Pain medicine scams and unsavory behaviors

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Aether2000

algosdoc
15+ Year Member
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
4,238
Reaction score
2,296
The field of pain medicine is rife with scams of patients, unethical behavior, and substandard care. I am writing an article to warn patients of these behaviors and invite your contributions to this preliminary list that is undoubtedly controversial.

1. Frequent urine drug screens with confirmation using an in-house analyzer. Urine drug screens may be performed using a dip stick cup costing between $5 and $10. However due to errors in some of the results and the lack of quantitation, doctors began sending in urine specimens to confirmation laboratories. These labs would charge up to $2000 for a confirmation analysis, and with insurance companies balking at paying such high rates, the patients were left paying the balance over months to years. Pain physicians quickly realized by purchasing a $30,000-$200,000 machine to do the same thing, they could capture all this lost revenue previously being paid by patients and insurance to external diagnostic laboratories. However, the amount of testing increased significantly after physicians acquired their own in-house analyzers. Instead of occasionally testing patients, the tests could be as frequent as every office visit with charges to the insurers for many unnecessary tests. Of course if a patient has an aberrant drug test result, repeat testing is indicated, but in the absence of unexpected results (illicit drugs, non-prescribed opioids, non-prescribed benzodiazepines, etc) testing monthly is simply a scam by pain clinics. Perhaps worst of all, is the use of urine drug screening and instrument confirmation when no medications are to be prescribed, administered or dispensed.

2. Genomic testing. Testing of patients may occur on the first visit by using a swab of the cheek to obtain cells that are analyzed to determine the pathways for metabolism of drugs. While theoretically useful, there are no studies after 10 years of availability of these tests showing them to make any difference in outcomes when prescribing opioid narcotics or other drugs, with the exception of psychiatric drugs in the pediatric population. Pain clinics use these tests to make themselves seem "high tech" when in reality, they may be receiving kickbacks from the manufacturer for such tests, that have effectively no usefulness in improving patient outcomes.

3. Forcing patients to have procedures in the pain physician owned surgery center. If your insurance covers hospitals or other surgery centers where the pain physician has privileges but does not cover the pain physician's owned surgery center, then you have the right to insist on having the procedures done elsewhere. If your insurance is not in network with the pain physician's owned surgery center, you may be forced to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket. This is a common scam where pain physician's surgery centers are intentionally out of network so they can financially rape patients. If your pain physician will not agree to do the procedure in an insurance covered facility, then find another pain physician.

4. Last minute notification to bring hundreds or thousands of dollars with you before a procedure. Surgery centers out of network will sometimes wait until the night before, then call the patient demanding they bring cash or a check or credit card to cover a $500-3000 charge that they will incur for having the procedure in an out of network facility. If you don't bring the money, they cancel your procedure and do not give you any other options.

5. Experimental procedures without notifying you of such. Many procedures are not covered by insurance due to their newness or because insurers consider them "investigational" since there is a lack of evidence of efficacy. Some pain clinics will perform such procedures, only later telling you that you must pay out of pocket the entire cost since insurance has denied coverage. The physician knew in advance that coverage would be denied, but did not tell the patient this.

6. Out of network stacked billings. A pain physician may know their facility is out of network, then does a series of three epidural injections, but waiting until the third one is finished to send the bill for all three at the same time. Some pain physicians charge $2500 for an epidural steroid injection that is out of network that is usually paid at a rate of $200 by insurance in-network. Some patients therefore receive their first bill for $7500 at the end of the epidural steroid injection series, that the pain clinic "graciously" allows them to pay off over years.

7. Unnecessary procedures. Patients may have a simple back muscle strain but a pain clinic may subject them to a battery of spinal injections that cannot possibly help the low back strain. There may accumulate tens of thousands of dollars in charges for these injections due to intentional misdiagnosis and documentation of a physical exam that is not at all consistent with the patient's physical exam.

8. Diagnostic procedures with limited evidence of effectiveness but result in a kickback to the pain physician. Some of these tests include surface EMG testing that has been discredited by the American Academy of Neurology, the experts in the field. Other tests that have limited diagnostic capabilities are diagnostic spinal ultrasound, frequently performed by unscrupulous chiropractors and pain physicians and functional range of motion testing or vertebral spine spacing testing.

9. Unnecessary add-ons to injections. Some unscrupulous pain physicians will add on SSEP or EMG testing during simple injection procedures to tell them if they have speared a nerve. These are unnecessary expenses that yield a kick back to the pain clinic for usage, and have never been demonstrated to be effective in the prevention of injury from injections. Some physicians inappropriately insist on routine sedation for procedures in the absence of patient input. While routine sedation is mostly unnecessary, such use results in escalated charges to the patient, some of which may not be covered by insurance, and may result in patients having to pay out of pocket.

10. Physician arrangement with compounding pharmacies or other pharmacies. If a physician tells you to use a specific compounding pharmacy for topical creams, the physician may be receiving kick backs from the pharmacy that overcharges patients. This common arrangement has resulted in many physicians being indicted for defrauding patients and insurance. At other times, physicians will own part of a retail pharmacy, and will refer patients to that pharmacy that may charge patients a higher price than they would pay elsewhere. This is effectively a kickback. Some physicians own in-house pharmacies that dispense drugs for profit. These should be avoided unless you are required to do so by workman's comp or other insurance carrier.

