For most physicians, HR 4302, federal legislation signed into law on April 1, 2014, was important because it delayed until March 1, 2015 drastic SGR-imposed cuts to Medicare physician payments. While many people are wondering what the next chapter of that saga will bring as the deadline approaches, tucked away in Section 218 of HR 4302 is another provision that could have far-reaching effects on daily orthopaedic practice: a Medicare requirement tying payment for advanced diagnostic imaging to appropriate use criteria (AUC).
That section of the legislation requires providers who order advanced diagnostic imaging for Medicare patients—such as CT and MRI—to consult physician-developed AUC, and document such consultation, beginning on January 1, 2017. Beginning on January 1, 2020, 5% of the ordering clinicians deemed to be “outliers” will be subject to a prior-authorization requirement.
In the meantime, the bill requires the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to issue rules for imaging AUC, “developed or endorsed by national professional medical specialty societies or other provider-led entities,” no later than November 2015. It also directs the Health and Human Services Secretary to identify, by April 1, 2016, clinical decision-support tools to help physicians navigate the appropriateness criteria.
The goal of appropriateness criteria is to encourage clinicians to practice evidence-based medicine for improved patient outcomes and to use limited healthcare resources more efficiently. But, like any “administrative” task appended to already-complex medical practices, AUC for diagnostic imaging are controversial.
To find out more about the development of imaging AUC and what this pending requirement might mean for orthopaedists, OrthoBuzz recently spoke with three experts:
David Jevsevar, MD, MBA, chair of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons’ (AAOS) Committee on Evidence-Based Quality and Value and vice-chair of orthopaedics at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center
Alexandra Page, MD, chair of the AAOS Health Care Systems Committee and an orthopaedic surgeon at Kaiser Permanente
From these interviews, three themes emerged:
- The need for collaboration among radiologists and orthopaedists in developing imaging AUC
- The potential benefits of imaging AUC
- The need for imaging AUC to be as user-friendly as possible
Development through Collaboration
The AAOS has a comprehensive process for developing AUC, but collaboration with other specialty societies is essential. Ideally, AUC are developed from a peer-reviewed evidence base, but such evidence is not always available.
Dr. Jevsevar: As much as we want AUC to be “evidence based,” there’s not a whole lot of imaging-related evidence out there. Ordering a plain radiograph of a patient who presents with symptoms of knee osteoarthritis seems self-evident and is diagnostically useful, but there’s no published evidence to support the practice. Consequently, most of the AUC already in use are based on a consensus methodology.
Dr. McGinty: The ACR’s AUC are evidence-based when there is evidence and consensus-based when there’s not. We also constantly revisit AUC in light of new evidence. When necessary, our AUC committees deploy “rapid response teams” to make sure guidelines are updated quickly and accurately.
Over the last 20 years the ACR has developed AUC for many clinical scenarios, and the process has always involved collaboration with other relevant specialties. The 24 musculoskeletal AUC that we already have established were developed in collaboration with physicians from the AAOS. Collaboration is essential because the evidence from which AUC are developed has to be representative of the specialty that’s going to use them.
Dr. Page: Cross-specialty collaboration among physicians allows us to be stronger negotiators with CMS and other large entities. My interactions with the ACR have always been with people more interested in how we can work together than in the “territorial” issues.
At Kaiser, we also collaborate with primary care doctors to establish AUC for musculoskeletal and other imaging. For example, we agree that advanced imaging is not appropriate in a primary care setting for an initial presentation of routine low back or knee pain. Collaboration helped make this an educational experience rather than an adversarial one.
Dr. Jevsevar: With imaging, interdisciplinary input is necessary for developing AUC because we all see patients through our own lenses. AAOS representation on the ACR working groups to develop AUC ensures that both perspectives are represented. The AAOS has also successfully collaborated with primary care specialties to develop AUC for diagnosis and initial treatment of distal radius fractures, osteochondritis dissecans, and knee osteoarthritis.
The putative benefits of imaging AUC fall into two main areas: improved patient outcomes and lower health-system costs.
Dr. McGinty: Institutions and health systems that have already implemented imaging AUC have shown that they reduce costs to the system, including costs related to unnecessary imaging. We also expect that patient outcomes will improve due to decreased complications from inappropriate surgery.
Dr. Jevsevar: Imaging AUC will also help physicians measure themselves transparently. It will help identify outliers who order more imaging studies than necessary. But instead of a punitive response to that, we’re aiming for an educational response: Why is someone an outlier, and what education can we provide so that person can change behaviors?
Dr. Page: The collaborative process of developing AUC in and of itself makes us better clinicians and more empowered to provide better patient care.
All three experts whom we interviewed insisted that imaging AUC will have to be seamlessly integrated into usual clinical workflows. Extra steps that are not “automatic” will be received unhappily.
Dr. McGinty: The user-friendliness of the platform is key. Ideally, AUC filters would be embedded into the EHR system so they are seamless to the clinician. Even better would be systems that automatically track clinician adherence to AUC for reporting purposes. But for all that to happen, there will have to be ongoing collaboration with EHR vendors.
Dr. Jevsevar: Any process that’s onerous will not be good for anybody. If a procedural step is pushed to doctors, they’ll be more likely to perform it than if they have to go out and get it. I like the AAOS AUC app, but even consulting that requires an additional step. I envision an EHR-based AUC tool that will initially block a doctor from ordering an imaging study that’s not “appropriate.” Or an embedded pop-up message will remind a doctor who’s about to order an MRI or CT in a specific clinical scenario what the evidence base says.
Having said that, even if AUC are seamlessly integrated into the EHR, I don’t think they should be unreasonably rigid. Almost all practice guidelines assume a “routine patient.” But we often see patients who are not routine, so AUC need to allow for flexibility. We’re all trying to find the right balance between providing the best care at the population and system levels and at the same time delivering the best patient-centered care to each individual.
