Pro's and Con's of accepting Medicaid...

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
And, I am arguing that the SOS differentials that some on this board rail about make a difference to these places, since financial responsibility does seem to predominate in discussions on whether a pain clinic stays in existence...

What a joke! Site of Service Differential is a government supported cash-transfer ponzy scheme whose goal is to manipulate markets and ration health care...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hospitals-overcharge-the-under-and-uninsured/

Among their findings:

• Only 42 percent of hospitals were notifying patients that they could be eligible for charity care before trying to collect unpaid medical bills.

• Only 29 percent said they charged uninsured and under-insured patients generally the same rate they charged private insurance and Medicare. Researchers assume that many of the remaining hospitals charged more.

•20 percent, or 1 in 5, were reporting patients to credit agencies or placing liens on their properties or garnishing wages, practices that aren't supposed to happen if hospitals are following the rules.

Only 11 percent of hospitals said they had a conducted a community needs assessment in the past three years to identify pressing health issues in their local community.

In my state, it's been a cash cow for large health systems, insurance companies, and almost no one else.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I knew i would spike your ire. Without the backing of a system, i like everyone else would not see medicaid, leaving only academic centers to see those patients. I agree that it is not financially viable to have any significant % of caid, yet imho these are the patients that need carefully planned medical intervention that is not procedure or opioid heavy.
 
J Pain. 2014 Jan;15(1):101-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2013.10.002. Epub 2013 Oct 17.
Acceptance and commitment therapy for chronic pain: evidence of mediation and clinically significant change following an abbreviated interdisciplinary program of rehabilitation.
Vowles KE1, Witkiewitz K2, Sowden G3, Ashworth J3.
Author information

Abstract
There is an emerging body of evidence regarding interdisciplinary acceptance and commitment therapy in the rehabilitative treatment of chronic pain. This study evaluated the reliability and clinical significance of change following an open trial that was briefer than that examined in previous work. In addition, the possible mediating effect of psychological flexibility, which is theorized to underlie the acceptance and commitment therapy model, was examined. Participants included 117 completers of an interdisciplinary program of rehabilitation for chronic pain. Assessment took place at treatment onset and conclusion, and at a 3-month follow-up when 78 patients (66.7%) provided data. At the 3-month follow-up, 46.2% of patients achieved clinically significant change, and 58.9% achieved reliable change, in at least 1 key measure of functioning (depression, pain anxiety, and disability). Changes in measures of psychological flexibility significantly mediated changes in disability, depression, pain-related anxiety, number of medical visits, and the number of classes of prescribed analgesics. These results add to the growing body of evidence supporting interdisciplinary acceptance and commitment therapy for chronic pain, particularly with regard to the clinical significance of an abbreviated course of treatment. Further, improvements appear to be mediated by changes in the processes specified within the theoretical model.

PERSPECTIVE:
Outcomes of an abbreviated interdisciplinary treatment for chronic pain based on a particular theoretical model are presented. Analyses indicated that improvements at follow-up mediated change in the theorized treatment process. Clinically significant change was indicated in just under half of participants. These data may be helpful to clinicians and researchers interested in intervention approaches and mechanisms of change.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
J Pain. 2014 Jan;15(1):101-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2013.10.002. Epub 2013 Oct 17.
Acceptance and commitment therapy for chronic pain: evidence of mediation and clinically significant change following an abbreviated interdisciplinary program of rehabilitation.
Vowles KE1, Witkiewitz K2, Sowden G3, Ashworth J3.
Author information

