31 ene. 2017

Legal Dispute Continues Over Medicare Coverage Of Physical Therapy

Physical therapy may not help a person with a progressive chronic disease become well, but it can help slow a decline.
Hero Images/Getty Images
Four years after Medicare officials agreed in a landmark court settlement that seniors can't be denied coverage for physical therapy and other skilled care simply because their condition isn't improving, patients are still being turned away.
As a result, federal officials and Medicare advocates have renewed their federal court battle, acknowledging that they cannot agree on a way to fix the problem. Earlier this month, each submitted ideas to the judge, who will decide — possibly within the next few months — what measures should be taken.
Several organizations report that the government's initial education campaign following the settlement has failed. Many seniors have only been able to get coverage once their condition worsened. But once it improved, treatment would stop — until the people got worse and were eligible again for coverage.
Every year thousands of Medicare patients receive physical therapy and other treatment to recover from a fall or medical procedure, as well as to help cope with disabilities or chronic conditions including multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's or Parkinson's diseases, stroke and spinal cord or brain injuries. Although the settlement removes the necessity to show an improving health condition, it doesn't affect other criteria and limitations on Medicare coverage.
"We still regularly get calls from people who are told they are being denied coverage," said Peter Schmidt at the National Parkinson Foundation, based in Miami. Denials sometimes occur because physical therapy providers use a billing code that still requires the patient to show improvement. Although Parkinson's is a degenerative brain disease, Schmidt said physical therapy and exercise can help slow its progress. 
The agreement, approved in 2013, settled a class-action lawsuit against the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services filed by Center for Medicare Advocacy and Vermont Legal Aid on behalf of five Medicare beneficiaries, including Glenda Jimmo, and six nationwide patient organizations. Coverage doesn't depend on the "potential for improvement from the therapy but rather on the beneficiary's need for skilled care," the Jimmo settlement said.
In August, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Christina Reiss in Vermont ordered the government to work with the beneficiaries' attorneys to strengthen its education campaign about the policy aimed at companies that process bill, claims reviewers, providers, appeals judges, people who staff the 800-MEDICARE help line and others. (Beneficiaries, however, weren't included.) After working during the fall, both sides acknowledged this month they could not reach a compromise on the best path for getting the message out.
"There was a long-standing kind of mythical policy that Medicare contractors put into place that said Medicare only pays for services if the patient could progress," said Roshunda Drummond-Dye, director of regulatory affairs for the American Physical Therapy Association. "It takes extensive effort to erase that."
Medicare's proposals include such educational effortsand a special webpage with "frequently asked questions" spelling out the proper procedures for handling claims. The government would also issue a clear statement confirming that Medicare covers physical, speech and occupational therapy along with skilled care at home, and in other settings, even if the patient has "reached a plateau" — a term seniors still hear — and isn't improving.
Attorneys for the seniors want to monitor how Medicare officials implement these new measures and have offered to write the policy statement disavowing what's known as the "improvement standard." They also want the government to repeat its 2013 conference call with providers, contractors and others involved in the process in order to correct mistakes, according to papers filed with the court Jan. 13.
"The major problem for us is that they do not want the plaintiff's counsel to have any say or involvement in what they do," said Gill DeFord, litigation director at the Center for Medicare Advocacy in Connecticut. "We think that's exactly the reason the educational campaign was so riddled with inaccuracies in the first place."
But in its filing, the government said, "The Plaintiffs' plan seeks to address perceived deficiencies that were specifically not guaranteed under the [settlement] Agreement." It added accepting the advocates' plan "would also grant their counsel undue control in developing CMS educational materials and an outsize role in CMS's corrective action efforts."
A Medicare spokesman declined to comment under agency protocol because the case is still pending.
The settlement affects care provided by a trained professional in a patient's home, nursing home or the provider's private office that is medically necessary to maintain the patient's condition and prevent deterioration.
Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent news service that is part of the nonpartisan Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. You can follow Susan Jaffe on Twitter: @susanjaffe.

