January 31, 2010

Crook Post

My All PT’s are Crooks satirical post generated some comments and caused an overload to my email inbox.  The overwhelming response was positive and most found humor in it. Many shared with me interesting and compelling stories of their experiences with many of the issues addressed in the post.

My writing is a product of my own conclusions and based in large part on the increasing regulatory trend as well as more emphasis on coding and compliance training rather than evidence-based practice. The genesis of it has been influenced by discussions with private practice PT’s , comments and interpretation on various listserves, articles in our journals, presentations, participation in last years public Rothstein debate, and my work in practice management where fear over these issues are palpable.   Some of the issues (e.g. can’t open up our practice act), I have heard for 25 years.  My recent exposure to what is going on in California with PT’s caving to their state’s largest payor out of fear and the arguments that I have been hearing out of New York to PT’s who are trying to make positive changes in their practice act took me over the edge.  Let’s not forget the most obvious-this is a blog where opinions are openly shared and comments are invited.

Let me first be clear as to what the post was NOT. It is not an indictment against any individual person, CE course, company, product, or association.  The issues are an amalgamation and a reflection of what I see in practice and my concerns regarding significant over regulation and what it is doing to patient care-reducing us to technicians which ultimately is resulting in downward reimbursement rates and making private practice viability a real concern.

It is clearly the responsibility of PT’s to know “rules”. Furthermore, it is incumbent on them to not only follow them but to have systems in place that assure compliance.  On this level, it is akin to college coaches following NCAA guidelines-may not like the “rules” but they have to be obliged. It is understandable that there many courses, consultants, attorneys, and experts in this arena.  In my practice environment, we have created a “Dummies guide to medicare” complete with a quiz and annual training including corporate compliance and discussions regarding coding and billing examples.  We take the philosophy of embracing compliance as a method of improving care but do so in an unintimidating and fun environment.  Scaring PT’s and staff doesn’t benefit anybody and I have personally seen tense and intimidating environments where I believe there is too much emphasis on this stuff.  I do believe that compliance and some regulations are important cogs of the system-but further believe that the pendulum has gone grossly overboard.  For those that cry out for more regulation because of widely publicized fraud cases, they need to be reminded that in almost every case there was deliberate and malicious intent to violate the laws.  I believe that almost all PT’s want to do the right thing.

It is my further contention that the cumulative impact of all of these “rules” has caused a practice environment that I would describe as “scared” since there are way too many of them and they are often at odds with licensure and even more often conflict within different payors-thus causing more and more time to be spent discerning.  While I understand the “default” portion to just “follow medicare rules on all patients”, I think that is a disturbing trend.  All of this results in significant time in over documentation, time calculation, and coding interpretation that takes away from patient care. I would invite you to view a presentation that I first saw at TED last year by Barry Schwartz who powerfully argues how often rules fail us.  This point was driven home to me recently when I was reminded by medical providers how liberating their experience in oversees medical missions where they are unbounded by onerous regulations. 

The unintended consequence and overall impact of all this has transitioned our practice to an arbitrary salary cap, a “billable” minute service time unit that is incredibly restricting, and an on-going reduction in the ability of a PT to use their professional judgment at the same time that PT’s are now going to school for 7 years and receiving a doctorate (keep in mind that outpatient PT is less than 1% of the medicare budget) .  We have published in a previous post through the use of independent benchmark data that shows if a practice saw 100% medicare patients that the max earnings on a PT is about 70k.  Can you imagine what it is in states where routinely the reimbursement is about 60% of medicare?  States that are the most regulated (sorry New York) also have the lowest reimbursed rates. I don’t think this is coincidental but the accumulation of devaluing our services and reducing them to a set of “do’s and don’t’s”.  I don’t know of any “doctoring profession” that takes away the ability to use discretion and professional judgment the way we do in PT.   My colleagues in NY tell me that the average PT has to see 16–25 patients per day without the use of extenders to remain viable. Isn’t that a little concerning on quality care? Many in that state are adamant that they should not “true up” their practice act with the model practice act or with essentially all other states which allow for extenders.  Their claim is that this is unbecoming of a PT to use support personnel, demeaning to the profession, and other emotional arguments that at the end of the day basically reflect that PT’s are incapable of using their brains and use of discretion concerning clinical reasoning, delegation, supervision, and direction of services.  Isn’t it at least a little odd that in environments like the military and sports medicine, where direct 3rd party reimbursement is not of concern and outcome is of most critical importance that they liberally use support personnel under the direction of a PT (and those environments have a very high percent of board certified specialists, published research, and residency trained PT’s) .  We are seeing great examples of PT’s teaching rehabilitation techs in Haiti right now of basic procedures and interventions since there are clearly not enough PT’s to go around such devastation.  Do the same PT’s that think PT’s should never use extenders likewise see these unlicensed rehab techs as demeaning to our profession?