Abstract
There is an emerging body of evidence regarding interdisciplinary acceptance and commitment therapy in the rehabilitative treatment of chronic pain. This study evaluated the reliability and clinical significance of change following an open trial that was briefer than that examined in previous work. In addition, the possible mediating effect of psychological flexibility, which is theorized to underlie the acceptance and commitment therapy model, was examined. Participants included 117 completers of an interdisciplinary program of rehabilitation for chronic pain. Assessment took place at treatment onset and conclusion, and at a 3-month follow-up when 78 patients (66.7%) provided data. At the 3-month follow-up, 46.2% of patients achieved clinically significant change, and 58.9% achieved reliable change, in at least 1 key measure of functioning (depression, pain anxiety, and disability). Changes in measures of psychological flexibility significantly mediated changes in disability, depression, pain-related anxiety, number of medical visits, and the number of classes of prescribed analgesics. These results add to the growing body of evidence supporting interdisciplinary acceptance and commitment therapy for chronic pain, particularly with regard to the clinical significance of an abbreviated course of treatment. Further, improvements appear to be mediated by changes in the processes specified within the theoretical model.

PERSPECTIVE:
Outcomes of an abbreviated interdisciplinary treatment for chronic pain based on a particular theoretical model are presented. Analyses indicated that improvements at follow-up mediated change in the theorized treatment process. Clinically significant change was indicated in just under half of participants. These data may be helpful to clinicians and researchers interested in intervention approaches and mechanisms of change.

Sounds great! How much does it cost? Will the CCO pay for my mental health practitioner, multidisciplinary team meetings, wrap around services, and care coordination?
 
Currently the capitated rate is about $700/per patient for an 8wk movement/Behavioral program. If you can match or better that, then yes,
the CCO may well pay for it.
 
Ok, I just lost hope for that type of program arising in a private practice.

Worker's Comp pays 30-35K per patient for 160 contact hours.

Hate to say it, but these may have to be done in hospital systems.

Back to copying Kaiser.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Currently the capitated rate is about $700/per patient for an 8wk movement/Behavioral program. If you can match or better that, then yes, the CCO may well pay for it.

"Can't make chicken salad out of chicken ****."

Medicaid being disingenuous by claiming that they want to promote quality pain management and pay that crap. At those rates all you can get is:


mushu2.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I think a barebones LCSW run CBT/ACT, resiliency program could work to improve
coping and diminish unnecessary utilization. As someone else said above, success here
is going to be mostly in harm reduction and cost savings. Those are the goal posts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Medicaid being disingenuous by claiming that they want to promote quality pain management.

I bet if you pressed them on that they would say,

"No, we want to promote improved access and patient satisfaction. And to make sure the doctor is not wasting money".

Could be doable if the only service provided was prn Skype/face-time sessions with the psychologist.

15 minute time limit.
 
You don't need a psychologist. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303426304579403041504577658

A program like this coupled with what Ductape is doing and a down-stream
resiliency program would save a ton of money, reduce harms, and be an enormous
step in the right direction. However, I'm not sure that it could be Medicaid stand-alone,
might need to Robin Hood Medicare and Commercial to help back fill it.
 
For a hospital system, the idea is that they pay a little bit, to prevent losing a lot, while decreasing morbidity and mortality of the patients in their system.

Worker's comp carriers take this view, which is why, I assume, they are willing to pay 35K per patient.

Seems it would be a much harder sell to a private practice.
 
A program like this coupled with what Ductape is doing and a down-stream
resiliency program would save a ton of money, reduce harms, and be an enormous
step in the right direction. However, I'm not sure that it could be Medicaid stand-alone,
might need to Robin Hood Medicare and Commercial to help back fill it.

That's the issue, loss prevention itself is appealing to a closed hospital system.

