By Marguerite Mullaney
Unreasonable and Senseless
The cornerstone words in all rehabilitation treatment plans are reasonable and necessary. They have been the yardsticks by which our Medicare reimbursement intermediaries retroactively determine if a claim for service is covered under the Medicare A benefit or Medicare B plan. Seventeen years ago when I first walked into a nursing home and began to learn the rules for providing rehabilitation services in a Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF), reasonable and necessary were applied to every goal of each individualized treatment plan written for our patients.
I might mention, those plans were handwritten by the evaluating therapists. The goals were often agonized over to be sure they fit the reasonable and necessary parameters and could be measured should proof be needed of the final outcome. Way back in the 90’s, the therapist writing the goal was more than likely to be the person carrying it to completion. PTA’s and COTA’s were utilized as an additional resource but not the primary therapist responsible for weekly updates, monthly recertification, home evaluations, and discharge summaries. In short, they assisted the registered clinician in carrying the caseload. Then as now, Speech Language Pathologist cannot use an SLP assistant at SNF level and receive Medicare reimbursement as our PT/OT colleagues can. This means an SLP carries a caseload in much the same way he/she did almost two decades ago.
The rules changed in January 1999. The Prospective Payment System arrived! It was designed to cut Medicare waste and fraud. It was marketed as a means to control the spending at the SNF level which was rocketing out of control. Many inside the industry puffed about the system forcing ‘smaller players’ out of the market thereby cutting the ‘glut’ of skilled beds. We were being told at the time there were 1000 too many skilled beds here in Massachusetts. The extra beds were alleged to be driving up the cost of care.
I have a question: Our entire economy is based on supply and demand. Has there ever been another industry that drove the costs of services up when the supply was greater than the demand?
We are on the eve of adjustments to the reimbursement system. I’ve been told the regulations are going to get even tighter. To be honest, other than knowing rules will be added in October 2010, my knowledge of the changes are very limited. However, I feel qualified based on almost two decades practicing in SNF’s to make a prediction: Nationally based For Profit Corporations will become the primary providors of skilled care beds across the United States.
I have a second question: Large, nationally based for-profit corporations are created to make money and increase profits for their investors. Who will be paying the biggest piece of that revenue? Individuals? Private Health Insurance Companies? The US Government via Medicare/Medicaid?
I might mention here that regardless of clinical setting, the best reimbursement source for an inpatient rehabilitation stay is Medicare. Yes, the same system that was redesigned to control costs in January 1999. It is the system For-Profit Healthcare Providers want well-represented in their case mix. More than want, they rely on Medicare to make their bottom-line.
Here’s a rhetorical question for those who think I’m overstating the value of Medicare A and B to SNF’s: When was the last time anybody heard an Admission’s Director say they needed to fill more beds with Medicaid recipients?
I’ve watched over the last few years as the terms reasonable and necessary have been morphed into new packaging. Many rehab providers are using software systems that have goals listed and waiting to be plugged into an evaluation. Some software triggers the goal a therapist should pick. There are courses with watch words and buzz words to prep therapist to avoid writing an evaluation or a note with a RED FLAG. I’m a realist. I know those types of formulaic programming are a natural outcome of Intermediary Help Letters, Denials, and the dreaded RAC Audits. There is nothing wrong with giving therapists tools to practice within reimbursement guidelines.
But, something more insidious happened while I was distracted watching the major changes. A phrase entered the continuum of care very casually. In fact, it sounded like a good thing on first blush. It wasn’t until it was applied against the stark white of reality, that I truly understood the danger of the concept.
“We treat all our new admissions as ultra highs until they show us differently.”
It doesn’t sound bad. It actually captures the spirit of America. Everybody gets a fair and equal shot at their bite of the apple. Makes you think the care providers don’t pre-judge based on gender, race, sexual orientation, age, or ability. Sounds like equal protection. But, this is exactly the point where everything goes wrong.
We do an evaluation so we can pre-judge and prescribe the appropriate amount of treatment. Our recommendations are supposed to be based on what the patient is able to do during the evaluation. We must take into account their general health prior to illness, their premorbid level of daily activity, the course of their illness, their age, their family’s goals, and their own hopes for their recovery. We adjust the patient’s goals as the treatment plan succeeds or fails. Weekly notes and monthly recerts are there to keep us and the patient focused on progress, or lack thereof.
However, if the expectation walking in the door before we even lay eyes on the patient is that this very sick individual who has been in acute care for at least 3 midnights is to be able to tolerate a minimum of 35 minutes of treatment per day by 3 disciplines over 7 days with 3 hours of group time being evenly divided among disciplines, then the evaluation is completely superfluous.
Most nurses and aides and family members already know a patient cannot walk, eat, talk, or care for themselves. The therapists’ evaluation is meant to provide a means of rehabilitation and a plan of implementation. Computers are able to generate goals based on assessment data of strength/weakness. Assistants for PT/OT carry out most of the plans of care. And, now registered therapists have pretty much lost their authority to determine how much time is needed per day and how many days in a row are necessary to reach functional potentials.
I fear, we registered therapists across disciplines have just become rubber stamps for a plan of care designed, programmed, and packaged to meet the standards of a reimbursement system extracting the maximum dollar amount for care provided to any patient, regardless of their reasonable and necessary needs.
About the author
Marguerite Mullaney was born and raised in and around the Boston area. She continues to make her home in the Commonweath and rarely finds it necessary to travel beyond the 128 belt. Her undergraduate program was completed at Bridgewater State College and she attended Northeastern University for graduate school. Adult neurological disorders has been the primary focus of her clinical practice. Her vast knowledge of the field, thoughtful, pragmatic approach and incredible sense of humor have enlightened and inspired her patients, staff and colleagues for over 20 years.
Read more ›