Some further examples of practices paralyzed in their attempt to follow the rules:

PT’s who don’t bill for all they do under the mistaken view that that they are being “nice” or not at risk for compliance problems. 

Applying medicare's superimposed rules to all payors and believing that all care has to be 100% direct on one one between a licensed PT or PTA and a patient (by the way, if that is your belief that is fine but please stop telling everybody who doesn’t follow your belief that they are not ethical)

On non-medicare patients, not using support personnel on any aspect of patient care because of the mistaken belief that AMA CPT codes don’t allow it and that the codes trump state practice acts and licensure

Counter-intuitive definitions for things like “group therapy” including bizarre scenarios of what you have to bill when you have a medicare and a non medicare patient having overlapping times

Not billing manual therapy if it is less than 8 minutes

State associations not trying to make modifications to their practice acts under the very strange belief that opening them puts them at risk for losing certain privileges

If my crook satire post results in PT’s being less “scared” in their clinic environment, charging for exactly what we do, not signing contracts below cost, and creates movement towards ending further regulation and rolling back existing ones that impair patient care then it will have been successful.  Judging by the many emails that it did in fact both strike a nerve and made people laugh, I deem it already successful!  We should deliberate and debate these issues openly in the hopes that it drives real change.

Lastly, I obviously don’t believe that all PT’s are crooks.  Like any profession, there is a very small minority that ignore the rules and an even smaller minority that blatantly practice against them and commit fraud. I don’t think it is helpful for the overwhelming majority of PT’s who follow “the rules” to get more “rules” simply because of the vocal minority.  We have “regulation fatigue” and should be resisting further changes and fighting to ratchet back the many we currently have.

thoughts?

larry@physicaltherapist.com

January 27, 2010

All Physical Therapists are Crooks-My New Business

I have decided to start a new business.  It’s sole purpose is to incite fear in the minds of physical therapists so that they will buy my services. It’s a proven business model.  Here is my plan:

I will offer a coding and compliance course for PT’s throughout the U.S. which of course is necessary cause PT’s are too stupid to know how to read coding and compliance manuals.  Since they are too stupid to read the manuals, I will convince them that they are crooks who don’t follow the rules.

I will then:

Repeat often and to everyone that all PT’s are crooks

Cite as evidence that “all PT’s are crooks” my experience in working with insurance companies and the government and discovering fraudulent documentation and coding 100% of the time.   I will make the claim that the greatest rise in state penitentiaries is PT incarceration for not following the rules

Detail malicious fraudulent cases as evidence that all PT’s are crooks even though the acts were pre-meditated and included things like billing dead people.  I will convince PT’s that they have to attend my workshop which I will further by appearance act as though my position is “endorsed” by PT national association and all states

Frequently remind and confuse PT’s that they are stupid by saying things like “this isn’t just a medicare rule, it is CPT code definition”

Further implore PT’s that if they have any support personnel working in the clinic that are in visual site of a patient that they are more crooked than all the other PT crooks

Have a website with a Q and A section that will further confuse with big words, clinical coding examples, and wild claims that can be interpreted different ways adding to confusion and paralysis

Further remind PT’s that their “doctoring” profession and “autonomy” vision, and state/model practice acts are nice statements but impractical and meaningless. The real manual for physical therapy is CPT codes, medicare rules, and compliance manuals whose sole purpose is to prevent any use of judgment and thought. If a PT has to think, it will be fraudulent thought so let’s not put them in that position.