11. Physician sale of durable medical equipment (DME) to patients. Frequently pain physicians will sell back braces, splints, shoe inserts, etc. to patients and the physician is making a killing off of the income they receive from these. Many of the indications are questionable, for instance back braces have very little evidence of effectiveness, and the back brace costing $28 from Walmart may be just as effective as the $700 brace sold at the physician's office. Avoid DME purchases from physician's offices.

12. Vitamin, supplements, magnets sales. These may be sold in the pain clinic at a steep markup by physicians, and have little place in the treatment of chronic pain. No matter how "pure" or "effective" the physician says the vitamins and supplements are, the physician really has no idea since most of the ingredients come from China and are compounded in the US, without adequate analysis of content. Static magnets are simply scams that have little use in pain medicine.

13. Electronic skin and muscle stimulators. While these do have some benefit, those sold in physician's offices at a premium have no more usefulness than those sold on Amazon. Avoid buying equipment from physician's offices since they are making a tidy profit from such sales.

14. Spinal traction. Physicians may own a machine they purchased years ago to deliver spinal traction. They claim they can isolate one segment for preferential traction- an assertion that has found to be impossible when simple physics are applied. Pain clinics may claim they cure disc herniations when in fact, disc herniations usually cure themselves over time, and the traction has no impact at all on the resolution. Frequently they offer a "package price" of 10-20 treatments costing up to $2000. Avoid these scams.

15. Receiving Narcotic Painkillers in trade for Injections. This is one of the most dangerous and insidious practices of pain clinics- to prescribe opioid painkillers only when patients agree to continued injections, and discontinuation of these drugs once the patient no longer wants or is eligible for procedures. Patients may have no alternatives to continued the use of the drugs that they have become chemically dependent on thanks to the pain physician, and sometimes turn to buying prescription painkillers on the street or convert to heroin. Ask up front about the prescription painkillers in case the injections/procedures do not work.

16. Inappropriate use of midlevel practitioners. The least desirable pain clinics are those where the first day's consultation is with a midlevel (CRNA, nurse practitioner, physician's assistant) and medical diagnoses are made in the absence of seeing a physician. Midlevels have effectively no training in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pain during their education, and therefore are trained "on the job", via a couple of weekend courses, or self-taught by reading short monographs. While midlevels may have a place in the management of pain, they are ill equipped to make an initial diagnosis in pain in the absence of the direct involvement of a physician. At times, these midlevels will be allowed by the pain physician to inappropriately perform spinal injections or procedures on patients. This is both foolish and dangerous. Finally, some midlevels are simply used as drug dealers, with patients agreeing to undergo procedures as a quid pro quo for their midlevel providers dispensing narcotic painkillers.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
#7 is a pernicious problem, wRVU’s have created a culture of ignoring moral hazard.
 
Great post, thanks.

Interested to hear what people on this forum think about stem cell/PRP....from the literature I've read, PRP seems to be mixed.

Also for #1, I know its relatively subjective, but how often do you guys do UDS in clinic? There are some pain docs I worked with that do it very frequently, others not so much..
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
Unnecessary procedures are not specific to pain medicine. Least worrisome and most subjective if other factors algos mentioned aren’t in play. Hard to be excited by an $89 cervical esi with Fluoro and $25 sedation charge when thinking about monthly lyrica script cost let alone pain psych or Pt.

Had a nice holiday chat with my NY PE bro in law who specializes in healthcare acquisitions. Physician salaries per him are a laughable even at 1 million a year and we all know many docs making less than that.
 
Last edited:
Agree the financial disincentives with scores of under-reimbursed and blocked codes combined with increased administrative work has driven doctors offices to these schemes to keep income flowing so they don't have to shut their doors. With respect to hospital procedures, considering time and system inefficiencies with site of service reimbursement penalties for physicians, it is surprising anyone does injections there.
 
The field of pain medicine is rife with scams of patients, unethical behavior, and substandard care. I am writing an article to warn patients of these behaviors and invite your contributions to this preliminary list that is undoubtedly controversial.

1. Frequent urine drug screens with confirmation using an in-house analyzer. Urine drug screens may be performed using a dip stick cup costing between $5 and $10. However due to errors in some of the results and the lack of quantitation, doctors began sending in urine specimens to confirmation laboratories. These labs would charge up to $2000 for a confirmation analysis, and with insurance companies balking at paying such high rates, the patients were left paying the balance over months to years. Pain physicians quickly realized by purchasing a $30,000-$200,000 machine to do the same thing, they could capture all this lost revenue previously being paid by patients and insurance to external diagnostic laboratories. However, the amount of testing increased significantly after physicians acquired their own in-house analyzers. Instead of occasionally testing patients, the tests could be as frequent as every office visit with charges to the insurers for many unnecessary tests. Of course if a patient has an aberrant drug test result, repeat testing is indicated, but in the absence of unexpected results (illicit drugs, non-prescribed opioids, non-prescribed benzodiazepines, etc) testing monthly is simply a scam by pain clinics. Perhaps worst of all, is the use of urine drug screening and instrument confirmation when no medications are to be prescribed, administered or dispensed.

