|
|
|
|
Search
07/10/2023 Ralph Zicherman, DPM
Medicare Simple Partial Nail Avulsion Guidelines Unproven, Unnecessary, Unsafe
For Medicare insurance guidelines to be accurate, and offer successful treatments for clinical problems, they must carefully adhere to the format of evidence based medicine. This accepted process involves reviewing the best research and evidence, critically appraising and evaluating such evidence, with the physicians then using their professional and clinical experience to extrapolate the scientific evidence as it applies to the specific patient. In the end, the physician must apply all the research, information, and skills in the context of individual patients’ values and or preferences, which at times, may and can conflict with limited single treatment options offered by narrow insurance guidelines. After treatment, the outcomes are evaluated and constantly reevaluated to insure the impact of treatment remains positive and timely. This process has not been followed in developing the Medicare nail avulsion guidelines, raising serious questions regarding the best and most appropriate care for patients presenting with nail infections.
In the early '80s, Medicare contractors changed nail avulsion guidelines, for the treatment of nail infections, to require incisions to the eponychium. This was put into effect without Medicare contractors providing any accepted rationale, reasoning, science, or research for the guideline changes. Medicare contractors once again changed guidelines in the late '80s, to require an even more aggressive incision to the matrix, once again without offering any accepted science, research, rationale, reasoning, or motivation for their guideline decisions. In these instances, the guidelines were changed twice, without offering any explanations for their actions. A careful review of nail avulsion research and literature in the ‘80s, shows no studies to support the guidelines changes.
Prior to the guideline changes in the ‘80s, nail avulsions often consisted of the removal of small sections of the local infected nail, without any involvement of matrix or eponychium. This less aggressive treatment, resulted in the resolution of most infections, with little complication, pain, or matrix damage. The failure of Medicare contractors to provide the basis for the changes to their guidelines in the early ’80s, and ‘90s has created serious questions and confusion regarding proper care for nail infections.
For a procedure, which has been performed millions of times, we have no clear information about who determined the Medicare guideline changes, the basis for these decisions, and what was discussed during meetings involving the guideline changes. We still do not have this information, in spite of the guidelines being in place for the past 40 years. How can we make important clinical decisions about patient care, without a clear understanding of the rationale behind the Medicare guidelines changes. Were guidelines changed to reflect research showing improved results and patient satisfaction from more aggressive incisions to the matrix - eponychium, or were guidelines simply based on failed research and unproven opinion of consultants? The silence from Medicare contractors on these issues, suggests a failure in the guideline formulation process of the nail avulsion procedure.
Cochran and met-analysis reviews by Bloomfield in 2003, Eekhof in 20012, and Exley in 2023 evaluated thousands of nail avulsion studies and patients, finding the vast majority containing poor levels of science, poor control of patient variables, and deficient random controlled sampling and experimental design. The latest met- analysis by Exley, stated that, “Despite the high number of publications, the quality of research was poor and conclusions that can be inferred from existing trials is limited……To put this another way, 3,756 people have taken part in research studies that do little to guide clinical practice……..More, high quality clinical trials to inform clinical decision making are urgently needed in nail surgery.” From these large Cochran and met analysis studies of nail nail avulsions, we must assume that much past and current nail avulsion studies and research are of limited use in formulating clinical applications. If this is the case, what was the research and experimental basis for the guideline changes to require incisions to the matrix and eponychium in the early ‘80s and ‘90s? Were inappropriate, poor quality research, with improper conclusions, the basis for guideline changes, as suggested by the Cochran and met-analysis reviews, resulting in Medicare guidelines lacking a foundation of science based medicine, or were non=medical issues and poor decision making the basis of guideline changes? Medicare contractors must be made to explain their past actions in order to resolve these issues, and accept the fact that they may be responsible for patients receiving improper, overly aggressive treatments, lacking science based medical care.