Educate PT’s that whether they like it or not they are billeable minute employees on a salary cap determined by RBRVS (will also show the calculation of RBRVS as a differential equation that PT’s can never figure out)

Hand out a chart that they can post of 8 minutes added to 15, 30, 45, and 60 since PT’s are too stupid to calculate for themselves and remind them that 8 minutes applies to all payors

Boldly state to PT’s that even though a PTA degree is 2/7ths of a DPT, that in the eyes of the federal government they are synonymous

Warn the private practice PT’s (who clearly are the biggest crooks) that they have to sign contracts below their costs or they will violate the newest update to the PT Ethics 2.0 and risk losing their license. 

Hold out as example the New York State Practice Act out as the “gold standard” since extenders are not allowed. If asked why the state that is the most regulated has the lowest reimbursement of about $55 per visit, I will remind them that it’s because “all PT’s are crooks” and that the amount is way more than the soup line workers at Leavenworth which is where they will end up if they allow extenders to consume oxygen in the same facility as a patient

Warn all PT’s to NEVER OPEN UP YOUR PRACTICE ACT which is a technique that has worked for over 30 years.  If they ask “why”, don’t respond with any history or example but remind them that opening up a practice act will allow hairdressers, nail technicians, and orthopedists to steal away direct access and manipulation

Friendly mention that they have to attend my yearly seminar updates or else they will go down the road of perdition

Proudly declare that the only way you can make sure that you are not a crook is to take my coding and compliance course, hire me for consulting services, and threaten that unless you use my documentation software regardless of whether or not you have taken my course or used my consulting services that you still are a crook

 

Don’t bother to wish me luck in this new endeavor as the model is already working-I just want to monetize it-beats $55 a visit in NY

larry@physicaltherapist.com

December 13, 2009

As The Older Adult Population Grows, Are Physical Therapists Ready?

3211554547_5907907ac5A large part of what we do as physical therapists is design programs to fit the individual needs of a patient.  I am very sure a lot of thought is put into the design of the program to be implemented to improve the function of the older adult we are treating.  I am also willing to bet that 75% or more of the time some type of strengthening exercise is included in the individualized program.  I assume this because muscle weakness is a normal part of the aging process.  The rate of strength loss occurs at about 1-5% annually after the age of 30 (Lindel, 1997).

I wonder... how much thought is put into the strengthening exercises?  How do physical therapists determine the intensity of the strengthening activity?  Do physical therapists rely on the results of manual muscle testing?  If the patient has a strength grade greater than fair, how does a physical therapist determine the workload for strengthening?  What do physical therapists think when a muscle grade of 5/5 is found during muscle testing?  Does a 5/5 muscle grade really mean the patient will perform "within functional limits?"  Did you know that the leg strength required to rise from a chair without using the upper extremities is about 40-47% of a person's body weight (Eriksrud & Bohannon, 2003)?

If you have a habit of strapping on a 2# ankle cuff weight on an older patient and then asking for however many repetitions of a knee extension movement pattern, ask yourself why?  Before you begin any strengthening activity, really try to perform a baseline assessment.  If your older patients are not performing exercises at 60% or higher of a 1 repetition maximum, ask your self why.  This is the intensity required to improve strength and function.  Sure, there are definite times when you don't want the patient even near the 60% or higher intensity level - like when they are learning the movement pattern (i.e. learning to control the movement, the speed of the movement, and the direction of the movement).  It probably doesn't take more than a couple of sessions for the control and correct movement patterns to happen.  Once the pattern is performed correctly and safely, it is time to increase the resistance of the activity.

Dale Avers, PT and Marybeth Brown, PT collaborated and wrote a White Paper on Strength Training for the Older Adult.

Are you demonstrating ageism?  Do you believe older adults are frail and will not respond to strengthening activities?  Do you fear they will injure themselves if exercising at 60% of 1 repetition maximum?

photo by KayVee.INC via Flickr

~Selena

November 03, 2009

Wait & See, Neck Collar Or Physical Therapy for Cervical Radiculopathy?

What to do for neck and arm pain that started within the last 30 days?  Drum roll... which will it be the a) just wait and see what happens, b) the semi-hard collar (Cerviflex S, Bauerfeind)  which has 6 sizes to snuggly fit necks of all sizes, or c) physical therapy?  The winner is.... the Cerviflex S semi-hard collar!

NeckPainOverTime

In this century of effectiveness and effectiveness studies.... What a spectacular day for people who have cervical radiculopathy - just strap on a snug fitting semi-soft neck collar and life will be fabulous within 6 weeks!