2. Genomic testing. Testing of patients may occur on the first visit by using a swab of the cheek to obtain cells that are analyzed to determine the pathways for metabolism of drugs. While theoretically useful, there are no studies after 10 years of availability of these tests showing them to make any difference in outcomes when prescribing opioid narcotics or other drugs, with the exception of psychiatric drugs in the pediatric population. Pain clinics use these tests to make themselves seem "high tech" when in reality, they may be receiving kickbacks from the manufacturer for such tests, that have effectively no usefulness in improving patient outcomes.

3. Forcing patients to have procedures in the pain physician owned surgery center. If your insurance covers hospitals or other surgery centers where the pain physician has privileges but does not cover the pain physician's owned surgery center, then you have the right to insist on having the procedures done elsewhere. If your insurance is not in network with the pain physician's owned surgery center, you may be forced to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket. This is a common scam where pain physician's surgery centers are intentionally out of network so they can financially rape patients. If your pain physician will not agree to do the procedure in an insurance covered facility, then find another pain physician.

4. Last minute notification to bring hundreds or thousands of dollars with you before a procedure. Surgery centers out of network will sometimes wait until the night before, then call the patient demanding they bring cash or a check or credit card to cover a $500-3000 charge that they will incur for having the procedure in an out of network facility. If you don't bring the money, they cancel your procedure and do not give you any other options.

5. Experimental procedures without notifying you of such. Many procedures are not covered by insurance due to their newness or because insurers consider them "investigational" since there is a lack of evidence of efficacy. Some pain clinics will perform such procedures, only later telling you that you must pay out of pocket the entire cost since insurance has denied coverage. The physician knew in advance that coverage would be denied, but did not tell the patient this.

6. Out of network stacked billings. A pain physician may know their facility is out of network, then does a series of three epidural injections, but waiting until the third one is finished to send the bill for all three at the same time. Some pain physicians charge $2500 for an epidural steroid injection that is out of network that is usually paid at a rate of $200 by insurance in-network. Some patients therefore receive their first bill for $7500 at the end of the epidural steroid injection series, that the pain clinic "graciously" allows them to pay off over years.

7. Unnecessary procedures. Patients may have a simple back muscle strain but a pain clinic may subject them to a battery of spinal injections that cannot possibly help the low back strain. There may accumulate tens of thousands of dollars in charges for these injections due to intentional misdiagnosis and documentation of a physical exam that is not at all consistent with the patient's physical exam.

8. Diagnostic procedures with limited evidence of effectiveness but result in a kickback to the pain physician. Some of these tests include surface EMG testing that has been discredited by the American Academy of Neurology, the experts in the field. Other tests that have limited diagnostic capabilities are diagnostic spinal ultrasound, frequently performed by unscrupulous chiropractors and pain physicians and functional range of motion testing or vertebral spine spacing testing.

9. Unnecessary add-ons to injections. Some unscrupulous pain physicians will add on SSEP or EMG testing during simple injection procedures to tell them if they have speared a nerve. These are unnecessary expenses that yield a kick back to the pain clinic for usage, and have never been demonstrated to be effective in the prevention of injury from injections. Some physicians inappropriately insist on routine sedation for procedures in the absence of patient input. While routine sedation is mostly unnecessary, such use results in escalated charges to the patient, some of which may not be covered by insurance, and may result in patients having to pay out of pocket.

10. Physician arrangement with compounding pharmacies or other pharmacies. If a physician tells you to use a specific compounding pharmacy for topical creams, the physician may be receiving kick backs from the pharmacy that overcharges patients. This common arrangement has resulted in many physicians being indicted for defrauding patients and insurance. At other times, physicians will own part of a retail pharmacy, and will refer patients to that pharmacy that may charge patients a higher price than they would pay elsewhere. This is effectively a kickback. Some physicians own in-house pharmacies that dispense drugs for profit. These should be avoided unless you are required to do so by workman's comp or other insurance carrier.

11. Physician sale of durable medical equipment (DME) to patients. Frequently pain physicians will sell back braces, splints, shoe inserts, etc. to patients and the physician is making a killing off of the income they receive from these. Many of the indications are questionable, for instance back braces have very little evidence of effectiveness, and the back brace costing $28 from Walmart may be just as effective as the $700 brace sold at the physician's office. Avoid DME purchases from physician's offices.

12. Vitamin, supplements, magnets sales. These may be sold in the pain clinic at a steep markup by physicians, and have little place in the treatment of chronic pain. No matter how "pure" or "effective" the physician says the vitamins and supplements are, the physician really has no idea since most of the ingredients come from China and are compounded in the US, without adequate analysis of content. Static magnets are simply scams that have little use in pain medicine.

13. Electronic skin and muscle stimulators. While these do have some benefit, those sold in physician's offices at a premium have no more usefulness than those sold on Amazon. Avoid buying equipment from physician's offices since they are making a tidy profit from such sales.

