Believe it or not, the first week of June is almost over, and time is running out to give your comments to CMS on its proposed 2009 Inpatient Prospective Payment System rule. The federal agency is accepting comments about its nine new proposed "never events" and 43 new reporting requirements until June 13.
Since the proposed rule was released in April, there has been chatter in the medical community about the possible effects the rule as it is written could have on the industry. Some have questioned how reasonable the new "never events" are, namely delirium and Legionnaire's Disease, says Nancy Foster, vice president for quality at the American Hospital Association. The AHA plans to file a response to CMS before the June 13 deadline based on the feedback it is getting from members and those who work in the field.
"Most of the feedback we are hearing is concern that CMS has stretched beyond the bounds of what we would think would be included in something that is reasonably preventable with known evidence-based practices," Foster says. "Certainly, delirium has raised a number of questions, and Legionnaire's disease—when it appears in any institution—is usually a function of not what clinicians are doing, but the hospital's cleaning and air conditioning systems."
The bottom line, Foster says, is that even when clinicians do everything possible to prevent the infections and conditions on CMS' list, they may still occur. That's why, leading up to the end of the comment period, the AHA has been working with infectious disease experts, surgeons, and intensivists to understand how each of the conditions on the CMS list can be prevented and the circumstances in which a hospital may not be able to prevent a condition from occurring.
The AHA will also express its concern with the section of the rule that would require hospitals to report another 43 quality measures. Foster says for hospitals to not only collect the data, but have staff members learn what it all means, will take time away from patient care.
"We're not sure that's the right way to deliver care to patients in our hospitals," she says.
The American Medical Association says it will also provide comments to CMS before the deadline, and Foster says she's heard that many state hospital associations have drafted opinions, too. Will CMS listen? That's yet to be seen, but Foster says the federal agency has a history of listening to constructive criticism from those in the field.
"CMS will receive a wide variety of comments from those of us in the healthcare provider role as well as other individuals—payers, policy makers, and the like," she says. "How they mash all that together to come up with a final rule is best known inside CMS, but they've shown in the past that they do take into account comments, especially when there is logic and reason."
What worries me most about the 2009 IPPS proposal is that no one yet knows how hospitals will be affected by the 2008 rule. As you recall, CMS won't stop reimbursement for the first eight "never events" until October 1. So it feels like CMS is jumping the gun just a bit. While I applaud its efforts to continue improving the care offered in hospitals, it may be better to delay another list of never events until we can get a handle on the effect of the first round.
Foster agrees.
"I do think it would be more prudent after the first round," she says. "Understanding the intended effects and the unintended consequences is important, as these are a large and very diverse set of additional issues."
Maureen Larkin is quality editor with HealthLeaders magazine. She can be reached at mlarkin@healthleadersmedia.com.
Note: You can sign up to receive HealthLeaders Media QualityLeaders, a free weekly e-newsletter that reports on the top quality issues facing healthcare leaders.
Tampa (FL) General Hospital is conducting an internal investigation after staff members mistakenly started performing a cardiac catheterization on the wrong patient. The man was not harmed, but staff members failed to follow proper hospital policies to identify the patient before the procedure, said hospital representatives. Those who made the mistake "will be subject to the appropriate disciplinary actions," the hospital said in a statement. In announcing the error, Tampa General joined an increasing number of hospitals who choose to apologize for mistakes rather than deny them.
A Fayette County woman has filed a suit against Charleston Area Medical Center, claiming she was fired because she raised concerns over patient safety issues. Zeda Fox, who was employed by CAMC for about a year before being fired in February, claims she was fired because she had repeatedly raised patient safety concerns, particularly those related to understaffing of nurses. According to the lawsuit, the firing constitutes "unlawful retaliatory discharge."
Deaths and hospital stays from a drug-resistant intestinal superbug almost doubled in recent years, according to a report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The study found that the death rate from the dangerous germ rose to 2.3% in 2004, from 1.2% in 2000. Additionally, the number of Americans hospitalized with the disease grew to 291,000 in 2005 from 134,000 in 2000.
A bill that passed the state Senate this week would require California hospitals to step up prevention of drug-resistant infections, requiring that hospitals report new infections to the California Department of Public Health. The bill also requires that hospitals clean and disinfect a variety of sites, ranging from television consoles and telephones to cardiac monitors and feeding pumps, all of which are capable of carrying drug-resistant bacteria that can subsequently spread to other patients.
A Commonwealth Fund report examines how states perform on 13 different indicators in five categories: access to care, quality of care, cost, potential to lead healthy and productive lives, and equity in the quality of care provided regardless of race, income, or insurance status. It ranked states within each category and then assigned states a final overall ranking. Some say the findings show a need for a larger federal role in setting minimum standards to encourage better coverage and care for children.