See the current issue of Scrubs Magazine

The Opioid Epidemic: It’s time to place blame where it belongs

Press Ganey deserves a place with their emphasis on patient satisfaction. They monetized their concept, selling not only surveys but also consulting services to help hospitals improve their scores. Unfortunately, the correlation between patient satisfaction and quality is unclear, with a study from UC Davis suggesting that high satisfaction is actually dangerous, correlating it to higher expenditures, higher rates of hospitalization and a higher risk of death. But acknowledging such literature would affect Press Ganey’s lucrative survey sales, so such studies are ignored.

CMS determined that pay for volume CMS developed the value-based purchasing program to shift from pay for volume to pay for value.  Hospitals are scored based on their performance on measures of processes of care, outcomes of care, efficiency and the patient experience. The patient experience is based on scoring on HCAHPS surveys that are sent to patients, which includes patient scoring of their satisfaction with their pain control. CMS decided that a patient’s satisfaction was as important as whether a patient developed a hospital-acquired condition or even survived their hospitalization, and weighted satisfaction at 30 percent of the overall score.

Because CMS was now attaching significant reimbursement to patient satisfaction, hospital administrators developed initiatives to improve their scores and avoid a penalty. Because only 25 completed surveys a month are required, and the difference between the 50th percentile and 90th percentile can be an absolute difference of 1 to 2 percent,  a single poor survey can have devastating effects. Administrators held physicians responsible for ensuring that every patient is completely satisfied in every way. As described in the comments section of a 2013 Forbes article entitled, “Why Rating Your Doctor is Bad for Your Health,” administrators withheld pay or bonuses. Physicians felt pressured to prescribe opioids when patients demanded them, despite their reservations about the need for opioid medications. Thomas Lee, MD from Press Ganey in JAMA stated “these (drug-seeking) patients do not respond often to surveys and thus have little influence on physicians’ overall ratings” but without any proof of such; depriving a potential drug-seeking patient who threatens to “give bad satisfaction scores” is a sure route to trouble.

CMS also tried to deflect blame in a JAMA editorial, noting, “Because some hospitals have identified patient experience as a potential source of competitive advantage, these actions can create perverse and harmful incentives to elicit positive survey responses. For example, there are reports that some hospitals link individual physician or physician group financial incentives to performance on disaggregated HCAHPS responses. This is contrary to the survey’s design and policy aim.” If so, why did CMS not address this in 2013, when the Forbes article provided ample evidence that hospitals were using the surveys in such a way? A notice to hospitals forbidding the use of HCAHPS as a punitive measure would have gone a long way to empowering doctors to say “no” to patients demanding opioids.

Of course placing blame will not fix the current problem but neither will asking for the resignation of the governor of Michigan, but those responsible for this crisis need to be held accountable. I call on Congress to hold hearings and compel the top executives from Purdue Pharmaceutical, the Joint Commission, Press Ganey, and CMS and hospital administrators to appear and testify as to their role in this national epidemic. Blame must be placed; it is the American way.

Pages: 1 2 View All

SEE MORE IN:
, , , ,

Scrubs Staff


By

Post a Comment

You must or register to post a comment.

4 Responses to The Opioid Epidemic: It’s time to place blame where it belongs

  1. PsychRN24

    The opioid epidemic effects everyone. There needs to be education to all medical staff: students, residents, att endings, nurses, and administration. This epidemic has drastically changed our patient population.

  2. jwl

    One of the consequences of this “epidemic” is that patients with legitimate, significant, chronic pain are forced to navigate a difficult system in order to obtain effective pain management. Achieving a diagnosis and a pain management plan requires visits to a primary care physician, referral to a pain management clinic, and various tests, including psychiatric or psychological assessments, imaging studies, and laboratory evaluations. Many pain management physicians and/or clinics focus on interventional management, particularly if the problem originates in the spine. Medical management is considered only if these methods are no longer effective or not effective at all. Then once a medical management regimen is chosen, the specific regimen starts at the lowest dosage and it may take a prolonged time for optimal pain relief to be achieved. Opiod medication can be prescribed for one month at a time, and the patient must be seen at the pain clinic to receive a written prescription, must sign a contract, and urine-testing may be required to rule out use of other drugs. Some practitioners are reluctant to increase the dosage or frequency of the medication despite increasing levels of pain and decreased pain relief achieved. The current system poses a significant barrier to pain patients who would like to travel. I am retired and my husband and I are attempting to travel throughout the USA in an RV. The need to receive the necessary medication to manage my pain has been extremely frustrating and has limited our travel. Healthcare professionals need to remember that not everyone who requests pain medication is an abuser, and there are some patients who must have pain management to be able to function. It would also be wise for the healthcare professionals to keep in mind that pain “management” is not pain “relief”. I have not had a pain-free day in over 10 years; that constant pain and a complicated and punitive system is sometimes too much to bear.

    • Maplessharon

      I totally agree. As a pain patient my goal is my pain controlled at a level I can function. I have not had a pain free day for years. I have had multiple procedures, surgeries and have tried many medications. My pain doctor won’t give me the number of pills I need each month so I must ration them and wait beyond the pain level at which they would be most effective in order to save them. Thus is the life of a chronic pain patient.

  3. leeRN42

    Perfectly said! We hear evidence based practice is best, we hear about validating new processes before deploying, but it is thrown out the window at the highest levels if it will initially safe a buck (even if it will cost over a 100 later). If a pt. or family member indicates dissatisfaction with noise levels at night, the comment is highlight in red and emailed to all staff regardless of the situation (ex. pt. next door coded and 10 staff members were trying to revive the pt – seriously pt. awakened complained). Were we suppose to move the pt. down the hall before starting the code? Pt. dissatisfied because 9 pm meds were given at 10:30 pm, negative comment will likely show up in email in a couple of weeks. With less reimbursements comes less RNs and aids … which means longer waits and more evenings of 1 RN to 5 patients (which EBP has proven can be harmful).

shares