Payment would have to be higher to interest private practices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I would respectfully disagree.

first, by giving up, (especially if it is based on socioeconomic status), do we run the risk of having reimbursements cut or completely stopped? after all, if we accept that we cannot help Medicaid patients, then Medicaid and probably afterwards Medicare will stop payments for treatment. if that is the case, it is not a long shot to see that private insurances may follow suit, or at least cut back reimbursements significantly...

second, we are making assumptions that these interventions are not helpful because the data has not been "mined". as with epidurals, facet joint injections, EBM is not as robust as we would like. but because there is a financial incentive to do so, then many pain providers continue to perform these procedures. not to be too cynical, but perhaps financial responsibility should be only a small part of our decision making process...

now I am not suggesting that PP providers be required to see Medicaid. far be it. no PP should be forced to do what they are uncomfortable with.

but I am suggesting that hospital based programs, those that are reimbursed throughout the system by Medicaid, should. and I am arguing that the SOS differentials that some on this board rail about make a difference to these places, since financial responsibility does seem to predominate in discussions on whether a pain clinic stays in existence...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
Good points. I will state the Medicaid significant response to IPM in the absence ofa drugs-for-injections trade is around 10-15% in the population i had. This alone meant the NNT was so high that i could not ethically continue IPM for Medicaid. But perhaps hospital based or narcotics-for-injections trade programs would do much better. I happily cede this population to others and will be happy to publicize your office numbers if you accept medicaid...just let me know.
 
That's the issue, loss prevention itself is appealing to a closed hospital system.

Payment would have to be higher to interest private practices.

The trick for me is to make this work for rural doc's and health systems:)
 
Since it is not affordable to have a significant Medicaid population in a private practice seeing psych, it is suggested we are devolving to a two tier system. Those Medicaid patients being treated by hospital systems could be treated with psych/behavioral mod for awhile, but not forever. The University of Kentucky pain program went bankrupt precisely because they insisted on maintaining 3 psychologists, a social worker, and a physical therapist on staff for their primarily Medicaid population. Having seen both the financial destruction this model causes and the lack of improvement in the clinical outcomes from psych in this population, other academic institutions rolled back their integrated model. One of the hospitals I was affiliated with later while in private practice insisted I treat Medicaid patients no differently than any other patient group. I told them I would be happy to go down that road with them but they had to expect a significant number of unreimbursed RF and spinal cord stimulator implants and intrathecal pumps. They quickly backed off when presented with the financial outlays that would have drained their non-profit piggybank. The same is true in any model involving chronic pain- if it cannot be funded adequately, it will fail. Never mind whether it actually creates positive outcomes for patients or not- money rules. You cannot steal from the insured pot to give to the Medicaid pot any longer. The profit margins are too thin. But hey, knock yourselves out. I have been there and done that (under duress and over my protest while on the finance committee of the department). I know the outcomes. And it ain't good- either financially or clinically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Since it is not affordable to have a significant Medicaid population in a private practice seeing psych, it is suggested we are devolving to a two tier system. Those Medicaid patients being treated by hospital systems could be treated with psych/behavioral mod for awhile, but not forever. The University of Kentucky pain program went bankrupt precisely because they insisted on maintaining 3 psychologists, a social worker, and a physical therapist on staff for their primarily Medicaid population. Having seen both the financial destruction this model causes and the lack of improvement in the clinical outcomes from psych in this population, other academic institutions rolled back their integrated model. One of the hospitals I was affiliated with later while in private practice insisted I treat Medicaid patients no differently than any other patient group. I told them I would be happy to go down that road with them but they had to expect a significant number of unreimbursed RF and spinal cord stimulator implants and intrathecal pumps. They quickly backed off when presented with the financial outlays that would have drained their non-profit piggybank. The same is true in any model involving chronic pain- if it cannot be funded adequately, it will fail. Never mind whether it actually creates positive outcomes for patients or not- money rules. You cannot steal from the insured pot to give to the Medicaid pot any longer. The profit margins are too thin. But hey, knock yourselves out. I have been there and done that (under duress and over my protest while on the finance committee of the department). I know the outcomes. And it ain't good- either financially or clinically.

I've evolved to where you are: It is a fool's folly to take a population-based approach to pain management in a Medicaid population. The equity issue (the elephant in the room) is that if you're poor, then quality pain management is not an option for you because the system won't adequately reimburse for it. Fill out your disability paperwork, pass "Go," collect $200.

