December 9th, 2011 by DrWes in Health Policy, Opinion
1 Comment »
With the announcement that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will begin auditing 100% of expensive cardiovascular and orthopedic procedures in certain states earlier this week, we see their final transformation from the beneficent health care funding bosom for seniors to health care rationer:
The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services will require pre-payment audits on hospital stays for cardiac care, joint replacements and spinal fusion procedures, according to the American College of Cardiology in a letter to members. Shares in both industries fell with Tenet Healthcare Corp., the Dallas- based hospital operator, plunging 11 percent to $4.18, the most among Standard & Poor’s 500 stocks. Medtronic Inc., the largest U.S. maker of heart devices, dropped 6 percent to $34.61.
The program means hospitals won’t receive payment for stays that involve cardiac care or orthopedic treatment until auditors have examined the patient records and confirmed that the care was appropriate, Jerold Saef, the reimbursement chair for the Florida chapter of the American College of Cardiology, wrote in a Nov. 21 letter to members. The review process is expected to take 30 days to 60 days, beginning January 1, Saef said.
This is not at all unexpected. In fact, Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Dr. Wes*
August 25th, 2011 by DrWes in Opinion, Research
No Comments »
A new report published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and reported in theHeart.org and elsewhere, suggests the infection rate of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CEID’s) between 1993 and 2008 has greatly increased from 1.53% in 2004 to 2.41% in 2008 (p < 0.001) with a dramatic rise in 2005:
Click image to enlarge
The authors explain this sudden increase on the basis of comorbities: Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Dr. Wes*
August 18th, 2011 by DrWes in Opinion
No Comments »
With the explosion of medical devices to treat various medical ailments in medicine, we have seen significant improvements in quality and quantity of life. An underappreciated consequence of all of these electronic device therapies, however, has been the manpower and expertise required to manage these implanted electronic medical devices long-term.
Problems with electromagnetic interference (EMI) with medical devices are real. Innovations in medicine have come from various portions of the electromagnetic spectrum including analog and digital wireless technology, diagnostic and therapeutic radiation therapy and magnetic resonance imaging. The effects of these technologies on implanted electronic medical devices can vary and specialty physicians, ancillary health care providers, and medical device manufacturers expend significant man-hours managing these potential interference sources and their affects on devices without a single prospective randomized trial to guide us. The sheer number of devices and the many ways that EMI can interfere with these complex devices makes constructing an all-inclusive trial with sufficient number of “events” to compare difficult or nearly impossible. As a result, most of our management recommendations and hospital policies in this regard have been based from literature case reports or personal experience and expertise.
To date, recommendations for minimizing EMI with cardiac implantable electronic devices has Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Dr. Wes*
March 28th, 2011 by DrWes in Health Policy
No Comments »
In case people are wondering if our governmental overlords really care about the latest and greatest treatment guidelines published by our professional health care organizations, take note.
CMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services) is still using guidelines for defibrillator implantation from 2005 to justify payment for services in their national coverage decision, whereas the latest guidelines published by the Heart Rhythm Society published in 2008 carry signficiant differences in their recommendations for appropriate patients for this technology.
So which set of guidelines should doctors use?
The answer is obvious: if you use the latest data to decide who should receive a defibrillator, you might be subject to a Department of Justice investigation.
So much for using updated guidelines.
-WesMusings of a cardiologist and cardiac electrophysiologist.
*This blog post was originally published at Dr. Wes*
March 5th, 2011 by Dr. Val Jones in True Stories
1 Comment »
In medicine we’re often reminded not to base our therapy solely on lab test results. Although it’s tempting to reduce patient care to a checklist of “normal” bloodwork targets, we all know that this is only a fraction of the total health picture. Today I made a mistake that brought this truism home: “Don’t treat the number, treat the patient.”
I’m turning 40 this year and decided to make an ambitious fitness goal for myself — to be in better shape at 40 than I was at 30. No small feat for a person who used to be in good form a decade ago (not so much now, ahem). So, I joined a gym owned by an affable triathlete and invited her to make me her project. Let’s just say that Meredith believes that one piece of sprouted grain bread is the breakfast of champions — and with that she has me doing many hours of cardio sprints and strength training every week. I’m still alive. Barely.
Today in my endurance spinning class (an unusual form of torture where you get yelled at — I mean encouraged — on a stationary bicycle for an hour and a half in a dark room filled with high-decibel rock music and sweaty co-sufferers), I was somewhat alarmed by my heart rate. I was taught in medical school that one’s maximum heart rate is 220 minus your age. So mine should be about 180. I assumed that anything higher than that was incompatible with life.
So when I saw my heart rate monitor rise to 185 on a steep climb at maximum speed, I wondered if I might be about to die. I certainly felt physically challenged, but not quite at death’s door, so I looked around sheepishly at my nearest peer’s monitor to see if she was handling the strain any better. Nope, she was also at 185. “Gee, what a coincidence,” I thought. “We must be exactly the same fitness level.” Read more »