I was fearful of these types of studies because the devil is in the details and as a whole, we are lazy.  Which is more realistic?  Read an abstract and believe the conclusion OR read the full study and reflect and think?  I'm betting most will read the abstract and believe the conclusion.

I liked that the subjects seemed to be a homogeneous group.  I like the fact that the same collar was consistently used.  I don't like not knowing psychosocial factors.  I really don't like the description of what physical therapy intervention was provided.  "Physiotherapy with a focus on mobilising and stabilising the cervical spine was given twice a week for six weeks, by certified physiotherapists who participated in the study. The standardised sessions were "hands off" and consisted of graded activity exercises to strengthen the superficial and deep neck muscles."  

Current literature indicates that manual intervention and exercise are key components for a successful outcome with various types of patient complaints.  Standardized sessions that are hands off do not meet the requirements of evidence.  The design of the study capturing the interventions provided by physical therapists really wasn't up to speed on the existing evidence on how physical therapists treat patients with cervical radiculopathy. 

It's a sad, sad day when the physical therapist involved in the design of the physical therapy intervention wing of a study didn't incorporate evidence into the treatment protocol.  I really have a problem with the design of the standardized physical therapy sessions!  Where was the evidence for the protocol?

So, the big question... which payer will see the abstract... which payer will deny payment for physical therapy services because physical therapy services are not cost effective and a neck collar will "effectively" take care of the patient's cervical radiculopathy?

~Selena

November 01, 2009

Halloween and the Bundling Flaw

489493589_78ff9531d4 Larry gave me the most excellent idea.  Bundling the Cost of Care got me thinking about the future.

Last night was my initiation as a physical therapist gone negotiator!  I was 100% successful in acquiring THE largest pieces of chocolate candy (or whatever choice I wanted) out of the bucket!  In some cases, the whole bucket of candy was just handed to me!  (I was polite every time and smiled and said, "thank you.")

I am so ready to be at the service of any physical therapist that has to negotiate with some large hospital system for the payment of physical therapy services provided by an independent physical therapist.  Trust me, as your negotiator, I know how to walk quietly and carry a big stick.  Your company will survive this change; you and your family will survive this change.  I know you have to put food on the table and eat.  Call me and make my day... I am so ready to negotiate for you!

Physical therapists in independent practice really can't negotiate AND treat patients.  Consumers really should have quick access to physical therapists no matter where they practice; consumers should have the freedom to choose their physical therapist.  Seriously now... Larry didn't get any responses.  My humor won't solve the issue.  Really though, will the next growing field in the future be physical therapist gone negotiator? 

photo by dunechaser via Flick

~Selena

October 30, 2009

The Results of One Court Case Will Affect the Nation

Is an orthopaedic surgeon a "qualified health care provider" with regard to providing physical therapy services?

According to the Kentucky Supreme Court, yes, an orthopaedic surgeon can provide physical therapy services and is a qualified health care provider. What can I say? Over the last 6 years, the case went through the whole darn court system and a final ruling occurred in the Kentucky Supreme Court. The result... since section (1) proviso allows orthopaedic surgeons the authorization to provide physical therapy services, but since section (3) disallows the orthopaedic surgeon from referring to the services as physical therapy either directly or indirectly - an "absurd" situation is created. Apparently, the General Assembly wanted the statute to be considered as a whole and for all pieces within the statute to be relevant. The General Assembly would not want an absurd statute.  It all comes down to it being absurd that an orthopaedic surgeon can't offer and bill for physical therapy services provided by an athletic trainer using CPT 97001 and 97002.

Personally, I find it not only absurd but also illogical that an orthopaedic surgeon would be allowed to provide physical therapy services without a physical therapist providing services.

If we put some practicality into the situation... first of all, an orthopaedic surgeon is not in the clinic every day of the week.  The "surgeon" will have 1 or 2 days (or more) per week in an operating room, right?  So, when the surgeon is operating, the surgeon really can't be supervising any physical therapy services that might be concurrently provided within the surgeon's clinic right?  We'll forget about that reality for a minute.  When the surgeon IS in the clinic, what is the surgeon doing?  If we guesstimate the surgeon has an 8 hour working day, then that means the surgeon has basically 480 minutes.  Of that 480 minutes, the surgeon will probably have 20% downtime - waiting for radiographs or MRI results or conversing with other colleagues or documenting... that leaves 364 patient contact minutes.  Approximating an average of 10 minutes of surgeon-to-patient contact, a full day would be approximately 36.4 patients.  In that full day of surgeon-to-patient contact, does it seem reasonable that a surgeon would have the time to adequately address and supervise the provision of physical therapy services being provided by an athletic trainer?