The American people deserve to have the system that they voted for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
101N hit the nail on the head IMO, and ducttape did too. To say quality pain mgmt is not an option for them is not accurate. Quality pain management is what's best for the patient, not the doctor's wallet. It varies and it's patient-specific. In Medicaid, it's best to focus on social and psychological factors; to empower the individual yields more longterm relief from their physical and psychological pain and suffering than enabling them to rely on a q6h schedule of pill-popping, and frequent needling. The bang for your buck deal is lessening harm and healthcare expenditures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
It varies and it's patient-specific. In Medicaid, it's best to focus on social and psychological factors; to empower the individual yields more longterm relief from their physical and psychological pain and suffering than enabling them to rely on a q6h schedule of pill-popping, and frequent needling. The bang for your buck deal is lessening harm and healthcare expenditures.

That sounds VERY labor intensive and expensive...how are you going to get that paid for? How are you going to pay the people who *DO* that?
 
I think Disciple has hit the nail on the head. After a screening evaluation I think this cohort would be best served by a program like this:

http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/education/sc.../upload/21-OHSU-Health-Resilience-Program.pdf

Cost does worry me.

Embedded with Medical Home
Team:

Doctor: (depending upon specialty, inclusive of roll-ups, PERS, benefits, etc) $300K per annum
RN: (again, experience, benefits, rollups) $85K per annum
LCSW: (using our LCSW as benchmark, inclusive benefits, etc): $78K
Pharmacist: $120K
Care Manager Resource Specialist: $60K
Psychologist: $140K

Those are just my best estimates of DIRECT plus roll-ups. In my experience, indirect costs can account for at least add at least 40% of project costs at the low end: $783K*(1.4) =$1.1 million...

But, I guess if you're spending "others people's money" or own your own insurance company, "Who cares?"
 
RN, Pharmacist, care manager, and psychologist are aren't needed: lose them and you save $265.00/yr on the above model.
 
you have to have some paying insurance into the mix, both from a financial mix and from a provider's mindset. margins are low, but the admin needs to buy into the benefits of the system. referrals to PT, Bmed, UDS screening, and enough interventional pain medicine, particularly for the private insurance players, play a factor into convincing admin that there is at least financial stalemate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
you have to have some paying insurance into the mix, both from a financial mix and from a provider's mindset. margins are low, but the admin needs to buy into the benefits of the system. referrals to PT, Bmed, UDS screening, and enough interventional pain medicine, particularly for the private insurance players, play a factor into convincing admin that there is at least financial stalemate.

This just sounds like another version of the "churn."

All that downstream revenue from PT, psych, lab, facility fees...justifies more resources, bigger government cash transfers, bigger organization budgets (which justifies higher admin salaries). Every dollar spent (or saved) is a dollar of revenue (or missed revenue) to someone else...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
i dont think i focused the discussion with such a heavy emphasis on finances. im a doctor, not a bean counter - yet i do recognize that finances play a big (or almost complete) part of the picture for some.

rather, its more about providing safest quality care for all patients, and i apologize that i am not maximizing my profitability while reducing the costs to the system. i for one am willing to put up with administrators and bean counters if that means that i can reduce community opioid volume, OD rate, unnecessary harmful procedures, increases in SSD/SSI rates...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Dave your private practice prosthelytizing gets old. You like to rage and pound your chest about 'mu shu' interventions that waste public money. But when you look closely at your own practice
are you sure that it isn't just a PA, Pills, and Procedures model? That's a heck of a lot more wasteful that what Duct is doing.
 
Dave your private practice prosthelytizing gets old. You like to rage and pound your chest about 'mu shu' interventions that waste public money. But when you look closely at your own practice are you sure that it isn't just a PA, Pills, and Procedures model? That's a heck of a lot more wasteful that what Duct is doing.