14. Spinal traction. Physicians may own a machine they purchased years ago to deliver spinal traction. They claim they can isolate one segment for preferential traction- an assertion that has found to be impossible when simple physics are applied. Pain clinics may claim they cure disc herniations when in fact, disc herniations usually cure themselves over time, and the traction has no impact at all on the resolution. Frequently they offer a "package price" of 10-20 treatments costing up to $2000. Avoid these scams.

15. Receiving Narcotic Painkillers in trade for Injections. This is one of the most dangerous and insidious practices of pain clinics- to prescribe opioid painkillers only when patients agree to continued injections, and discontinuation of these drugs once the patient no longer wants or is eligible for procedures. Patients may have no alternatives to continued the use of the drugs that they have become chemically dependent on thanks to the pain physician, and sometimes turn to buying prescription painkillers on the street or convert to heroin. Ask up front about the prescription painkillers in case the injections/procedures do not work.

16. Inappropriate use of midlevel practitioners. The least desirable pain clinics are those where the first day's consultation is with a midlevel (CRNA, nurse practitioner, physician's assistant) and medical diagnoses are made in the absence of seeing a physician. Midlevels have effectively no training in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pain during their education, and therefore are trained "on the job", via a couple of weekend courses, or self-taught by reading short monographs. While midlevels may have a place in the management of pain, they are ill equipped to make an initial diagnosis in pain in the absence of the direct involvement of a physician. At times, these midlevels will be allowed by the pain physician to inappropriately perform spinal injections or procedures on patients. This is both foolish and dangerous. Finally, some midlevels are simply used as drug dealers, with patients agreeing to undergo procedures as a quid pro quo for their midlevel providers dispensing narcotic painkillers.

Epic. This has got to be one of the most eye opening posts that I have read on SDN. Merry Christmas.
 
#9 ... is this a real thing? I can’t even imagine :O
 
The field of pain medicine is rife with scams of patients, unethical behavior, and substandard care. I am writing an article to warn patients of these behaviors and invite your contributions to this preliminary list that is undoubtedly controversial.

1. Frequent urine drug screens with confirmation using an in-house analyzer. Urine drug screens may be performed using a dip stick cup costing between $5 and $10. However due to errors in some of the results and the lack of quantitation, doctors began sending in urine specimens to confirmation laboratories. These labs would charge up to $2000 for a confirmation analysis, and with insurance companies balking at paying such high rates, the patients were left paying the balance over months to years. Pain physicians quickly realized by purchasing a $30,000-$200,000 machine to do the same thing, they could capture all this lost revenue previously being paid by patients and insurance to external diagnostic laboratories. However, the amount of testing increased significantly after physicians acquired their own in-house analyzers. Instead of occasionally testing patients, the tests could be as frequent as every office visit with charges to the insurers for many unnecessary tests. Of course if a patient has an aberrant drug test result, repeat testing is indicated, but in the absence of unexpected results (illicit drugs, non-prescribed opioids, non-prescribed benzodiazepines, etc) testing monthly is simply a scam by pain clinics. Perhaps worst of all, is the use of urine drug screening and instrument confirmation when no medications are to be prescribed, administered or dispensed.

2. Genomic testing. Testing of patients may occur on the first visit by using a swab of the cheek to obtain cells that are analyzed to determine the pathways for metabolism of drugs. While theoretically useful, there are no studies after 10 years of availability of these tests showing them to make any difference in outcomes when prescribing opioid narcotics or other drugs, with the exception of psychiatric drugs in the pediatric population. Pain clinics use these tests to make themselves seem "high tech" when in reality, they may be receiving kickbacks from the manufacturer for such tests, that have effectively no usefulness in improving patient outcomes.

3. Forcing patients to have procedures in the pain physician owned surgery center. If your insurance covers hospitals or other surgery centers where the pain physician has privileges but does not cover the pain physician's owned surgery center, then you have the right to insist on having the procedures done elsewhere. If your insurance is not in network with the pain physician's owned surgery center, you may be forced to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket. This is a common scam where pain physician's surgery centers are intentionally out of network so they can financially rape patients. If your pain physician will not agree to do the procedure in an insurance covered facility, then find another pain physician.

4. Last minute notification to bring hundreds or thousands of dollars with you before a procedure. Surgery centers out of network will sometimes wait until the night before, then call the patient demanding they bring cash or a check or credit card to cover a $500-3000 charge that they will incur for having the procedure in an out of network facility. If you don't bring the money, they cancel your procedure and do not give you any other options.

5. Experimental procedures without notifying you of such. Many procedures are not covered by insurance due to their newness or because insurers consider them "investigational" since there is a lack of evidence of efficacy. Some pain clinics will perform such procedures, only later telling you that you must pay out of pocket the entire cost since insurance has denied coverage. The physician knew in advance that coverage would be denied, but did not tell the patient this.

6. Out of network stacked billings. A pain physician may know their facility is out of network, then does a series of three epidural injections, but waiting until the third one is finished to send the bill for all three at the same time. Some pain physicians charge $2500 for an epidural steroid injection that is out of network that is usually paid at a rate of $200 by insurance in-network. Some patients therefore receive their first bill for $7500 at the end of the epidural steroid injection series, that the pain clinic "graciously" allows them to pay off over years.