Until third party payers eliminate referral for profit situations, the Kentucky Supreme Court opinion just may create ripples across the nation substantiating the legal right for physicians to provide physical therapy services.  Until consumers care enough to compare before they seek a physical therapist for their condition, the situation won't change.

Is it possible for physical therapists to create a viral message?  Physical therapy isn't physical therapy without a physical therapist. Put the PT in physical therapy. 

What are your thoughts?

~Selena

October 28, 2009

2010 International Private Practice Business Summit!!


Larry Benz at the 2010 International Private Practice Business Summit

 

Hello!

I would like to personally invite you to the 2010 International Private Practice Business Summit on January 22-24, 2010.  The Summit is a 3-day business meeting for private physical therapy practice owners. There will be more than a dozen experts presenting on topics related to the business of physical therapy and strategies for creating high performing and prosperous world-class clinics.  This Summit will motivate, inspire and teach everything you need to know to transform your clinic into a top-notch, competitive, enjoyable business. 

 

I will be presenting “Clinical Excellence Begins with World Class Customer Service”  on January 22nd.  While physical therapy clinics are stressing their clinical expertise, practices with unprecedented focus on the customer experience and service excellence are gaining market share, “buzz”, and loyal repeat patients trumpeting their competition.  I will focus on the ultimate outcome of a physical therapy experience-an emotionally engaged, enthusiastic ambassador who has been impacted for life from treatment at your physical therapy clinic.   This session will give you the tools to deliver and sustain “the best” customer service experience for your patients.

 

Registration opens today, October 28.  If you register prior to November 19 you will receive an early decision maker discount.  Click here to register.  

 

Hope to see you there!

Larry

October 16, 2009

Placebo... Nocebo... Placebo... Nocebo

3737603903_2029dd935bGrowing evidence suggests patient psychosocial factors matter.  A few variables we definitely know about - the effects of depression or the effects of fear and anxiety for someone with low back pain.  I'd extrapolate that data and assume a score indicating low confidence on the Activity-specific Balance Confidence Scale would suggest someone has a fear of falling and that fear could be limiting function.  Why do we care about these psychosocial factors?  Obviously these factors are relevant in our treatment interventions and are even becoming relevant in predicting outcomes of our interventions.

I just recently read a couple of articles about two concepts at opposite ends of a spectrum.  On one end, there is nocebo.  The concept of nocebo really isn't something that just happens in randomized controlled drug trials.  Physical therapists deal with nocebo every day.  It seems to me nocebo is the self-prophetization of patients. Think about it using diagnostic testing as a focus.  The actual action of having a diagnostic procedure is not a bad thing, really, it's just a procedure.  The result of the procedure is a report.  The report is just a factual summary of findings.  It's what happens next that creates issues.  The not knowing; the fabrication of a "story" that happens in a patient's brain; the interpretation of that "story"; the perception of how that "story" affects the patient's life... and then the behavioral choices - consciously or subconsciously that will happen because of perceptions.  The patient just does this - it just happens.  Sometimes though, medical professionals through their actions and communications can solidify the "story."  You may not know it, but as a physical therapist, you spend quite a bit of time unraveling nocebo and altering perceptions and brain "stories." 

The other end of the spectrum is placebo.  Physical therapists should harness this concept and use it to the fullest.  I'd be interested in seeing the full text of the linked study.  What we communicate and how we communicate is highly relevant and important.  The linked study definitely suggests physiological change could really occur in the spinal cord with manual intervention.  (Physical therapy research has hinted and theorized this, but this is the first study I've seen that does give some verification to what has been proposed.)  I'm willing to bet if a different study was performed with a physical therapist performing a manual intervention there would be two equally important variables.  Obviously, the manual intervention is one component, but the other component would be the prior communication setting up a patient's expectations and perceptions. 

My thoughts:  If you hang your hat only on the placebo and don't use your window of opportunity to immediately move the patient forward to a slightly higher, active level, you've lost that power of placebo.  If you aren't aware of nocebo, the amount of change and progress will be limited.