1. Gee, I apologize if my strongly held personal convictions about waste and inefficiency in health care offend anyone. I do believe that the insidious collectivism creeping into health care and between doctors and patients is causing harm. I applaud anyone's efforts to improve pain treatment, reduce harm, and advance our specialty.
2. What metrics do you propose I evaluate to get better insight into the character of my practice? I do know that I've been in my community for 10 years and have earned the respect and trust of patients and colleagues alike. That seems sufficient at first blush.
3. Find attached what I *HAVE* proposed in many venues as a workable, community-based model for rationale pain treatment and harm reduction. I'm open to feedback. I haven't seen any other pain practice in the state offer other models...but maybe I'm out of the hoop
 
i would say about 10% of medicaid population is worth the effort. the other 90% have substance abuse issues without insight, no desire for detox. 90% of medicaid has no desire to work, stay at work even when they really arent disabled.

i accept the 10% because i feel i can make a difference and allow them to be functional and stay working, caring for their families....

the other 90% will never get better no matter what i do or offer, and gladly flaunt their brand new iphones, prada handbags, mercedes in parking lot, 2 week disney vacation, recent caribbean cruise, etc. it drives me nuts

i did a 3 level intercostal denervation for a chest wall mass that got the patient off high dose opiods and kept him out of twice a week er visits. medicaid paid me $17.... !.... i called medicaid and explained i just saved them a ton of money by reudcing meds and er visits. and that the procedure cost me 76$ in needles etc... they told me to stop doing procedures if i dont like the reimbursmenet.... argh
 
I would respectfully disagree.

first, by giving up, (especially if it is based on socioeconomic status), do we run the risk of having reimbursements cut or completely stopped? after all, if we accept that we cannot help Medicaid patients, then Medicaid and probably afterwards Medicare will stop payments for treatment. if that is the case, it is not a long shot to see that private insurances may follow suit, or at least cut back reimbursements significantly...

second, we are making assumptions that these interventions are not helpful because the data has not been "mined". as with epidurals, facet joint injections, EBM is not as robust as we would like. but because there is a financial incentive to do so, then many pain providers continue to perform these procedures. not to be too cynical, but perhaps financial responsibility should be only a small part of our decision making process...

now I am not suggesting that PP providers be required to see Medicaid. far be it. no PP should be forced to do what they are uncomfortable with.

but I am suggesting that hospital based programs, those that are reimbursed throughout the system by Medicaid, should. and I am arguing that the SOS differentials that some on this board rail about make a difference to these places, since financial responsibility does seem to predominate in discussions on whether a pain clinic stays in existence...

If i did the procedure i would get the wrvu for multilevel intercostal rf. 64640x3 or something like that. The hoslital would get the benefit of him not clogging the er.
 
So far everyone seems to agree: Inadequate reimbursement, resource intensive population, polymorbidity, staff burn out, administrative burden, confrontational visits, poor provider/patient satisfaction with third-party administrators....Looks like Medicaid has a serious marketing problem...

How will Medicaid Health Plans ever persuade providers that they should "step up" and see their members?
 
I think it's window dressing mostly.

They know nobody will accept it, but have to show to the public, "You see, we increased access, just like we promised!".

As 101N pointed out, if most/all treatments are equally ineffective, they (the policy makers) will pick the lowest cost/risk option.
 
Innovation in this area will come from the bottom, not the top. Looking across the pond to
Europe and what has worked in poor environments there is helpful. Also, inclusion and exclusion
criteria for participation can and should be used to decrease cost, not everyone is a candidate.
If RTW is not a realistic option - and when you look at this map it's probably not -then the next
best proxies would be diminished health care utilization and opioid use post program.
 

Attachments

  • SSD&Opioids.jpeg
    SSD&Opioids.jpeg
    130.4 KB · Views: 46
So far everyone seems to agree: Inadequate reimbursement, resource intensive population, polymorbidity, staff burn out, administrative burden, confrontational visits, poor provider/patient satisfaction with third-party administrators....Looks like Medicaid has a serious marketing problem...