7. Unnecessary procedures. Patients may have a simple back muscle strain but a pain clinic may subject them to a battery of spinal injections that cannot possibly help the low back strain. There may accumulate tens of thousands of dollars in charges for these injections due to intentional misdiagnosis and documentation of a physical exam that is not at all consistent with the patient's physical exam.

8. Diagnostic procedures with limited evidence of effectiveness but result in a kickback to the pain physician. Some of these tests include surface EMG testing that has been discredited by the American Academy of Neurology, the experts in the field. Other tests that have limited diagnostic capabilities are diagnostic spinal ultrasound, frequently performed by unscrupulous chiropractors and pain physicians and functional range of motion testing or vertebral spine spacing testing.

9. Unnecessary add-ons to injections. Some unscrupulous pain physicians will add on SSEP or EMG testing during simple injection procedures to tell them if they have speared a nerve. These are unnecessary expenses that yield a kick back to the pain clinic for usage, and have never been demonstrated to be effective in the prevention of injury from injections. Some physicians inappropriately insist on routine sedation for procedures in the absence of patient input. While routine sedation is mostly unnecessary, such use results in escalated charges to the patient, some of which may not be covered by insurance, and may result in patients having to pay out of pocket.

10. Physician arrangement with compounding pharmacies or other pharmacies. If a physician tells you to use a specific compounding pharmacy for topical creams, the physician may be receiving kick backs from the pharmacy that overcharges patients. This common arrangement has resulted in many physicians being indicted for defrauding patients and insurance. At other times, physicians will own part of a retail pharmacy, and will refer patients to that pharmacy that may charge patients a higher price than they would pay elsewhere. This is effectively a kickback. Some physicians own in-house pharmacies that dispense drugs for profit. These should be avoided unless you are required to do so by workman's comp or other insurance carrier.

11. Physician sale of durable medical equipment (DME) to patients. Frequently pain physicians will sell back braces, splints, shoe inserts, etc. to patients and the physician is making a killing off of the income they receive from these. Many of the indications are questionable, for instance back braces have very little evidence of effectiveness, and the back brace costing $28 from Walmart may be just as effective as the $700 brace sold at the physician's office. Avoid DME purchases from physician's offices.

12. Vitamin, supplements, magnets sales. These may be sold in the pain clinic at a steep markup by physicians, and have little place in the treatment of chronic pain. No matter how "pure" or "effective" the physician says the vitamins and supplements are, the physician really has no idea since most of the ingredients come from China and are compounded in the US, without adequate analysis of content. Static magnets are simply scams that have little use in pain medicine.

13. Electronic skin and muscle stimulators. While these do have some benefit, those sold in physician's offices at a premium have no more usefulness than those sold on Amazon. Avoid buying equipment from physician's offices since they are making a tidy profit from such sales.

14. Spinal traction. Physicians may own a machine they purchased years ago to deliver spinal traction. They claim they can isolate one segment for preferential traction- an assertion that has found to be impossible when simple physics are applied. Pain clinics may claim they cure disc herniations when in fact, disc herniations usually cure themselves over time, and the traction has no impact at all on the resolution. Frequently they offer a "package price" of 10-20 treatments costing up to $2000. Avoid these scams.

15. Receiving Narcotic Painkillers in trade for Injections. This is one of the most dangerous and insidious practices of pain clinics- to prescribe opioid painkillers only when patients agree to continued injections, and discontinuation of these drugs once the patient no longer wants or is eligible for procedures. Patients may have no alternatives to continued the use of the drugs that they have become chemically dependent on thanks to the pain physician, and sometimes turn to buying prescription painkillers on the street or convert to heroin. Ask up front about the prescription painkillers in case the injections/procedures do not work.

16. Inappropriate use of midlevel practitioners. The least desirable pain clinics are those where the first day's consultation is with a midlevel (CRNA, nurse practitioner, physician's assistant) and medical diagnoses are made in the absence of seeing a physician. Midlevels have effectively no training in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pain during their education, and therefore are trained "on the job", via a couple of weekend courses, or self-taught by reading short monographs. While midlevels may have a place in the management of pain, they are ill equipped to make an initial diagnosis in pain in the absence of the direct involvement of a physician. At times, these midlevels will be allowed by the pain physician to inappropriately perform spinal injections or procedures on patients. This is both foolish and dangerous. Finally, some midlevels are simply used as drug dealers, with patients agreeing to undergo procedures as a quid pro quo for their midlevel providers dispensing narcotic painkillers.


Agree with most of this stuff but:

1) UDS revenue was transferred from one entity to another. If there is an issue with GC testing (unless urine testing goes WAY up due to conflicts of interest), then I don't see the problem with the pain doc getting the revenue rather than some other company.

2) Overusage of procedures is common in EVERY procedural speciality due to the wRVU system. I have proposed a solution to this problem in another post concerning salaried positions. However, before we unilaterally go after physicians or decrease salaries, we need to get rid of the WASTE in terms of OVERPRICED price gouging from big pharma, device companies, big hospital system overcharges, etc. If we just focus on physician salaries, we will unilaterally screw ourselves while allowing the middle men to make boatloads of money with zero decreases in the cost of healthcare.

Essentially, we will just have decreased reimbursement/salaries of doctors without addressing the bigger middle men scamming the system and taking a far bigger percentage of the healthcare dollar benefits.