I believe the art of what we do is the nocebo-placebo teeter-totter.  Do you notice that teeter-totter?

~Selena

photo via Flickr by lilmsmrtas

September 01, 2009

Counter Trends in Physical Therapy Practice Part Uno-Just Say "No"

While out in the world of PT-mostly private practice, I am seeing opposite trends that on the surface of things have entirely opposite outcomes.  I thought I would devote a few blog posts to them.

Trend/Counter trend #1:

Not Taking contracts below fee schedule for private insurance and taking contracts below fee schedule in worker’s comp

I have been around private practice to know the predictably irrational, genetically coded peace corps gene coupled with an unhealthy inability to say “no” has been the ruin of many PT practices.  Many PT clinics simply accept any contract offering based on the kneejerk emotional reaction that it is saying “no” to patients that need it and that physicians will get mad if we don’t take all insurances.  Others simply won’t say no, because of the “promise” of higher volume by the payor or network.  Fortunately, we have enough time at this to know that both are faulty premises the PT practice.  Physicians and ultimately patients know the long-term repercussions from seeing patients below your cost (see bankrupt airlines, internet companies, and Circuit City by way of examples). 

The more sophisticated and thriving PT practices/clinics/companies are seeing their resolve pay off in this regard.  They are trading volume for value and gaining better reputations, profitability, and quality by saying “no”.  In fact, in some markets in the US, so many practices have said no to the $50 per visit gun to their heads that the payors have had to increase their reimbursement-imagine that!

Unfortunately, an opposite trend is occurring in worker’s comp.  I call it the “Florida effect”.  While undergoing massive changes in the last several years, Florida has a state work comp fee schedule that based on review is not unreasonable for private practices coming in above medicare.  Except there’s already a market based on “limbo PT pricing” (how low can you go?).  If you want to play in work comp, you have already been accustomed to taking huge discounts and allowing the Medrisk’s and Network Synergy Group’s of the world profit by your discount supplying an illusion to carriers that PT is being managed effectively.  Erstwhile, MD practices who have PT are strong arming greater than fee schedule reimbursement in the same markets-because they can!  While concerning under any reimbursement, in worker’s comp, a patient is much more likely to access PT and they have an entirely different benefit structure than non comp.  PT has strong cost/benefit for return to work, prevention of further recordable injuries, and overall medical savings compared to the often counterparts of imaging, drugs, and surgery.

While I wouldn’t mind the Florida weather moving North often,  I am seeing this reimbursement  “effect” metastasizing into multiple states where the arbitragers of PT (those like the aforementioned who make money from the middle) are gaining market share.  They start out with variations to the following scenario:

“We represent the retired Lumberjack’s Union and want to contract you to see our patients. We know you only supply the best PT and you can continue to see our patients if you would gladly accept our contracted rate at 30% below state fee schedule.  Please fill out the standard form and if you fill it out within 72 hours we will even waive the $350 network enrollment fee.  Thank you and have a nice day.”

Unfortunately, many are signing those agreements which can only cause havoc in the marketplace and begin the limbo dance.  They claim to sign them because the rate is still “good”, “above medicare”, or “will get us all their patients”.  Yes, we have heard this before.  if you want to see the results of this, look at the number of PT clinics going out of business in Florida.

Just say “NO!”-the state fee schedules are there for a reason.


larry@physicaltherapist.com

August 19, 2009

The Real Source of Medicare's Physical Therapy Problem

For the typical readers of this blog, please breath a sigh of relief.  Physical Therapy to medicare patients delivered in a freestanding PT owned practice, outpatient rehab facility, and even the few CMS reported users still left billing “incident for service”, you are not the source of CMS therapy expenditure problems.  While it is easy to get the impression that you are wearing the CMS “bulls eye” due to the overabundance of superimposed rules, regulations, plans of care, caps, and now RAC’s, one only has to look the recently released 2007 CMS rehabilitation data to find the real culprit (fully revealed after some background and data).

The report now by a different contractor than what was in the 2006 data and prior gives us all kinds of “fun facts to know and tell” in case you get stuck at a rehabilitation trivial pursuit party.  You get spending breakdowns by setting, sex, age, and state.  If you live in AK or ND, you will be glad to know that you are in the top 2 least costly states. What setting bills the highest percent of massage? That would be hospitals.  Want to know how many PT providers per 1000 medicare part B enrollees?  5.73 if you live in Maryland and .28 in MN. Impressed yet?  How about the big surprise that there are way more females getting PT than males?