It would be an understatement to suggest that the practice of medicine has changed during the past ten years. Indeed, every physician can think of a number of things that have impacted his or her practice. However, among the positive changes that have affected how we treat patients, evidence-based medicine ranks high on the list.
Evidence-based medicine has been defined as “the integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values.” Those who support evidence-based medicine note that it will prevent the bias that exists among health-care professionals who frequently base clinical decisions on custom and practice. Hence, the growth of evidence-based medicine along with the desire among clinicians to reduce variations in health-care delivery has had an important and positive impact on health-care practice and policy. Simply stated, the principles of evidence-based medicine serve as a means of decreasing variation in health-care delivery and improving patient outcomes.
The history of evidence-based medicine is interesting and is well covered in the article by David Jevsevar in the September 2014 issue of JBJS Reviews. Concepts and terms are defined, and the findings of research on health-care disparity are discussed. Clearly, the randomized controlled trial (RCT) has become the so-called gold standard in research methodology because of its ability to minimize confounding between patient groups. However, Dr. Jevsevar notes that there are concerns regarding the use of RCTs in the practice of medicine, including their expense as well as the time required for patient recruitment, data analysis, and study completion. As a result of these costs and challenges, most RCTs are now funded by industry, raising concerns about the potential external sources of bias.
This article also touches on other important concepts related to evidence-based medicine in clinical practice policy, such as the propagation and control of conflicts of interest, shared decision-making between physician and patient, and the development of best-practice applications to address the individual needs of and risks to each patient. Finally, it is apparent that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) that was signed into law on March 23, 2010 introduces important and vast changes in access to the U.S. health-care system. Designed to address the unsustainable growth in federal spending and the depletion of the Medicare trust fund that is predicted to occur by 2026, this legislation represents an attempt to “bend the cost curve” by showing the increase in annual health-care expenditures. It further makes the point that the absence of an essentially controlled U.S. health-care system creates a potentially large research laboratory promoting study opportunities to investigate the delivery of high-quality, evidence-based care. Thus, the opportunity for orthopaedic surgeons to become advocates for their patients, to take a leading role in shaping the future of evidence-based medicine, and to do so in a way that generates costs that our nation can afford presents a real opportunity to positively shape the future of orthopaedic practice.
Thomas A. Einhorn, MD, Editor, JBJS Reviews
According to the orthopaedic surgeon edition of Kantar Media’s Website Usage & Qualitative Evaluation study, JBJS.org ranks hands down as the #1 orthopaedic site that surgeons visit most often and spend the most time on. The Kantar study evaluates the opinions of orthopaedic surgeons on 29 professional websites, including 8 orthopaedic sites. Not only does JBJS.org rank number 1 among the other 7 orthopaedic sites in frequency of visits (4.7 times/month), the website ranks first among all 28 sites evaluated in terms of time per session (20.31 minutes). Additionally, JBJS.org ranks #1 in delivering quality clinical content and keeping surgeons informed of the latest practices and procedures. JBJS ties for first place in the category of information on drugs, devices, or professional services. Also noteworthy is the fact that JBJS Reviews, a new online review journal from JBJS launched in November 2013, has already taken over third place in time spent and number of site visits.
JBJS Webinar Series
JBJS has held multiple live webinar events on a wide variety of topics, and we are pleased to announce the expansion of the JBJS Webinar Series in 2014. Each webinar has proven to be a successful tool in educating, informing and engaging orthopaedic surgeons around the world. In 2014, JBJS is continuing this educational program through a new series of interactive online events.
Our webinars bring together groups of authors to present recently published scientific research and data, and they include commentary from guest experts. Live Q&A sessions follow the author and commentator presentations to provide the audience with the opportunity to further explore the concepts and data presented. Webinars continue to be available on-demand for several months after the event.
AVAILABLE ON-DEMAND (Previously Recorded Events)
Total Knee Arthroplasty Critical Decision Making: Socioeconomic and Clinical Considerations (June 10, 2014) – Moderated by Charles R. Clark, MD
Panelists/Authors: Kevin J. Bozic, MD and Thomas S. Thornhill, MD
Commentators: Daniel J. Berry, MD and Kevin Garvey, MD
Preventing Arthroplasty-Associated Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) (May 12, 2014) – Moderated by Thomas A. Einhorn, MD
Panelists/Authors: Clifford W. Colwell Jr, MD and John T. Schousboe, MD
Commentators: Vincent Pellegrini Jr, MD and Jay Lieberman, MD
Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Reconstruction (March 5, 2014) – Moderated by Mark Miller, MD
Panelists/Authors: Freddie Fu, MD and Christopher Kaeding, MD
Commentators: Brett Owens, MD and Darren L. Johnson, MD
Adhesive Capsulitis/Frozen Shoulder (December 2013) – Moderated by Andrew Green, MD
Presented in conjunction with the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy.
Panelists/Authors: George Murrell, MD, Martin J. Kelley, DPT, Jo Hannafin, MD, PhD, and Philip W. McClure, PT, PhD
Periprosthetic Joint Infection (October 2013) – Moderated by Charles R. Clark, MD
Panelists/Authors: Kevin J. Bozic, MD and Craig J. Della Valle, MD
Commentators: Javad Parvizi, MD, FRCS, and Geoffrey Tsaras, MD, MPH
Measuring Value in Orthopaedic Surgery (September 2013) – Moderated by James Herndon, MD
Panelist/Author: Kevin J. Bozic, MD
Commentators: David Jevsevar, MD and Jon J.P. Warner, MD
Editor, JBJS Reviews: Thomas A. Einhorn, MD