Skip to main content

Is hospital observation status the new pathway to frailty?


Have you noticed that your hospital is using the observation status more instead of simply admitting the patient? Three recent cases (from both a University hospital and a private hospital) have me interested in this question. It appears that this is a national trend which the American Medical Directors Association (AMDA) has apparently confirmed with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS.) Per CMS the most recent data show claims for observation care rose from 828,000 in 2006 to more than 1.1 million in 2009. At the same time, claims for observation care lasting more than 48 hours tripled to 83,183.

Observation services include short-term treatment and tests provided in the hospital to help doctors determine if the patient should be admitted for inpatient treatment and whether the patient meets the admission criteria (eg. Interqual criteria). Medicare considers observation services outpatient care, which requires beneficiaries to cover a bigger share of drug costs and other expenses than they would when receiving inpatient care, and unless patients spend at least three consecutive days as an inpatient, Medicare will not cover follow-up nursing home expenses after discharge. And while utilization review can change an admission to observation status later, an observation status cannot be retroactively changed to an admission.

While in theory observing patients instead of admission is a great idea (I don’t want my Medicare dollars paying for unneeded hospital care,) I wonder how well the inpatient criteria apply to octagenarians or nonagenarians?

In one case, a 90+ year old lady was admitted with a urinary tract infection that led to pretty significant delirium on top of her baseline cognitive impairment. But, since she kept pulling the IVs out in the ER and her delirium was not recognized, she was admitted as observation (hey no IV fluids, well she doesn’t need to be in the hospital!), and kept on observation status for three days. Remarkably, she was transferred to a Skilled Nursing Facility for rehabilitation to get stronger before it was recognized she had never had a qualifying hospitalization. She subsequently was sent back to an Assisted Living facility where she was only able to stay because her family purchased 24 hour care. Her rehabilitation was delayed by only receiving a day of therapy a week.

Two other recent cases of 90+ females with non-operative fractures who were admitted under observation and yet could not weight bear were able to receive regular therapy in a skilled facility only because they had the financial resources to privately pay.

Is it possible that despite saving the CMS money spent on hospitalization, Observational status will result in the frail elderly losing independence at home, or worse will lead to a two-tiered system where the wealthy get care and the poor do not?

Eric Tangalos, MD,CMD spoke on behalf of AMDA at a congressional briefing entitled Observation Care and Medicare Coverage of Skilled Nursing Care held on October 20th.
Dr. Tangalos recommended at the congressional briefing that observation stay should count toward the time in a hospital stay satisfying the three-day inpatient eligibility requirement for coverage of skilled nursing facility services under Medicare. I would argue that we should eliminate the three-day stay inpatient hospital requirement for the Medicare skilled nursing facility benefit altogether.

Do you have a story of a bad geriatric outcome due to observation?
What do you think?



by: Paul Tatum

Comments

ken covinsky said…
This raises some questions about what constitutes ethical and appropriate behavior by hospitals and their utilization review departments.

Many of the cases described sound appalling--cases where older patients were classified as observation, but any clinical observer would feel hospital admission was appropriate.

So why are there patients that need admission, but instead spend days on observation status?

One possible explanation is that hospital utilization review departments may be applying a revenue maximization strategy. If a utilization review department believes there is a chance that a patient's admission may be retroactively rejected by auditors, it may viewed as preferable to keep the patient under observation status. Perhaps some knowledgeable GeriPal reader can help us understand the economic implications of all of this. ie, what are the $ impacts to the hospital of admission vs observation vs Medicare denial of admission necessity.

It seems an important principle is that hospitals, including their utilization managers have a responsibility to put their patients first and $ second. If utilization review determines that there is a risk an admission will be viewed as unneeded by auditors, it should lead to one of two paths:

a) Consider whether the patient really would be better cared for at home. When this is possible, it costs less, but more importantly is better for the patient, because hospitalization induces its own set of risks for patients.

b) If the clinicians feel unsafe sending the patient home, even though the utilization review criteria suggest otherwise, it is very likely the clinicians are right.

Often the problem is that an important feature of clinical instability is not documented, or even recognized. This is an area where Geriatrics can help. As Paul notes, there is often unrecognized delirium issues or functional impairments. The solution in this case is to recognize and document these issues.

But keeping a patient in observation status for days because the clinicians believe home is not safe, but Utilization review fears auditors may say otherwise, is not appropriate.
Jessie350z said…
I am wondering how this fits into the change in Medicare reimbursement for readmission penalties for those patients who are readmitted to the hospital within 30 days of discharge? This is to start Oct. 2012. Does anyone know if this practice might be related to the change that is coming? If the patient was never admitted, but the hospital was paid for observational care, then when the patient comes back within the first month of not being admitted are they free and clear? Is this one way they may try to get around this?
Meditours said…
Meditours is committed to providing medical treatments of the highest medical standards today by world renowned surgeons performing peer reviewed procedures with high rates of success.