How will Medicaid Health Plans ever persuade providers that they should "step up" and see their members?

Offer preventative and PCP services only. Specialty care not covered.
 
Thr conundrum is that PCP services includes opioid prescribing. We cannot allow PCPs who are untrained and unable ( due to costs, time availability, or evaluations based on press-gainey ) to be the primary determinant of how available opioids are in a given community...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I am for restricting DEA 2 to bc pain docs. And set acute pain qty limits to 15 pills for surgeons. Aybe with cme allow pcps 15 pills, once in a month.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Also, inclusion and exclusion
criteria for participation can and should be used to decrease cost, not everyone is a candidate.
If RTW is not a realistic option - and when you look at this map it's probably not -then the next
best proxies would be diminished health care utilization and opioid use post program
.

Yes, those are the 2 goals work-comp insurers are trying to achieve when they pay for functional restoration programs.

But, with Medicaid, the public is going to demand that those who do not meet inclusion criteria, are still treated.

Who gets to do that? The PCPs?
 
I am for restricting DEA 2 to bc pain docs. And set acute pain qty limits to 15 pills for surgeons. Aybe with cme allow pcps 15 pills, once in a month.
While reasonable, i am not entirely sure i agree with greater snd greater restriction to physician autonomy and decision-making...
 
But, with Medicaid, the public is going to demand that those who do not meet inclusion criteria, are still treated.

I'm not so sure. Multidiciplinary rehab isn't a life saving treatment like dialysis or cancer care. Moreover, when you look closely at the outcomes data they aren't particularly impressive. MDR doesn't cure chronic pain, and more often than not it doesn't make a work disabled patient able-bodied again. Couple that fact with the high cost and predictive factors of who fails - people on disability and opioids -and I think a strong argument can be made that for a lot of folks it's just an expensive boondoggle with no possible ROI. A pretty strong EBM argument can be made for an alternative harm/cost reduction track for many work-disabled CNP patients.

I think this comes down to something you mentioned earlier, you can't rehabilitate the unwilling. An open disability claim and opioid are, more often than not, a strong predictor of unwillingness.
 
But, with Medicaid, the public is going to demand that those who do not meet inclusion criteria, are still treated.

I'm not so sure. Multidiciplinary rehab isn't a life saving treatment like dialysis or cancer care. Moreover, when you look closely at the outcomes data they aren't particularly impressive. MDR doesn't cure chronic pain, and more often than not it doesn't make a work disabled patient able-bodied again. Couple that fact with the high cost and predictive factors of who fails - people on disability and opioids -and I think a strong argument can be made that for a lot of folks it's just an expensive boondoggle with no possible ROI. A pretty strong EBM argument can be made for an alternative harm/cost reduction track for many work-disabled CNP patients.

I think this comes down to something you mentioned earlier, you can't rehabilitate the unwilling. An open disability claim and opioid are, more often than not, a strong predictor of unwillingness.

Instead, policymakers must pay market rate for what does work: Intensive specialty care coordination & addiction treatment. This can be funded by savings incurred from not paying for Moo-shu (acupuncture, chiropractic, naturopathy, and Ayurvedic nonsense).
 
Pros:none

Cons: everything


Interestingly, I saw my neighbor at the gym yesterday, and I asked him what he was up to and he told me he was headed to the chiropractor. I asked him why, he said because his insurance pays for unlimited chiropractic care and he's been going to to three times a week for the last three months...
Yay modern medicine!
 
But, with Medicaid, the public is going to demand that those who do not meet inclusion criteria, are still treated.

I'm not so sure. Multidiciplinary rehab isn't a life saving treatment like dialysis or cancer care. Moreover, when you look closely at the outcomes data they aren't particularly impressive. MDR doesn't cure chronic pain, and more often than not it doesn't make a work disabled patient able-bodied again. Couple that fact with the high cost and predictive factors of who fails - people on disability and opioids -and I think a strong argument can be made that for a lot of folks it's just an expensive boondoggle with no possible ROI. A pretty strong EBM argument can be made for an alternative harm/cost reduction track for many work-disabled CNP patients.

