NETWORKS: Disaster preparedness. New acronyms. ECS in transplantation. Electronic cigarettes.

Disaster Response

Lessons from Orlando

The recent nightclub shootings in Orlando have forced my colleagues and I at our Level I Trauma Center to reexamine the way we do business. Our typical approach to injury involves resource-intense therapy with a gang of clinicians, while anticipating no more than one or two patients at a time. While this model is excellent for training, we would struggle with the scale of casualties seen in Orlando.

Several observations may be made internally and have been made in the press. Triage should take place prior to the emergency department so that patients are appropriately prioritized to high-intensity support. Fundamental high-impact interventions requiring simple application, such as tourniquets, should be part of the training for all medical and nonmedical first responders. Perhaps most importantly, we need to reexamine the concept that health care is provided by competing geographic and economic entities. Evolution of trauma care has “followed the money” but not necessarily the need. An approach viewing trauma care as a right and acute response as a community resource may be necessary.

In 2008, the Republican Party held its convention in St. Paul, Minn. Reports indicated that 20,000-50,000 individuals were expected to enter the city, including protesters and anarchist groups. We prepared together for events ranging from vehicular crashes to biologic agents or explosive events (Dries et al. J Trauma. 2012; 73[6]:1614). Since then, however, there has been little community-wide planning.

Orlando reminds us that we dare not leave these plans on the shelf.

David Dries, MD, FCCP

Steering Committee Member

Practice Operations

MACRA, QPP, MIPS, APM: Know these acronyms

In October 2015, Congress passed the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA). A bipartisan legislation, it replaces the flawed Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula that would have forced a 21% cut in Medicare payments to clinicians. MACRA established Quality Payment Program (QPP) that has two paths that link quality to payments: the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) or Advanced Alternative Payment Models (APMs).

MIPS streamlines three currently independent programs – (Physician Quality Reporting Program [PQRS], Value-Based Payment Modifier [VM], and Medicare Electronic Health Records Incentive Program) – into a single program in which eligible professions (EPs) will be measured on quality (50%), resource use/cost (10%), clinical practice improvement activities (15%), and advancing care information (25%). The resulting composite performance score (CPS, scale 0-100) is used to determine and apply a +/- or neutral payment adjustment based on a performance threshold. Payment adjustments will begin in 2019 (based on 2017 performance period). Most physicians will be subject to MIPS, which does not apply to hospitals or facilities.

APMs are new approaches to paying for medical care incentivizing quality and value. As defined by MACRA, APMs include CMS Innovation Center models, the Medicare Shared Saving program, and certain demonstration programs. To qualify for payments, the APMs must also use certified EHR technology, report on certain quality measures, and bear more than nominal financial risk.

Both MIPS and APMs are value-based payment models that incentivize providers on quality, outcomes, and cost containment. Most physicians who see Medicare patients will be required to report either the MIPS or Advanced APM track starting in January 2017.

Editor’s Note – See additional article on MACRA on page in this issue.

Adel Bassily-Marcus, MD, FCCP

Vice-Chair

Transplant

Extracorporeal circulatory support in thoracic medicine and surgery – evolving technology and expanding role

There is growing interest in the use of extracorporeal support (ECS) beyond intraoperative and perioperative utility. This has been driven by improvements in safety and efficacy resulting from corresponding technological advances and enhanced user ability. The paucity of donors, however, remains a significant limiting factor in lung transplantation (LT), and there is a growing number of recipients on the waiting list getting too sick for transplantation. ECS is now commonly used to bridge recipients to LT, and reported outcomes show great promise. Indeed, there is even a growing interest in combining ECS with the ex vivo reconditioning of lungs in a further attempt to broaden the donor pool.

This newly developing paradigm constitutes a confluence of contemporary technologies that should allow more marginal or previously unacceptable donor lungs to be procured and also for the use of cardiopulmonary support to bridge sicker recipients safely. As with most technologies, the prerequisite capital outlay, training, and logistical resources will be required to allow for the acquisition of skill and safety. Furthermore, these trends will likely stimulate development of standards and guidelines to ensure a continuing quest for excellence.