|Richard Giardina RN, MPH, CIC, FACHE|
Draft Rule Would Require Hospitals to Spend $1 Billion Yearly on Infection, Antibiotic Programs
A recently proposed rule issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services would require hospitals to undertake approximately $1 billion in new spending each year on infection control and antibiotic limitations through updates and revisions to the conditions of participation for 4,900 hospitals and 1,300 critical access hospitals in Medicare and Medicaid. Implementing the new requirements will cost hospitals between $800 million to $1.3 billion each year. The costliest provisions—ranging from $700 million to $1.2 billion for hospitals and $45 million for CAHs—would require hospitalwide surveillance, prevention and control of healthcare-associated infections and other infectious diseases as well as antibiotic stewardship programs for the appropriate use of antibiotics. However, CMS estimates the costs of establishing these programs will be offset by approximately $1 billion in annual savings, mostly brought about by the infection-control and antibiotic-use requirements. The estimated savings specifically included $520 million for the 2,940 hospitals that lack an antibiotic-use control program, according to CMS, while specific costs included an estimated $20 million for hospitals to appoint an infection control professional. The rule cites research to support its cost estimates and to justify the new requirements. Hospital groups have been generally supportive of the new requirements outlined in the proposed rule, for which CMS is accepting comments until Aug. 15.
"Infection-Control, Antibiotic-Restriction Proposals Could Cost Hospitals $1 Billion a Year"
Healthcare Business News, HFMA, June 14, 2016
Study: Physicians, Hospital Administrators Agree on Top Healthcare Delivery Priorities
Physicians and hospital administrators agree that effective patient communication and collaboration is a top priority, according to a 2016 Cejka Search Healthcare Perspectives study that includes responses from 1,621 practicing physicians and healthcare administrators. Of the healthcare administrators who participated in the survey, 98.25 indicated effective patient communication was the top healthcare delivery priority, and 98.79 percent of practicing physicians indicated it was their top healthcare delivery priority. Collaborating well with advanced practitioners and other providers ranked as the third top healthcare delivery priority for administrators (93.62 percent) and second for physicians (92.61 percent). The other top healthcare delivery priorities for administrators included: customer service orientation as second (94.11 percent), achieving quality outcome goals set by facility as fourth (91.49 percent) and viewed as partner in patient's wellness as fifth (87.32 percent). Physicians ranked viewed as partner in patient's wellness as their third top healthcare delivery priority (90.80 percent), willing to accept opinion from colleagues and other clinicians as fourth (89.30 percent) and customer service orientation as fifth (81.99 percent).
“Do Physicians, administrators have the same priorities? Study says yes"
Becker's Hospital Review, June 14, 2016
Expenses for People Who Die in Hospitals Far Greater Than for Those Who Die at Home: Study
Spending on people who die in a hospital is approximately seven times that spent on people who die at home, according to an analysis by Arcadia Healthcare Solutions. The study analyzed all the Medicaid claims data for a private Medicaid insurance company in one Western state, detailing how many billable medical procedures each patient received and where. It found that 40 percent of patients died in a hospital at an average cost of $32,379, as a result of being billed for more medical interventions in the last days of their lives, whereas people who died at home incurred expenses of about $4,760 in their last month of life. Nursing homes ranked as the second most expensive place to die, followed by inpatient hospice and emergency departments. Furthermore, one of the researchers said the cost of hospital deaths paid for by Medicare or private insurance is likely even higher. However, other studies have shown that when asked, patients indicate they would prefer to die at home than in a hospital, but those wishes often are not realized if a person has not left clear instructions for a doctor or family member.
“Dying In a Hospital Means More Procedures, Tests and Costs”
H&HN, June 2, 2016
Hospitals Are Ramping Up Preparations for Mass Casualty Incidents
Treating victims of bombings and mass shootings is becoming increasingly commonplace in U.S. hospitals, say healthcare providers, and to better prepare for such events, some hospitals have increased their use of emergency drills. For example, the Emergency Nurses Association simulated a mass casualty terrorist attack during its annual meeting in October at the Orange County Convention Center in Orlando—10 miles away from the site of the recent mass shooting at the Pulse nightclub. Orlando Regional Medical Center—the hospital that treated 44 victims of that shooting—conducts weekly trauma simulations and city-wide simulations, according to a hospital spokesperson. Additionally, some hospitals are hiring people to specifically handle emergency management. Treating victims of large-scale shootings requires an approach different from other accidents involving mass casualties, such as a plane crash, because as information becomes available, hospitals could become targets, too. Or, hospitals could be treating perpetrators without realizing it, and they may have to work closely with law enforcement officers, who can protect facilities. Generally, collaboration has grown between hospitals and law enforcement. However, healthcare providers are looking for better ways to treat victims of mass attacks, since little data exists on how to deal with these incidents.
"Hospitals Increasingly Anticipate Mass Shootings”
U.S. News & World Report, June 13, 2016
Emerging Economies Lead the Way in Readiness to Adopt New Healthcare Technology
Not all countries are equally ready to adopt new healthcare technology, according to a new global survey of patients and doctors conducted by Royal Philips, a Dutch manufacturer of healthcare equipment. The study, which surveyed 25,355 patients and 2,659 healthcare professionals across 13 countries, scored each country on its readiness to adopt connected care technology, embrace data sharing and integrate different parts of the health system. The study found that emerging economies are ready to adopt new technology, led by the United Arab Emirates and China, with Australia in fourth place, the United States in sixth place and the United Kingdom in ninth place. However, the Philips Future Health Index found that Japan came in last, possibly due to strict regulation and a lack of centralized oversight of its healthcare system. Of the patients surveyed, 74 percent reported they had to repeat the same information to multipole healthcare professionals, while 60 percent had to repeat the same tests—outcomes that underscore the benefits of data sharing and joining together health systems.
“Is Your Country Ready to Go High Tech in Health Care? Japan Isn't”
CNET, June 8, 2016