Doctors salaries will collapse by 50% while big pharma, big device, hospital executives, etc will continue to see double digit increases in their salaries/bonuses.

When I live in a world where pharma companies can increase the price of a generic cancer drug by 1400% despite it being almost 50 years old, I am less likely to get on board to condemn physician salaries:

Cancer Drug Price Rises 1,400% With No Generic to Challenge It

Compared to the price gouging of these entities, the fraud committed by pain doctors (or docs in general) are really minimal in comparison.
 
Last edited:
Interesting post. Do mass spectrometers actually cost $30-$200k? I thought they were a lot cheaper than that. Why would someone get a mass spectrometer for $200k when a $30k one would work just as well?
 
It has been shown acquisition of a urine drug testing machine in an office causes an increase in drug testing. Not only does the machine cost money, but there may be a technician required to run the machine at an additional cost to the reagents and maintenance. LC/Quadrupole MS with analyzer may indeed cost $200,000 or more, whereas a colorometric machine (less accurate and with limited drugs of detection) may cost $30,000. I have actually been told by patients when questioning the increased frequency of drug testing, that because the clinic purchased the new drug testing machine, it must be paid for, and thus the increased frequency of drug testing.
 
It has been shown acquisition of a urine drug testing machine in an office causes an increase in drug testing. Not only does the machine cost money, but there may be a technician required to run the machine at an additional cost to the reagents and maintenance. LC/Quadrupole MS with analyzer may indeed cost $200,000 or more, whereas a colorometric machine (less accurate and with limited drugs of detection) may cost $30,000. I have actually been told by patients when questioning the increased frequency of drug testing, that because the clinic purchased the new drug testing machine, it must be paid for, and thus the increased frequency of drug testing.

I thought this practice also paints a target on your back in the eyes of OIG/CMS.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I know there is a Medicare fee schedule for physician office visits and procedures. Are there ones for such ancillary services as urine drug tests and x-rays? I would assume that labs and imaging facilities can charge whatever they want, but insurance companies will follow Medicare rates for reimbursements, no?
 
#7 is a pernicious problem, wRVU’s have created a culture of ignoring moral hazard.

Can someone explain how RVUs cause this issue? People respond to incentives. Fee for service is the driver for delivering more service. Doing reimburses better than thinking, so procedures are going to be done beyond strict, exclusively clinical indications.

PP and employed docs alike are incentivized to do more procedures. The morally pure go into academics or sling Suboxone for cash.
 
Can someone explain how RVUs cause this issue? People respond to incentives. Fee for service is the driver for delivering more service. Doing reimburses better than thinking, so procedures are going to be done beyond strict, exclusively clinical indications.

PP and employed docs alike are incentivized to do more procedures. The morally pure go into academics or sling Suboxone for cash.

For the PP guys- what percentage of your patients submit to regular injections in the absence of an opioid script? That includes an opioid rx written by an outside PCP or other physician who sends the patient to you for pain mgmt

For opioid naive patients who are enthusiastic about procedures, do they tend to be young/old? Working/non-working? Privately insured or Medicaid/Medicare?

- ex 61N
 
For Medicare, covered benefits are the only items in which Medicare limits charges. For things not covered by Medicare, e.g. LLLT treatments for pain, doing facet injections or spinal injections with ultrasound (there is a code but Medicare pays zero), etc. then physicians may bill the patient directly by using an ABN. For insurances, balanced billing is permitted by many. UDS codes are indeed covered by Medicare and have been the subject of many Medicare reviews. Insurers may limit billing or deny billing for these, then the bill reverts directly to the patient, who will be cut off from their opioid supply if they do not pay. Pharmacogenomic testing was covered completely by Medicare through 2010 but then they came to their senses and placed severe restrictions on this testing, effectively eliminating it for pain clinic usage, and patients are billed directly for the cost of these tests that have no useful function.
 
With today's insurance reimbursements, is it still worthwhile for pain physicians to get their own mass spectrometers for doing urine drug testing? I think it's just human nature for people in general to overutilize a resource if they get reimbursed more for it. However, on the flip side, if lab testing is used judiciously, why not keep it in-house rather than letting laboratory companies profit off of it? Having said that, what are common make and models of mass spectrometers pain physicians have been using if they want to keep their urine drug testing in-house?
 
I do not think there is anything inherently wrong in owning your own Mass spectrometer as long as the patients are not billed excessive amounts being required to pay astronomical some out-of-pocket, and as long as the physician's office does not alter the rate of testing using this technology. The problem occurs when a doctor acquires an expensive machine, then realizes they have to pay for it. Increasing the numbers of patients being tested using this technology then becomes a unethical scam.
 
I work for a medical company (being intentionally vague) that sells services similar to what OP is describing. We work with a lot of pain clinics, as well as a ton of other clinics. Our products are completely legitimate IMO, but like anything in life, they have their specific use cases.