I think this comes down to something you mentioned earlier, you can't rehabilitate the unwilling. An open disability claim and opioid are, more often than not, a strong predictor of unwillingness.

To clarify, what I was referring to were patients who are deemed to not be good candidates for functional restoration. They will still expect to be seen/serviced regularly. They will be sent back to the PCPs.

At that point, the PCP/hospital system can refuse to prescribe pain medication to them (not good for patient satisfaction and propping up the ACA, though to my surprise a handful of urban community health centers in my area have taken this stance) or use a "containment" type model, similar to MAT, i.e. prescribe the meds and closely monitor the patients, with pseudo-CBT provided by the PCP.

Well, depending on how much the system is burdening the PCPs, at that point, there will be push back and the pain doctor will be expected to assume this role, i.e. supervise the functional restoration program and practice MAT/pseudo-CBT for the rest (the posts by melancholy in the Kaiser thread hint at this).

The pain doctor will state that these patients should be under the care of Addictionologists, and his/her administrators will say "That's great, expect we have no funding to hire an adequate number to treat all these chronic opioid dependent patients, and since these patients may not be technically addicted, you, as the pain management doctor can handle these duties just fine. And one more thing, salaries are getting cut to $200K next year, but work real hard and with shared savings you can expect a bump up to 210.

I think everybody should keep their primary certification. At least 1 more cycle.
 
Oregon's Medicaid Program beginning to realize Moo-Shu is too expensive...

http://www.bendbulletin.com/newsroo...1/oregon-delays-change-in-back-pain-treatment

Oregon delays change in back pain treatment

Medicaid coverage was to include alternatives to painkillers

By Kathleen McLaughlin / The Bulletin

Published Nov 25, 2015 at 12:03AM

Related articles:
The Oregon Health Authority will put off landmark changes to the way the state’s Medicaid program covers treatment of back pain, which would allow patients to access physical therapy, acupuncture or other therapies, instead of relying on painkillers or surgery.

The new coverage policy was supposed to take effect Jan. 1 but now will be delayed for an undetermined amount of time, according to the OHA.

The medical director of Central Oregon’s coordinated care organization, which administers care under the Oregon Health Plan, said the delay means there will be less support for doctors who are trying to curb abuse of prescription narcotics.“It’s particularly unfortunate because of the push on opioids,” said Dr. Alison Little, medical director for PacificSource Community Solutions. “It’s a statewide initiative to get opioid use down. It would be a lot easier if we had these other therapies to direct people to.”

In a fact sheet provided by an Oregon Health Authority spokeswoman, OHA says it’s trying to come up with a way to let the entire package of guidelines on back pain take effect at the same time. “In addition, OHA will take additional time to assess the fiscal impact of these changes in order to ensure accuracy in its estimate,” the fact sheet says.

Little said the new back-pain coverage policy, which would allow OHP patients as many as 30 visits a year for alternative therapies, was expected to be more expensive, at least in the first two years. Stephanie Tripp, a health authority spokeswoman, said in an email the agency does not have cost projections that can be shared publicly.

In 2014, the Oregon Health Plan spent $9.5 million on back pain-related surgery and $4.3 million on opioid prescriptions.

The cost of Oregon Health Plan benefits is estimated early in the year and included in the state budget, but Tripp said the estimates for back-pain coverage were not created “as early as they normally would have been due to competing draws on resources.”

Tripp said the delay ties into the fact that OHA is adjusting rates for coordinated care organizations, which ended 2014 with unexpected surpluses.

“This not only includes providing CCOs with enough money to cover the changes, but also to make sure it isn’t over-inflated so that the state isn’t paying more than needed for the services provided,” Tripp said in an email.

