Loading [Contrib]/a11y/accessibility-menu.js
Loading [Contrib]/a11y/accessibility-menu.js
Skip to main content
null
J Orthopaedic Experience & Innovation
  • Menu
  • Articles
    • Brief Report
    • Case Report
    • Data Paper
    • Editorial
    • Hand
    • Meeting Reports/Abstracts
    • Methods Article
    • Product Review
    • Research Article
    • Review Article
    • Review Articles
    • Systematic Review
    • All
  • For Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • About
  • Issues
  • Blog
  • "Open Mic" Topic Sessions
  • Advertisers
  • Recorded Content
  • CME
  • JOEI KOL Connect
  • search

RSS Feed

Enter the URL below into your favorite RSS reader.

https://journaloei.scholasticahq.com/feed
Editorial
Vol. 1, Issue 2, 2020October 14, 2020 EDT

DON’T PENALIZE DOCTORS FOR USING NON-OPIOID PAIN TREATMENTS

Scott Sigman, MD,
opioidsopioid addictionopioid-sparing
Copyright Logoccby-nc-nd-4.0 • https://doi.org/10.60118/001c.17534
J Orthopaedic Experience & Innovation
Sigman, Scott. 2020. “DON’T PENALIZE DOCTORS FOR USING NON-OPIOID PAIN TREATMENTS.” Journal of Orthopaedic Experience & Innovation 1 (2). https:/​/​doi.org/​10.60118/​001c.17534.
Save article as...▾
Download all (2)
  • Figure 1
    Download
  • Scott A. Sigman, MD
    Download

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

If this problem reoccurs, please contact Scholastica Support

Error message:

undefined

View more stats

Abstract

The opioid crisis forced policymakers to acknowledge that people in pain need diverse treatment options. They need safe and effective non opioid treatment plans created thoughtfully with both doctor and patient input. Policymakers can and must do better to prevent opioid addiction

The proposal is tucked away in a publication from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services about a seemingly unrelated issue – how physicians are reimbursed for Medicare Part B drugs. These are medications typically injected or infused in a physician’s office or in surgical settings.

The change that the agency suggests could severely limit the use of opioid alternatives due to cost issues.

The policy would combine different types of drugs into a single lump group for payment purposes. One type of drugs, called 505(b)(2) for their description in the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, are innovative and higher cost. These are drugs that build on the research used to approve past medications, meaning that they offer new technology but at a quicker pace than medications created from scratch. The other drugs in this lump group are primarily generics with much lower costs.

The proposal would reimburse physicians and surgery centers based not on the cost of the medication their patient actually uses but on the average cost of the entire group of drugs.

If a doctor administers a 505(b)(2) medication but gets paid based on the average cost of primarily generic medications, he or she will not be able to recoup the entire cost of the medication used. Some doctors may take the loss so patients can get the treatment they need. Others simply cannot if they are to continue paying staff, overhead costs and keeping their practices financially viable.

Part B drugs already present a financial challenge for doctors. They often require special storage and handling, as well as supervision or direct administration. This adds cost. On top of that, doctors frequently pay upfront for Part B drugs through what’s known as “buy and bill.” They purchase the drugs ahead of time, assuming the cost burden based on their estimate of future patient need. It can be an expensive guessing game.

Figure 1
Figure 1

How does all this relate back to pain?

Many of the innovative drugs that have, and continue to, offer patients alternatives to opioid-only pain treatment are categorized as 505(b)(2). These are treatments like injected steroids for chronic pain and non-opioid alternative medications used for post-surgical pain. They are the very medications that offer patients personalized opioid free pain management that’s safe and effective. As I look toward the future, I anticipate other pain treatments will also be 505(b)(2).

But if the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services implements what amounts to a financial penalty for using them, their availability may soon become limited.

The opioid crisis forced policymakers to acknowledge that people in pain need diverse treatment options. They need safe and effective non opioid treatment plans created thoughtfully with both doctor and patient input. Physicians need the autonomy to incorporate the pharmacologic as well as the traditional, to explore options as ancient as acupuncture or as innovative as nerve stimulation.

Imposing a financial disincentive on non-opioid pain medications is not acceptable. Policymakers can and must do better to prevent opioid addiction.

Scott A
Scott A.Sigman, MD

Scott A. Sigman, MD, is board-certified orthopaedic surgeon in North Chelmsford, Massachusetts.

Submitted: September 22, 2020 EDT

Accepted: October 05, 2020 EDT

This website uses cookies

We use cookies to enhance your experience and support COUNTER Metrics for transparent reporting of readership statistics. Cookie data is not sold to third parties or used for marketing purposes.

Powered by Scholastica, the modern academic journal management system