I realize that medicine is a business like any other service, but that has not made me any less saddened by how much profit is the driving factor behind whether clinics work with us. I can say that the majority of physicians I work with DO care about efficacy and the overall betterment of their patients first and foremost. There is still a significant amount of clinics that I work with (20-25%), however, that ask me almost no questions on the validity or efficacy of our products, but rather how much they can bill patients/insurance for it, and what other ancillary revenue streams it will provide. Many of my clients work outside of insurance, and more than once I have heard of a patient paying $2,500 for a product that we sold to the doctor for $300. There is the value of time and effort that the physician put into learning our product, but to what degree? Probably not an ~8x markup.

It's unfortunate, but patients need to be vigilant about these practices. I have some clinics I work with that I would describe the physicians as more of salespeople than I am.. and I'm a salesperson. Their patients leave with literal grocery bags full of supplements and products marked up 50-100% over their cost to patients that are desperate for answers and relief. There is a lot of hope and desperation in certain patient populations, with pain probably being the best example, and there is no shortage of clinics out there that prey on this.

I'm leaving sales to begin med school this year and I will always carry this with me. There is no shame in wanting to be compensated as a physician, but I never want to be the provider that values my bottom line equal to or above the actual needs of a patient.
 
With today's insurance reimbursements, is it still worthwhile for pain physicians to get their own mass spectrometers for doing urine drug testing? I think it's just human nature for people in general to overutilize a resource if they get reimbursed more for it. However, on the flip side, if lab testing is used judiciously, why not keep it in-house rather than letting laboratory companies profit off of it? Having said that, what are common make and models of mass spectrometers pain physicians have been using if they want to keep their urine drug testing in-house?


The Doctor Will Test You Now


No longer a financial windfall, urine drug testing by mass spectrometry may become a burden for some physician office labs

Author: Julie Kirkwood // Date: JAN.1.2018 // Source: Clinical Laboratory News

Topics:

· Government and Regulatory,

· Drug Abuse,

· Toxicology,

· Mass Spectrometry

About 4 years ago, a quirk in insurance reimbursement made drug testing by mass spectrometry a lucrative business. A lab could bill at least $400 to $800 for a single urine sample, sometimes more than $1,000. The opioid crisis had increased the need for urine drug tests, and the financial incentive was so strong that many pain doctors set up their own in-house physician office laboratories (POLs) to claim their share of the profits.

I'm not going to sugarcoat it, it was relatively disastrous putting these things into physician offices beforehand—not with us, but with a lot of other companies that didn’t take it as seriously as they should have,” said Gregory Ingle, CEO of Clinical Lab Consulting, a company that has set up hundreds of drug testing laboratories in physician offices.

Consulting practices proliferated, marketing mass spectrometry equipment to doctors. Some unscrupulous companies sold old, used mass spectrometers that were never meant for clinical testing, Ingle said. Some made claims that they could set up mass spectrometry in just a couple of weeks. And because of the insurance reimbursement quirk—that each drug class was reimbursed separately—laboratories were rewarded for running full panels of drug tests on every sample, leading to overuse, said Charles Root, PhD, CEO of CodeMap LLC, a laboratory coding and reimbursement information company. “The doctors especially, since they were the ones who ordered tests as well the ones who performed them, tended to do quite a bit of testing,” Root said.

An investigation of billing data by Kaiser Health News published in November 2017 found that spending on urine drug screens and related tests quadrupled from 2011 to 2014 to about $8.5 billion a year, leading to allegations of overuse, whistleblower lawsuits, and settlements. The analysis found that in 2014, Medicare paid more for urine drug tests than on the four most-recommended cancer screenings combined.

The growth of POL drug testing was so widespread that toxicology reference laboratories felt the pressure. “We actually saw a lot of our business go toward physicians setting up their own labs,” said Andrea Terrell, PhD, DABCC, who was lab director at AIT Laboratories at the time. “We actually struggled to retain business because of the POLs.”

Insurers soon realized what was happening and changed the rules. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services created new codes last year with payment tiers based on the number of analytes tested, capping out at around $200 to $250 per sample. “The rates have been slashed by virtually 80 percent now,” Root said.

A New Era for Physician Office Labs

While the frenzy for opening new POLs has calmed down, these labs have not gone away. Many pain doctors continue to operate their own drug testing laboratories, and some addiction treatment centers are now bringing testing in-house, according to Ingle. “It was primarily greed and monetary-driven in the beginning, but now it’s just become the new standard of care,” he said.

POLs can be successful if a practice invests the time and money to do it right, Ingle noted. For example, Robert B. Wilson, II, MD, board certified in anesthesiology and pain management and founder of Piedmont Interventional Pain Care in Salisbury, North Carolina, runs a successful mass spectrometry laboratory that was set up by Clinical Lab Consulting in 2015. Generating revenue was one reason for bringing testing in-house, he said, but he was not expecting to make hundreds of thousands of dollars in profits as did the early adopters. “I never saw that kind of money, ever,” Wilson said. “When I started doing my billing, it had already been adjusted down.”

Wilson’s decision to bring testing in-house mainly arose out of frustration with reference labs, he said. He felt they were too expensive and they pushed him to order unnecessary full test panels on every patient. His office had to do all the work collecting the urine samples, counseling patients about their results, and referring them to addiction treatment, as well as all the other facets of ensuring medication compliance such as counting pills—all in an environment of constantly shrinking reimbursements. “[The reference labs] were generating more revenue doing the urine screens than I was sticking needles in [the patients’] spines,” Wilson said. “We do all these things based on our clinical judgment that we never get paid to do, and by bringing in the urine screening revenue, it makes it more palatable.”

