Saturday, July 4, 2009

Are Hospitalists Necessary "To Follow" Post Op?

I suggested lightheartedly that hospitalists would be required to consult for pain management on surgical patients who's doctors have never learned to prescribe anything but Percocet and Vicoden, two drugs which may have seen their last days. The conversation got off track with this anonymous subspecialist comment, but I thought it raised some important issues to discuss.

Anonymous said...

I'm curious Happy.

Don't you make a living by seeing the "Specialist's" patients?

I don't mock the internists when they send me common things that they could treat....I figure they are happy to see my general medicine patients post op.

Am I wrong?


I responded with the following:

We are all specialists. Some are more subspecialized than others. So yes, I make my living almost entirely from the referrals of out patient family medicine and internal medicine specialists.

As far as being happy to see "general medicine" patients, I don't have any idea what that means. If there is an acute issue that needs to be addressed, elevated blood pressure, abnormal blood sugar, chest pain, fever I am more than happy the evaluate patients who need a physician specialist as my self to evaluate an acute issue. This is not general medicine. This is internal medicine.

If you are asking me if I am happy to see post op surgical patients to write discharge orders, address home meds and field nuisance pages, then you must be mistaking me for someone you should be hiring to do your work for you.

No specialist as myself needs to address stable medical issues. It's one reason why 99.999999999999999999% of the world's population does not have a live in physician outside the hospital. You do not need an internist "to follow for medical management", any more than I need an orthopaedic "to follow for orthopaedic management" on a patient admitted with pneumonia but has a history of a hip fracture

I am happy to consult on medical or surgical patients when I am being asked to evaluate an acute issue. I am not needed to see a patient "to follow". If that's what you need, you should hire your own PA or NP to assist your needs. The patient certainly doesn't need me in these situations.

Oh yeah, the comment about consulting a hospitalist to write for pain management was not meant to be taken seriously.
What do you think America? Not a day goes by where I am not called for "hospitalist to follow post op". Should I be happy to see stable general medical patients post op or medical patients admitted to medical subspecialist services with no acute internal medicine issues to address? I view these types of billable encounters as bordering on insurance fraud. I am being asked to create medical necessity when medical necessity doesn't exist. It is not difficult to generate a level two or level three follow up note (2 ROS, document the status of three chronic medical conditions, review pre op lab, personally review pre op EKG, review IV PCA plan, and discuss the care plan with the nurse). Viola, a level three follow up note that meets every criteria as required by the E/M Guidelines of 1995 or 1997.

Now was it medically necessary? You tell me. I am being asked to provide a service by the physicians asking for me "to follow". A service that should fall under the subspecialist's duties and responsibilities (if they don't want to do it, they should use the profit from their bundled payments to pay someone to do it (RN, PA or NP).

Does consulting me make it medically necessary? Well, Medicare and their carriers seem to think so. No claim is ever rejected. So what am I to do? Do I say no to the physician's request? Or do I do it and submit a claim. Thus is the life of fee for service. Should I be grateful for this easy money while the Medicare National Bank goes bankrupt? I find great personal internal conflict from this type of practice that never ends. I believe I have no role in these patient's care plan. I believe medical necessity is generated by physician request where none should exist.

This is a huge area of co-management controversy in hospitalist medicine. What exactly is the role of hospitalists in patients with stable internal medicine conditions, if any?

Like I said above, patients with stable medical issues do not require a daily internists for evaluation and management any more than they require an orthopaedist to follow my pneumonia and afib patients who have a history of a hip fracture.

13 comments:

FridaWrites said...

No, patients don't need hospitalists to track stable issues. Expensive and unnecessary. Plus presumably people's regular doctors best know how to deal with long-term health issues (by virtue of knowing how someone reacts to certain medicines, for example, and family history, not some kind of knowledge other doctors don't have).

I don't know about hospital billing (at least not in terms of Medicare), but Medicare denies oxygen to people on ventilators, wheelchairs to people who already use them whose old equipment is worn out, and to new wheelchair users unless they are 100% bedbound 100% of the time(they say employment is not a medical necessity). The Medicare/Medicaid rules were intended for people who could not work or who are senior, but the travesty is that these rules have been adopted by insurance companies, and if you're really disabled, good luck. You also can never leave home if you need home health care at all--because even though a vent-dependent patient needs someone with them at all times, if you can leave your house with that attendant with all your equipment in tow and battery backup, the reasoning is that you're well enough to take care of yourself. To qualify for Medicare for people who have run out of insurance, people are required to divorce their spouses and apart from them. This puts people in nursing homes, at double the cost of home health care. Wonky system.

