Health Law & Policy

Here is a collection of ICD-10 resources for urologists, including a checklist and links to articles, FAQs, and more.

For physicians who have small practices and might still be struggling with EMRs and other government regulations, ICD-10 implementation could be the last straw, says W. Jeff Terry, Sr., MD. Here are some possible fixes suggested by Dr. Terry.

Mark Painter, CEO of PRS Urology, and Jonathan Rubenstein, MD, a urologist in Baltimore and member of the AUA’s Coding and Reimbursement Committee, recommend this checklist for ICD-10 urology practice transition.

When provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) related to the expansion of Medicaid to low-income childless adults took effect in January 2014, 25 states and the District of Columbia had approved laws to broaden their programs' eligibility requirements. Since then, under pressure from various interests groups, including state hospital associations, lawmakers in at least three more states-Iowa, Michigan, and Pennsylvania-expanded their health care safety net programs and thereby gained access to federal dollars that would have otherwise been left on the table.

Urologists know the International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10) goes into effect Oct. 1, 2015. Whether they understand the transition’s impact and what they need to do to fully prepare are questionable.

The effort to draw attention to the importance of prostate cancer detection was given a big boost in September when conservative Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AR) and liberal Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) joined together to sponsor legislation to create the National Prostate Cancer Council.

Leaders of state, national, and subspecialty urologic societies from around the country converged in Rosemont, IL in September for a weekend of health policy discussions and advocacy tips with public officials, policy experts, and fellow urologists. One of the themes reinforced at the 7th Annual State Society Network Advocacy Conference, hosted by the AACU, was the importance and impact of physician engagement in the political process.

Physicians, including urologists, now have another headache to deal with-making certain information about them published on the Internet by as part of the National Physician Payment Transparency Program (Open Payments) is accurate and not misleading to patients who want to know about the financial benefits their doctors receive from manufacturers of drugs, devices, and biologic and medical supplies.

A July 29 report by the Institute of Medicine on reforming the nation’s graduate medical education program has struck a nerve with the AUA and other medical societies by questioning the seriousness of continuing physician shortages in the United States.

The House of Delegates, the democratic policy-making body of the American Medical Association, meets twice a year to establish broad policy on health, medical, professional, and governance matters. As in previous years, several resolutions from this June’s meeting were of key interest to urologists.

This infographic depicts the efforts of several states to boost graduate medical education funding. Is your state among them?

As policymakers learn about the burgeoning bottleneck between medical school graduation and graduate medical education, a number of novel approaches to physician training have launched from Sacramento to Jefferson City to Tallahassee. Not surprisingly, many of these solutions pit providers against one another amid concerns about patient safety and the dilution of professional standards.

Important developments that could have an impact on urology practices include an attempt by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to provide more flexibility for providers in how they use certified EHR technology to meet meaningful use requirements and be eligible for program payments as well as proposed revisions to the FDA's “Guidance for Industry: Distributing Scientific and Medical Publications on Unapproved New Uses-Recommended Practices.”

Earlier this spring, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case of North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, a case arising out of the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners’ (NC Dentistry Board) attempt to enforce the state’s scope of practice laws against a group of non-dentists. While this case arises out of a dispute between North Carolina dentists and non-dentists, its outcome is being watched by state dental and medical boards throughout the country for its impact on their ability to regulate the practice of dentistry and medicine within their own states, particularly with respect to scope of practice.

Two years ago in May, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer, asserting that “many men are harmed as a result of prostate cancer screening and few, if any, benefit.”

Professional organizations including the AACU empower individual urologists with resources that support grassroots engagement in vital campaigns to re-assert the physician's role in health reform.

In spite of the record heat wave sweeping much of the nation, now is not the time to cool down. Issues actively being considered in Congress are some of the most vital to urology.

The American Association of Clinical Urologists (AACU) rejects the USPSTF's complete disregard of the positive effect the PSA test has had on so many men in this country.

Today’s five-to-four vote by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) as constitutional will result in sweeping health care system changes for all physicians and their patients.

Three leading urology associations have announced support for the USPSTF Transparency and Accountability Act of 2012 (H.R. 5998), which calls for significant changes to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and the process by which the group makes formal recommendations regarding preventive care services.

Noted Irish playwright Oscar Wilde once mused, "Success is a science; if you have the conditions, you get the result." Thanks to a foundation strengthened by direct and indirect participation in advocacy campaigns across the country, the urologic community secured positive policy outcomes in the first several months of 2012.

Forging and leveraging relationships with state legislators and their staff can help you protect your patients, employees, and practice from harmful legislation.

For the second time in a month, urologists are being criticized for self-referred ancillary services?this time by radiologists for providing intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment for prostate cancer patients in urologists' own radiation therapy centers.

Urologists' self-referral of prostate surgical pathology services leads to increased use and higher Medicare spending but lower cancer detection rates, according to a recent study.

Effective advocacy depends on data, relationships, and, for lack of a better term, money.

Urologists who gathered for the annual Joint Advocacy Conference listened politely as a member of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force explained the thinking behind the group's recommendation against routine PSA testing, but few, if any of them seemed to have been swayed.

The AUA and the American Association of Clinical Urologists have lost no time in pressing Congress for a better solution on Medicare physician reimbursement following passage of legislation to delay a 27% cut in payments for 10 months.

A developing advocacy campaign in Washington state has the AACU Government Affairs team implementing the very practices described in this space and thereby urged upon urologists in seemingly ad nauseum Calls to Action.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPTF) announced it was no longer recommending the PSA test to screen healthy men for prostate cancer, but experts say the impact this recommendation could have on health insurance coverage and treatment decisions remains unclear. While insurers are likely to take their time issuing formal coverage decisions, the AUA and other urology organizations have been quick to respond to the recommendation.

The Alliance of Specialty Medicine soundly rejected MedPAC?s approval of a recommendation that Congress reform the Medicare reimbursement system by reducing reimbursements to specialists by 5.9% per year for 3 years while freezing the reimbursement rate for primary care physicians.