Count on Meditours to connect you with the most highly qualified and experienced doctors in their field. Our team of medical staff ensure that all aspects of your health are in check pre and post procedure. We perform treatments on Parkisons, Dystonia. We have experts in Plastic Surgery and Orthopaedic treatments. We also offer packages that include Ayurveda spa-like and restorative treatments

For further details go to: http://www.meditours.org/
Anonymous said…
Jesse. 350z, I am also interested in knowing if observation is being used in preparation for preventing 30 readmission penalties. In reference to eliminating the 3 day qualifying stay; I would also like to see some reform with the process of requireing a 3 day qualifying stay for skilled nursing home stays (rehab, etc.). I do have major concerns of allowing Skilled Care in nursing without at least a qualifying observation at the hospital. In my experience skilled nursing facilitihomed not need any room for additional abuse of the benefit and waste of the medicare $.
Nancy Zweibel said…
Several comments: 1. Readers may wish to know, if they do not already, that a lawsuit was filed late in 2011 by the National Senior Citizens Law Center, in collaboration with the Center for Medicare Advocacy, on this issue.

2. There is research on this issue underway at Brown University attempting to validate CMS' numbers, to describe the types of patients for whom the use of outpatient billing is significantly higher, and to attempt to estimate the financial consequences of outpatient status for patients. The data will begin to be published/presented within the next few months.

3. The use of observation status by hospitals and CMS as a financial tool is likely going to increase significantly now that CMS is putting important new penalties into place to reduce avoidable 30-day readmissions for patients with specific diagnoses. Presumably, an observation status stay is not an "admission." Therefore, someone who has an observation stay and then comes back to the hospital within 30 days and is admitted likely would fall under the "readmission" penalty.
Nancy Zweibel said…
In re: my last post:
Change last sentence to read:
"Therefore, someone who has an observation stay and then comes back to the hospital within 30 days and is admitted likely would NOT fall under the "readmission" penalty. Big change!

Popular posts from this blog

The Dangers of Fleet Enemas

The dangers of oral sodium phosphate preparations are fairly well known in the medical community. In 2006 the FDA issued it’s first warning that patients taking oral sodium phosphate preparations are at risk for potential for acute kidney injury. Two years later, over-the-counter preparations of these drugs were voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturers.  Those agents still available by prescription were given black box warnings mainly due to acute phosphate nephropathy that can result in renal failure, especially in older adults. Despite all this talk of oral preparations, little was mentioned about a sodium phosphate preparation that is still available over-the-counter – the Fleet enema.

Why Oral Sodium Phosphate Preparations Are Dangerous 

Before we go into the risks of Fleet enemas, lets spend just a couple sentences on why oral sodium phosphate preparations carry significant risks. First, oral sodium phosphate preparations can cause significant fluid shifts within the colon …

Dying without Dialysis

There is a terrific article in this weeks Journal of Pain and Symptom Management by Fliss Murtagh of King's College in London about the epidemiology of symptoms for patients with advanced renal failure who die without dialysis.  This study is important because while we know that patients with advanced renal failure have a limited life expectancy and the average age of initiation of hemodialysis is increasing, we know little about the alternatives to hemodialysis.  Specifically, we know nothing about symptoms affecting quality of life among patients who elect not to start dialysis (so called "conservative management" - is this the best label?).  This article provides a terrific counterpoint to the article in last years NEJM showing that nursing home residents who initiated hemodialysis tended to die and decline in function (see GeriPal write up here). 

The study authors followed patients with the most advanced form of chronic kidney disease (the new name for renal failu…

Survival from severe sepsis: The infection is cured but all is not well

Severe sepsis is a syndrome marked by a severe infection that results in the failure of at least one major organ system: For example, pneumonia complicated by kidney failure. It is the most common non-cardiac cause of critical illness and is associated with a high mortality rate.

But what happens to those who survive their hospitalization for severe sepsis? An important study published in JAMA from Iwashyna and colleagues provides answers and tells us all is not well. When the patient leaves the hospital, the infection may be cured, but the patient and family will need to contend with a host of major new functional and cognitive deficits.

Iwashyna examined disability and cognitive outcomes among 516 survivors of severe sepsis. These subjects were Medicare enrollees who were participants in the Health and Retirement Study. The average age of patients was 77 years.

When interviewed after discharge, most survivors were left with major new deficits in their ability to live independently. …