Post Polio Litaff, Association A.C _APPLAC Mexico

Trump will have a hard time pushing drug prices down

Here’s the template for President Donald Trump’s tussles with manufacturers: First, he declares something about their operations outrageous and demands change on behalf of the American people. Then he threatens to punish the manufacturers. A meeting with prominent CEOs ensues, followed by assurances that everybody got along great. The final act is some kind of concession by the manufacturers that allows Trump to declare victory and move on to the next target.
This is how it went with the appliance manufacturer Carrier (UTX), and then with automakers including Ford (F) and General Motors (GM). Trump threatened to punish such firms for moving jobs outside the country, and the firms responded with pledges to save or create more American jobs.
But the template may not hold for Trump’s latest target, the nation’s biggest drugmakers. Trump has called drug prices “astronomical” and said drug companies are “getting away with murder.” Many Americans undoubtedly agree, since drug prices have been rising by much more than inflation for years. After a meeting with CEOs of drug firms including Merck (MRK), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), Eli Lilly (LLY) and Amgen (AMGN), Trump followed the script, striking a friendly tone while insisting, “We have to get drug prices down. We have no choice.” He promised to do his part by cutting regulations on drugmakers and fostering a more favorable business climate.
But Trump has limited ability to force drug prices down, and drugmakers have considerable leverage in Washington and in state capitals. Whatever victory Trump declares is likely to be shallow and fleeting.
The surest way to clamp down on drug prices would be to allow Medicare, the nation’s single-biggest purchaser of drugs, to negotiate prices with providers. But federal law prevents that and prospects of Congress changing that with new legislation seem remote. Vermont Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders says he’ll introduce legislation this year that would allow just that, but such efforts have gone nowhere before. Neither have efforts to allow the importation of cheap drugs from Canada or other countries where prices are far lower. Big Pharma has powerful lobbyists in Washington, with campaign cash spread among hundreds of lawmakers of both parties to make sure its interests and profits are protected.
Some states are considering price caps, which would mainly apply to drugs purchased through Medicaid, which is funded by state and federal money. But that wouldn’t affect people covered on private-sector plans, and might even push up prices for drugs not subject to price caps, to compensate for lost revenue.
More competition usually helps lower prices, and this is one thing Trump points to as a cure for soaring healthcare costs in general. Maybe. But there’s little or no competition for some patent-protected drugs, which are usually the most expensive. And even some generic or off-patent drugs soar in price when drugmakers find clever ways to corner a market. That’s what led to big controversies recently involving Mylan’s Epipen and two heart drugs sold by Valeant. And if more drugs are made in the United States, at higher US labor costs, it will put upward pressure on prices as well, just as it would with electronics or automobiles.
Pharmaceutical executives say reforms involving faster approval for new drugs and better pricing models would help control prices. Bob Hugin, executive chairman at Celgene (CELG), recently told Yahoo Finance that “value-based pricing” based on a drug’s actual effectiveness—rather than a list price—would serve patients better. Some such reforms might be included in whatever Trump has in mind to replace the Affordable Care Act, which Congress is likely to repeal this year. But Big Pharma enjoys tremendous pricing advantages that aren’t likely to disappear. On this one, Trump has chosen an imposing adversary.
Newman tip line: rickjnewman@yahoo.com

Post Polio Litaff, Association A.C _APPLAC Mexico

Polio Film



Salk Institute

Polio Video

Polio Lungs




México Post Polio Una Vida Un Camino Una Experiencia

Post Polio LITAFF A.C.

Postpoliolitaff.- Asociación Post Polio Litaff A.C Primera Organización oficial sobre Síndrome de Post Poliomielitis En México.

Polio y Efectos Secundarios SPP
- See more at: http://polioamigossinfronteras.blogspot.mx/#sthash.6PkHAkfM.dpuf


Polio Reinders

March Of Dimes Polio History

Erradicación de La poliomielitis

Buscar este blog

No more Polio