Conference Coverage

MedPAC urges CMS to curb low-value care


 

REPORTING FROM MEDPAC

– Prior authorization, clinical decision support, provider education, altered cost sharing, and evidence review can and should be employed to reduce the volume of low-value services paid for by Medicare, according to a staff presentation at a meeting of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

At the commission’s April meeting, MedPAC staff presented data from various literature searches, noting a “substantial use of low-value services in Medicare.” For example, they found that about 20% of Virginians, across all payers, received a low-value service in 2014, while 15% of Medicaid patients and 11% of commercially insured patients in Oregon received a low-value service in 2013.

MedPAC Commission Meeting, April 6, 2018. Gregory Twachtman/MDedge News

MedPAC Commission Meeting, April 6, 2018.

Similarly, 23%-37% of Medicare beneficiaries received at least one low-value service in 2014, based on analysis of claims data, for an expenditure of $2.4 billion to $6.5 billion, although MedPAC staff said that was probably an underestimate.

“It is very hard to know at the beginning of coverage that something is going to be low value,” MedPAC commission member Kathy Buto, former vice president of global health policy at Johnson & Johnson, noted. “It may be covered for something narrow for which it is high value and then spreads. It’s important to have those kinds of tools once technologies and procedures are covered to be able to actually monitor what is going on and assess.”

But, she added, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services needs to do more to routinely reexamine its coverage decisions.

Kathy Buto, former vice president of global health policy at Johnson & Johnson Gregory Twachtman/MDedge News

Kathy Buto

“Part of the conversation needs to be about revisiting the coverage after a certain amount of time,” she said. “I think that will prompt additional evidence development. Whether it is done at the beginning where the agency says, ‘We are not going to cover this unless you give us more evidence,’ or whether it is done on an ongoing basis ... there will be greater evidence development. That is part of what’s missing.”

Ms. Buto noted that noncoverage decisions are rarely issued and suggested that “there is an opportunity for us to take a look at whether we would advise CMS to take a look at using more of those tools more aggressively.”

Pages

Recommended Reading

Cutting Edge Technology in Dermatology: Virtual Reality and Artificial Intelligence
MDedge Dermatology
Medicare Part D plans get more flexibility to make midyear changes
MDedge Dermatology
MDedge Daily News: Could gut bacteria trigger lupus?
MDedge Dermatology
Open enrollment 2018: Plan selections down slightly
MDedge Dermatology
MDedge Daily News: Antibiotic resistance leads to ‘nightmare’ bacteria
MDedge Dermatology
Health IT ‘under-users’ outnumber ‘super-users’
MDedge Dermatology
Patient advocacy groups take in millions from drugmakers. Is there a payback?
MDedge Dermatology
Pregnant women in clinical trials: FDA questions how to include them
MDedge Dermatology
MDedge Daily News: Skin disorders defeat weekend warriors
MDedge Dermatology
MDedge Daily News: Time to let more pregnant women into drug trials?
MDedge Dermatology