correct What?

I Have to Correct What?

By Kelli C. Fleming, Burr & Forman, LLP

A client recently informed me that their practice was experiencing a large increase in the number of medical record amendment requests it was receiving from patients. My perception is that this is the result of two things: (1) the widespread transition to electronic medical records, and (2) increased portal usage by patients to access medical information. Thus, I thought it might be a good time for a little refresher on a patient’s right to amend their health information.

Under HIPAA, a patient has the right to request an amendment of their health information for as long as the information is maintained in a “Designated Record Set.” Not only must the patient be notified of this right in the Notice of Privacy Practices, but a practice has certain obligations when a patient exercises this right.

When receiving a request from a patient to amend their health information, I recommend requiring that the request be in writing and include the reason for the requested amendment. 

Once a request is made, the request for an amendment must be acted upon no later than sixty (60) days after receipt of such request.  If, however, the practice is unable to act on the amendment within sixty (60) days, the time may be extended by no more than an additional thirty (30) days, provided that the practice provides the patient, no later than sixty (60) days after receipt of such request, with a written statement of the reasons for the delay and the date by which it will complete the request. Only one such extension is permitted.

If the request for amendment is accepted by the practice, the practice must properly amend the information and inform the patient that the information has been amended. The documentation in the record should reflect that the change is an amendment or an update and be dated as of the date of the amendment. The practice shall also obtain the patient’s permission to notify certain persons of the amendment.

However, providers are not required to abide by every amendment request. The request for amendment may be denied if the information (1) was not created by the practice, unless the patient provides a reasonable basis to believe that the originator of the information is no longer available to act on the requested amendment; (2) is not part of the Designated Record Set; (3) would not be available for access under the patient’s right to access; or (4) is accurate and complete.

If the requested amendment is denied, in whole or in part, the practice must provide the patient with a timely, written denial containing specific information. The practice must permit the patient to submit a written statement disagreeing with the denial and the basis of such disagreement. The practice may prepare a written rebuttal to the patient’s statement of disagreement.  If a written rebuttal is prepared, among other things, a copy must be given to the patient who submitted the statement of disagreement.

Kelli C. Fleming is a partner at Burr & Forman LLP and practices exclusively in the firm’s Health Care Practice Group. Kelli may be reached at (205) 458-5429 or kfleming@burr.com.

Posted in: Legal Watch, Uncategorized

Leave a Comment (0) →

Stopping the Optometric Surgery Bill

For the 4th installment of an in-depth look into each of the Medical Association’s “Top 10 Highlights” from the 2022 regular session, we will look at the Association’s opposition to allowing optometrists the ability to perform eye surgeries using scalpels and lasers as well as performing eye injections. 

Outgoing Senator Jim McClendon, an optometrist himself and chairman of the Senate Healthcare Committee, partnered with former Senate Pro Tem President Del Marsh to attempt to pass the optometric surgery bill. The bill would have allowed optometrists, who have not been trained in eye surgery, to perform surgeries and injections on the eye and would have given the Alabama Board of Optometry the sole power to define and regulate what is considered to be the practice of optometry. 

In the Senate, the bill was “passed” out of committee on a voice vote called by Sen. Jim McClendon despite opposition from the majority of other Senators on the Senate Healthcare Committee.  Weeks later, in the Upper Chamber, the bill was allowed to be voted on the Senate floor where after a few hours of contentious deliberation, the bill passed 17-12 and moved on to the House of Representatives.  

In the House, the bill was placed in the House Health Committee where the optometry group, including optometrists, inundated the State House on a regular basis – lobbying legislators and also bringing down many optometry students from UAB to fill the halls of the Legislature.  In the last month of the 2022 Regular Session, the Medical Association who partnered with the Alabama Academy of Ophthalmology and Alabama Dermatology Society throughout the Session, made countless phone calls, sent numerous emails and came to the State House to express the dangers this bill poses to patients in Alabama.  By the last two weeks of the Regular Session, an ophthalmologist was at the State House every day speaking with legislators against the legislation. On one of the last days of the Regular Session, the bill had a public hearing where ophthalmologists spoke against the legislation and the bill ultimately failed because the legislation was not seconded for a vote in Committee during the public hearing.

The Association would like to thank the many ophthalmologists and dermatologists who volunteered their time to come down to the State House, make phone calls and send emails to legislators.  The Medical Association’s grassroots effort against this bill was a big success and without this value of advocacy this dangerous “scope creep” bill may have become law.  The Association fully expects to see this bill filed again in the 2023 Regular Session and we will continue to work with Lawmakers in ensuring that patient safety be held to the highest standard of quality care in Alabama.  

Posted in: Uncategorized

Leave a Comment (0) →