Experts in healthcare reimbursement and regulation,
providing customized consulting
and education services.

Training Programs

We bring the experts to you with a range of on-site education options and bootcamp style programs that teach how a firm grasp of the rules leads to operational excellence.

More information »

Audits & Assessments

Our team of specialized regulatory specialists can assist your organization in revving up your revenue cycle by auditing and assessing key processes for coding and billing.

More information »

Regulatory Monitoring

Our team is available for ongoing regulatory watchdog services that answer your questions and offer you the latest Medicare news, analysis and operational guidance.

More information »

Sep
15

HAC policy may not save Medicare much money

Email This Post Print This Post

A new study shows Medicare’s policy against paying for hospital acquired conditions (HAC) will only save the $400 billion program $1.1 million to $2.7 million.

California researchers conducted the study, according to a Wall Street Journal article. The researchers studied discharge data from California Medicare beneficiaries in 2006, looking for six conditions the authors deemed definable, according to the article. Out of the total 767,995 cases, there were 828 cases of those conditions, and 26 would have been subject to lower payments.

Although CMS officials acknowledged that projected savings are not large, they suggested the study may be “limited and speculative.” They also said the penalties have been effective in changing behavior and improving hospital care.

According to the article, there are a couple of factors that make the policy less effective, including that Medicare has to rely on hospitals reporting their mistakes. Also, the circumstances for the policy are limited. For example, if a surgeon leaves a sponge in a patient, Medicare would not pay the hospital for the removal during that stay. But if the physician discovered the sponge in a separate visit, Medicare would pay.

Leave a Reply