Denial On The Healthcare System: A Case Study

In 2012, the ACA found an excessive amount of readmissions of patients that were hospitalized within 30 days for the same medical conditions. This factor viewed under the ACA as a quality issue and CMS implemented value-based incentive payments based on performance in a set of quality measures. The plan is to implement a pay for performance (P4P) in formulas used by Medicare to reimbursement providers. “The objective is to link reimbursement to quality and efficiency as an incentive to improve the quality of health care, as well as reduce system-wide costs” (Shi and Singh, 2015). In addition to the P4P, nonprofit hospitals also focus on continual improvement, data and cost containment throughout the organization (Adamopoulos,

pressure ulcer developing while in the hospital and Medicare not reimbursing for the cost of the care of that ulcer, it

This model reimburses hospitals based on quality of care instead of the volume of patients. The quality of care is assessed by patient questionnaires and if hospitals are unsatisfactory penalties may be imposed (Edwoldt, 2012). The value-based system also affects Medicare and Medicaid. It was reported that Medicare readmissions within 30 days of discharge cost 17 billion dollars annually (Edwoldt, 2012). Due to the high costs of readmissions Medicare and Medicaid have implemented a Hospital Readmission Reduction program. A formula is utilized to evaluate readmission rates within 30 days of discharge for any medical reason related to their original admission such as heart failure and pneumonia. Upon review the hospital is potentially penalized. It is important that nurses strive to provide excellence in care despite their beliefs on the ACA. Nurses have the ability to provide a safe patient environment and reduce the risk of hospital associated infections by following hospital protocols such as hand washing.

Since the original plan for SNF stay was 21 days, which is the total number of the days paid by Medicare Part A 100%, there was going to be no out of pocket pay from the patient’s side if there would have not been a UTI acquired. Objective findings show that the UTI was due to poorly performed evidence-based protocol process in the urinary catheter maintenance and fitting. This cost the patient to start paying money ($144.50/day x 14 days as explained before) out of her pocket for cause that was not inevitable. Not only did the patient have to suffer being weak, having and infection and missing on her rehabilitation program, but she had to also pay for each extra day that she had to stay there for a fault that was not hers. It is clearly not only a failure of the SNF’s operational system, quality of care and healthcare professionals’ performance, but also of the governmental support which directly penalizes the patient for

“Starting in 2009, Medicare, the US government 's health insurance program for elderly and disabled Americans, will not cover the costs of "preventable" conditions, mistakes and infections resulting from a hospital stay. So for instance, if you are on Medicare and you pick up a hospital acquired infection while you are being treated for something that is covered by Medicare, the extra cost of treating the hospital acquired infection will no longer be paid for by Medicare. Instead, the bill will be picked up by the hospital itself since the rules don 't allow the hospital to charge it to you” (Paddock, 2007).

Obtaining reimbursement for services provided is a necessity for the survival of many health care organizations. This paper will explain, in my opinion, why the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are involved in this development and how it affects the American public. I will offer a suggestion to ensure meeting policy and procedure. I will finish by discussing three ideas listed on the CMS website.

The current paper examines the Disproportionate Share Hospital Payment Reduction CMS 2367F rule which was effective on November 18, 2013. The Disproportionate Share Hospital Payment Reduction CMS 2367F is Federal Legislation that was implemented due to the Affordable Care Act. The rule was initially proposed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS on May 13, 2013. The proposed rule was to implement the provision of the Affordable Care Act that reduces Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) allotments.

This newer reimbursement system has been a topic of contention amongst a large portion of the professional medical community due to the perceived unfairness that it brings in certain situations where a patient must be readmitted and, as a consequence, the primary care providers may not be reimbursed for the readmission regardless if they were responsible. With the introduction of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, further criteria such as the Readmissions Reduction Program have been added that determines the eligibility of a primary care provider being reimbursed through the Medicare/Medicaid program. These new requirements have led to new avenues of contention amongst healthcare professionals and, in some cases, new avenues for fraud and patient discrimination.

Over the course of time, there have been many debates dealing with religion and various laws. A concern that has arisen from these debates was the denial of health care for these religious families, and how it would impacts the children. There are many various opinions on this topic ranging from a strong belief in the healing powers of God to a strong stance that the refusal of health care results in child abuse. These self healing parents believe that medicine is not need to heal themselves or children. Instead, they believe that God is all they need to be healthy. However, should the religious belief of these parents give them the right to refuse health care for their family? While these parents should be allowed to express their

Hospitals are no longer being reimbursed for “never” events, which encompass situations a patient may encounter during a hospital stay, such as hospital-acquired infections, pressure ulcers, and falls. It is imperative for the nursing profession to hold knowledge and appreciation of how patient care outcomes influence the organizations monetary bottom-line.

Health care in the United States (U.S.) is driven by a makeshift of services and financing. Americans access health care services in diverse ways, from private doctors’ offices, to hospitals, and to insurance providers. The effects of the ACA will have numerous changes impacting hospitals and physicians practices. One of the main goals of healthcare reform is to reduce Medicare expenses by combining payment for services provided by hospitals, doctors, and nursing homes into one lump sum, which will effect

Although the Affordable Care Act (ACA) became law nearly five years ago, the rhetoric overt the law and its provisions continue in Congress and around every kitchen table in America. While no one disagrees the healthcare system prior to the passage of the ACA was flawed, healthcare reform under the ACA continues to evolve and is likely to continue evolving in the future. Despite this, it is the law, and the healthcare industry is doing its best to keep up with the law’s mandates. For the hospital healthcare administrator, there are numerous changes affecting how hospitals do business, not only with the insurance industry, but with patients as well. The following overview discusses the basics of the ACA, the positive and negative ramifications for hospitals, and the impact the law will have for years to come. Although the final incarnation of the Affordable Care Act will develop over time, its premise of ending healthcare disparities and quality care for all citizens is long overdue.

In 1983, the Medicare prospective payment program was implemented which allowed hospitals to be reimbursed a set payment based on the patient’s diagnosis, or Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG), regardless of what treatment was provided or how long the patient was hospitalized (Jacob & Cherry, 2007). To keep the costs below the diagnosis related payment, hospitals had to manage efficiently the treatment provided to a client and reduce the client’s length of stay (Jacob & Cherry, 2007). Case management, or internal case management “within the walls” of the health care facilities was created to streamline costs while maintaining quality care (Jacob & Cherry, 2007).

If the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) change their payer regulations and accreditation requirements, hospitals would need to accommodate their requests for continued supplemental payments. In other words,

For years, healthcare costs have continued to increase in the United States and policymakers are constantly trying to find ways to reduce spending. According to reports, in 2011, about $900 billion out of the $2.6 trillion annual health care spending was wasteful spending. In the following year, there was a reported $690 billion wasted annually on healthcare. This wasteful spending is attributed to ineffective health care delivery, cost of adverse events, and poor care coordination that has led to avoidable readmissions (Lallemand, 2012). In the United States, readmissions are the highest amongst patients with chronic diseases accounting for about 90% of avoidable readmissions in 30 days after discharge, and costing the industry an estimated $17 billion. These readmissions are a result of inadequate discharge planning, lack of follow-up, and lack of education on disease management (Jayakody et al., 2016). Policymakers on the federal and state level have developed and implemented several programs, some varying state to state, to help reduce wasteful spending while improving quality of care.