Some good, some not so good, and some interesting tidbits about the 2007 report:

-According to medicare trustees report, overall spending increased 5.7% and Part B spending 6.3% from 2006 to 2007.  The good news is that Part B PT increased slightly below 6.2% or about $190 Million to $3.2 billion.  However, overall therapy costs increased 7.5% with OT and SLP bringing in double digit increases and an overall cost of about $4.2 billion.  The change in dollars per user is probably the most useful reference point in that it adjusts of changes in patient volume from year to year.  In this regard there were actually less number of PT users in 2007 from 2006 but cost per user increased 6.1% to $836 (well below the cap!).   Unfortunately, there is an inflation of overall annual therapy cost per user of 7.9% which is above medicare inflation and is probably raising more than a little red flags to our medicare friends.  Keep in mind that in the big picture of things about 2% of medicare outpatient spending is on therapy costs which makes you wonder why in the world they aren’t paying any attention to us in the first place. 

-If you look at the CSC data from 2004 and compare it to 2007 RTI data, you will gain the perspective of the impact of various payment policies (e.g. 8 min rule, exclusive provider stuff, caps) and you will see that if the goal was to decrease spending on a per user basis, these rules worked with PT user from $864 in 2004 to $836 in 2007 for a reduction of 3.2% (not factoring inflation which would lower it more).  In fact, in aggregate (PT, OT, SLP) per user is essentially unchanged between 2004 and 2007 despite significant increase in number of users and providers.

-The number of providers for physical therapist independent practice (PTPP) increase by about 2,500 from 2006 to 2007 but increased by 11,000 between 2004 and 2007 in all likely accounting for both MD practices billing as PTPP as well as growth in private practice  MD’s billing PT “incident to service” went down again in 2007 with an aggregate loss of 21% since 2004.  Hospital number of provider went down slightly between “06 and “07 and is down 8.4% since 2004.

-Hospitals market share of outpatient PT continues to erode.  Anybody that really thinks being exempt from the cap is a competitive advantage for hospitals is hopefully not teaching any business courses.

While we can spend oodles of time on alternatives to the cap and other medicare nuisances, why not consider going after the obvious culprits of medicare spending?  If data demonstrates that one particular setting is grossly over represented with spending amounts on a per user basis, wouldn’t it make sense to focus on that setting? 

The obvious place to turn is skilled nursing (SNU).  On a per user basis, the average case is double what it is for outpatient PT independent practice!!   The per user spending for both therapy costs (and PT only as the data can be modeled) SNU is roughly $1720 per user versus $870 for PTPP!  In fact, the reason for spending increases between 2006 and 2007 is clearly the increased use of more than one discipline-guess what setting that occurred most in?  Is it reasonable to assume that patients seen for part B outpatient in a long term care facility are twice as severe as all others?  The only rational data to support some cost difference is the age of the patient is greater in SNU, however should it be double and on average exceed the cap?  While CORF is roughly the same on a per user basis, their overall number of users isn’t significant to factor into the overall analysis and CORF’s are being removed faster than auto clunkers.  Why are all medicare outpatient settings suffering due to maldistribution by essentially one setting?

I don’t really believe that SNU cases should be anywhere near twice that of private practice.  Are there reasons for this?  Does the fact that many contractors most of whom are large players in the busines get paid a % of collections for part B?  They aggressively contract against their competitors for part A SNU on a per minute basis.  Do they expect to get it back on Part B thru co-treatment and overutilization?  Do they have sophisticate systems for maximizing part B patients?  Isn’t % of collections contracts in all other settings considered a conflict of interest?

If CMS is really serious about decreasing therapy costs, they would implement separate rules and alternatives to the cap with SNU than everybody else. Why isn’t this being discussed and debated at a greater level on a national basis?  Is the long term care lobby, namely NASL that powerful politically?

Thoughts?

larry@physicaltherapist.com

Register EIM

1T Blog Subscription

Follow PhysicalTherapy on Twitter

  • Follow Physical Therapy on Twitter

Google Custom Search

1T Community

  • New Members