The state has not said how much longer it will take to make the policy change effective. “We don’t know if they’re delaying it for 90 days or two years,” Little said.

The delay comes as Central Oregon health care providers have agreed to limit the daily dose of opiate drugs they prescribe. The daily limit is the equivalent of 120 milligrams of morphine. Starting in January, the limit will apply to OHP patients, but the plan is to extend it to people covered by private insurance, too.

Dr. Stephen Mann, the physician behind the voluntary limit on opiate prescribing, said it will go forward, even though doctors won’t have alternatives to offer OHP patients. “Opiates have not been found to have any benefit for mechanical back pain, so whether it is covered or not, the evidence does not support doctors prescribing it,” he said via email.

Apart from curbing opiate abuse, doctors were looking forward to offering patients new ways to deal specifically with back pain, said Mann, president and medical director of High Lakes Health Care .

“It’s clearly a 180-degree change in policy and has been quite disruptive to our community preparations for management of this common condition,” Mann said via email.

Health care providers have been talking to physical therapists, acupuncture, chiropractic and yoga therapy services on how to coordinate care of back pain, Mann said. Since the OHP guidelines won’t be implemented, he said, “These talks have wasted the time of health leaders who have many other community priorities that were set aside.”

The delay jeopardizes health care providers’ faith in projects initiated by the Health Evidence Review Commission, which approved the new guidelines in March, Mann said. “Less trust creates less robust engagement by providers, cynicism and ultimately fewer folks willing to accept OHP patients,” he said.

Under the guidelines, OHP members would be able to see one or more providers, in any combination, as many as 30 times a year. Because the cost of OHP coverage is usually assessed before lawmakers create the state budget, Little was surprised that more time was needed to determine the fiscal impact. “I had thought this was all folded into that,” she said. “They’ve been talking about this for a while.”

Coordinated care organizations have some flexibility to cover alternative pain treatments without a broad-based policy change by OHP. Little said PacificSource so far has offered behavioral support to people trying to wean themselves off opiates and is very involved in the Central Oregon Pain Standards Task Force.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
"Can't make chicken salad out of chicken ****."

Medicaid being disingenuous by claiming that they want to promote quality pain management and pay that crap. At those rates all you can get is:


mushu2.jpg

This is not mushu pork. Not even close. No sesame seeds. And where is the hoison sauce?
 
I am for restricting DEA 2 to bc pain docs. And set acute pain qty limits to 15 pills for surgeons. Aybe with cme allow pcps 15 pills, once in a month.
I'm not a fan of hard and fast rules like that (disclaimer: I'm a family doctor).

In my pediatric population, I do some ADHD work. Those are schedule 2. I have 2 adult ADHD patients as well (both did neuropsych testing).

At my old practice, we did fracture care including casting. I don't think a 3 day supply (18 pills by my reckoning) is too much.

Interestingly, many (if not most) state boards are requiring CME on pain management this renewal cycle. Last spring I did a 3 hour course. Didn't teach me anything new, but I'm pretty stingy on opioids.
 
Algos, have you noticed that every time you ask for literature based evidence, there is a deafening silence?

Also, the notion that all pain is central, and thus can be treated through a one size fits all approach, is GIGO. If that were the case, wouldn't it also apply equally to chest pain of all etiologies?
 
Oregon's Medicaid Program beginning to realize Moo-Shu is too expensive...

http://www.bendbulletin.com/newsroo...1/oregon-delays-change-in-back-pain-treatment

Oregon delays change in back pain treatment

Medicaid coverage was to include alternatives to painkillers

By Kathleen McLaughlin / The Bulletin

Published Nov 25, 2015 at 12:03AM


Hmmm, sounds like they are starting to think,

"Screw it, let's just go back to cheapest opioids possible, but with extra monitoring requirements to make sure it stays within state and new CDC Guidelines"
 
Top