Off topic a bit, but outside the hospital system, I've definitely seen a lot of claims denied or indefinitely postponed.

FridaWrites said...

On pain management and hospitalists, they do often prescribe for the short-term, such as postsurgically, so I was thinking that the possible FDA ban would also have an effect there.

Steve Parker, M.D. said...

If the surgeon or medical subspecialist thinks they can't handle some aspect of the patiet's care, and it's an internal medicine problem, I'm happy to help out.

I often prevent fluid overload and DVT, and catch complications earlier than non-hospitalists.

That's worth something.

-Steve

mikkidew said...

I am a coder for 9 hospitalist and I see issues with this all the time. I find it difficult to code when all that is available is a hip fracture on a medically stable patiet with no other comorbidities. When Ortho consults bill hip fracture and when we are left with no other choice its a matter of who gets the claim there first. I dare not say that it may be an issue with not wanting to do the H&P. If that be the case then yes higher a PA who can help follow patients until they can be discharged. To ask a hospitalist to do that is putting them at risk for not getting paid due to not having a billable diagnosis.

BladeDoc said...

Trauma Surgery Dictum: A patient can be left to the sole care of an orthopedic surgeon when they will survive locked in a room for two weeks with a one week supply of food and water.

If you really believe that you'd let your "medically stable" mother with a hip fracture be taken care of by an orthopod you haven't seen the crazy electrolyte derangements, sundowning, delerium, and IM morphine (for god's sake) that the ortho's get up to in the day or so before the consult comes in. Now maybe they shouldn't get paid the full amount of the surgery that is supposed to bundle this stuff but they certainly shouldn't be encouraged to go it alone.

Anonymous said...

Sick is fine - that's why 80 year old folks with 16 diseases fall in the first place.

But asking medicine to see every diabetic post-op is no different than asking ortho to see every pneumonia because their knees ache when they walk.

Ever consult ortho for "joint management" - see what happens...

Oh - and if I find a real medical problem and manage it for you, don't change my management or I will sign off...

Anonymous said...

except that knee aches don't get worse with pneumonia. And diabetics can get very unstable in the post operative period.

Fine, wait for DKA, then call.

The Happy Hospitalist said...

I can count on one finger nail the number of post op patients I have seen go into DKA.

I have seen many post op patients get gout of the ankle. Shouldn't the ortho guys follow just in case they need an arthorcentesis?

Anonymous said...

So it is your professional belief that an acute gout attack is more likely post operatively, than unstable blood sugar in a diabetic?

Good to know....

Cranky Kong,MD said...

Post op, I write a polite "will follow as needed" note for the stable ones, then keep an eye on the labs and vital signs, eavesdrop on nurses giving report (if they're talking REALLY LOUD does that make it a HIPAA violation?) and jump back in "prn", although Sometimes the ortho guys grab me by the hair and drag me back in. Then I smile sweetly and give them a gouty knee and some dubious lower back pain. Passive-aggressive much?

Cranky Kong,MD said...

All kidding aside, though, my boss calls this type of consult "good business". Unfortunately I guess I still have some shred of idealism that calls it "fraud". Or I'm just lazy and don't really want to be bothered by all that invoicing--oops. charting.

DHS said...

happy,
1. gout is not an orthopaedic problem, it is a rheumatological problem.
2. some orthopods would be happy to follow, as in read your musculoskeletal xrays and tell you that there's a fracture. or, at least where i work, you call an ortho resident about something and they already know about it because of the xray.

Anonymous said...

If you are consulted, that doesn't mean you have to do a daily visit as you stated in your last paragraph:

"Like I said above, patients with stable medical issues do not require a daily internists for evaluation and management any more than they require an orthopaedist to follow my pneumonia and afib patients who have a history of a hip fracture."

In a world where we are definitely moving toward a socialized model, but where a discussion of true mal-practice reform is considered "off-limits" it makes sense to have the hospitalist (or someone medical) to step in and review the case to see if there are key unaddressed issues or if the chronic conditions need to be reassessed or managed more intensively due to the acute condition or surgery which landed the patient in the hospital. If things are fine, say so and sign off, or follow with a "call me if you need me now that I am familiar with this patient" approach. We used to joke in internal medicine training that the definition of a double-blind study is two orthopedic surgeons looking at an EKG. Humor aside, they do need someone to take a comprehensive look at their patients much of the time because they don't know what they don't know. I know there are some lazy sub-specialists who just want you on the case to take the pages at night or to get your referrals later, and I agree that this can be an issue. But if your conscience bothers you about following patients with a daily visit who don't need it, don't do it!