Even at the reduced mass spectrometry reimbursement rates, Wilson’s laboratory makes a small profit, he said, and it gives him more control over testing. Now the overuse of this testing is tightly regulated by Medicare and commercial insurance guidelines, Wilson noted. The allowed frequency of testing is based on the morphine milligram equivalents prescribed to patients.

Science Stretched Thin

It is not easy to bring mass spectrometry to a physician office, according to Ingle. While an immunoassay analyzer can be set up and validated in as little as a week, mass spectrometry validation takes months. A mass spectrometer is like a stove, and it’s up to the chemist or biochemical engineer to be the chef who creates the recipe, he said. “Everybody has a different way of doing it, and there’s a lot of scientific argument over who’s right.”

The instruments also have special requirements for power, climate control, and custom-made reagents. “Mass spectrometry is the hardest to implement out of any kind of lab testing, and that includes genomic testing, which we do a lot of,” Ingle said. “It’s because of the special sauce—all of the different things that can go into it.”

Physicians also need to hire appropriate staff to run mass spectrometry laboratories, presenting an additional challenge, Terrell said, who left AIT Laboratories and now works with Ingle to set up and advise POLs. “If a physician hires just a PhD analytical chemist who has no clinical laboratory training and experience, they’re not going to be successful.”

Analytical chemists might not understand the level of regulatory scrutiny involved in a clinical assay, might add tests to a panel without revalidating it, have weak quality control practices, or struggle to maintain the instrument and all the peripheral equipment, she said. Overall, she doesn’t recommend physicians run mass spectrometry laboratories. “It can work…but I have not seen it work really well in a physician office setting,” she commented.

Marion Snyder, PhD, chief science officer at Luxor Scientific, has the same misgivings and said physicians should not run their own mass spectrometry labs. She co-authored an article in January’s Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine about the risks and difficulties of POL mass spectrometry (J Appl Lab Med 2018;2:657-9). “I don’t think this type of testing should be done in a setting where the sole driving factor is revenue generation,” Snyder said. “Over time, as the reimbursement comes down especially, there’s going to be pressure to cut corners in those labs.”

Indeed, the market for selling mass spectrometer to POLs has already essentially disappeared, Root said. Reimbursement is only going to get worse as the Protecting Access to Medicare Act takes effect, he said. “With the changes to the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule, it looks like it could be cut 10 percent a year further for two to three more years,” Root said. “It’s not getting any better at this stage.”

While POLs are subject to CLIA inspections, the inspectors “haven’t traditionally had the expertise or haven’t been adequately funded to support inspections of liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry labs,” Snyder said. “They’re looking for the more basic maintenance procedures and things like that, but they wouldn’t necessarily understand if the science behind it is flawed or if errors are being made.”

Perhaps there should be a task force that inspects POLs to supplement CLIA or even a requirement that they be subject to a higher level of inspection, she said, adding: “It’s something that the lab community should discuss.”

Julie Kirkwood is a freelance journalist who lives in Rochester, New York.+EMAIL: [email protected]
 
Thank you for the informative article drusso. Anyone have a link for the referenced article by Marion Snyder, PhD in the January 2018 issue of "Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine" about the risks and difficulties of POL mass spectrometry? I do not personally know of any pain physician who performs mass spectrometry in-office, but is running one as technically challenging and difficult as the article makes it out to be? Just from reading the article, it seems as if you need to hire a MD/PhD just to run one for urine drug testing!
 
When I was a fellow we had our own lab that did the confirmations and it was a mess. We had tons of abnormalities that didn't make sense and it felt like all of a sudden 20% of our tests came back positive for buprenorphine metabolites. I had to spend a ton of time on the phone with the lab asking them to redo the tests and it almost always came back negative for what was unexpected. Big waste of time for me at least and created some tenuous situations as we had some very upset patients when discussing UDS results. They even had to bite the bullet and send a few out to another lab at their cost due to patient threats and complaints. Made me realize that I don't want to deal with that now in practice.
 
When I was a fellow we had our own lab that did the confirmations and it was a mess. We had tons of abnormalities that didn't make sense and it felt like all of a sudden 20% of our tests came back positive for buprenorphine metabolites. I had to spend a ton of time on the phone with the lab asking them to redo the tests and it almost always came back negative for what was unexpected. Big waste of time for me at least and created some tenuous situations as we had some very upset patients when discussing UDS results. They even had to bite the bullet and send a few out to another lab at their cost due to patient threats and complaints. Made me realize that I don't want to deal with that now in practice.

Sorry to hear that you had a bad experience RM38. If you do not mind my asking, who was actually running this in-office lab when you were a fellow?
 
2 masters level chemists. They had a few other people back there as well, but I think they just helped with prep. They had to shut down the lab for the same problem a year or so before I did fellowship as well and then opened it back up when I was 1/2 way done. Not sure what the problem was, but it hadn’t been resolved when I left. Frequency of UDS did not change from send out to in house.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
Top