In terms of the nail avulsion procedure, there is no proof that removing 10 mm of nail to be more effective than removing 9 mm or 8 mm of nail. In addition, there is no proof that more aggressive treatments are more successful than lesser incisions in terms of recurrence or relief of symptoms. If this is the case, what is the basis for Medicare guidelines decisions requiring a more aggressive treatment (matrix - eponychium), which offers no clear advantage over conservative less aggressive intervention (proximal to the nail fold and cuticle). In the absence of good experimental proof, conservative less aggressive treatments should always be a more appropriate treatment option, over unproven aggressive treatments involving incisions to the matrix or eponychium. In this instance, we must consider the fact that effective treatments prior to the guideline changes in the ‘80s, represent a conservative safer less aggressive treatment option, opposed to more aggressive treatments with no science based evidence. These less aggressive treatments were used for hundreds of years prior to the guidelines changes, with satisfactory resolution of nail infections.
While the Medicare guidelines require incisions to the matrix - eponychium, there are no studies to support more aggressive treatment, as offering any advantage over lesser incisions to the cuticle or distal nail plate, which avoids damaging matrix structures. In contrast to requiring incisions to the matrix, there has been an abundance of research and studies illustrating the importance of nail matrix stem cells (nail plate matrix, nail fold matrix, nail bed matrix) as important biological barriers to disease. There are also numerous studies documenting permanent damage to the nail plate structures, as a result of matrix stem cell stem cell trauma, which should suggest avoiding unnecessary incisions to the matrix anatomy during nail avulsion procedures. Confusingly, even with studies and research showing nail plate damage resulting from matrix stem cell trauma, the guidelines have failed to incorporate these finding in their nail avulsion guidelines since the ‘80s. The failure of the guidelines to incorporate relevant matrix stem cell damage research, suggests a failure of the current guidelines to represent accurate factual medical science, neglecting the best interests of patients.
Additional guideline confusion has resulted due to a failure of incorporating anatomical clarity, as a result of poorly defining nail organ descriptions. This can be seen as a result of a failure of the Medicare guidelines to make a distinction between sterile matrix, germinal matrix, nail bed matrix, nail plate matrix, or nail fold matrix, and simply referring to the matrix as a single, easily identifiable anatomical structure. In reality, these are all separate anatomical structures occupying different anatomical positions, and simply referring to a matrix without clear definitions is not medically appropriate. In addition, in spite of the presence of a nail bed matrix, which was first discussed in 1980, and nail fold matrix discussed in the late 80’s, there has been no mention of these structures in the Medicare nail avulsion guidelines over the past 40 years. While nail anatomy has progressed over the years, the guidelines have failed to incorporate these important findings.
In addition to the proposition of the incision requirements being unnecessarily aggressive in length (matrix - eponychium), and lacking science based evidence, the incision requirements (to the matrix-eponychium) are critically deficient with regards to an unproven, incapable, avulsion technique as well. The avulsion technique is an imprecise, inexact, traumatic, pulling, twisting, and tearing of tissue. The avulsion technique is not a consistent or accurate means of verifying invisible, microscopic, obstructed matrix anatomy (matrix - eponychium), as suggested in the Medicare guidelines. With this being the case, the entire procedure lacks an essential element necessary in meeting guideline requirements for the identification of the matrix anatomy structure. While the guidelines require incision and therefore identification of the microscopic, obstructed, invisible matrix, the avulsion process is unable to provide such visualization. As a result, without accurate methods for the verification of anatomy, the entire procedure remains a blind procedure, using clinical judgement and guesswork, not exact identification of structures.
Of additional importance, during the process of avulsing the nail, sections of matrix are also removed, due to the nail having direct attachments to the matrix. With this being the case, the nail avulsion procedure as described by Medicare, should be seen as as a partial matrixectomy (removal of sections of matrix), calling into question the entire accuracy of the insurance coding for this procedure (11730 or 11750).
The guideline incision length requirement (matrix- eponychium) remains unproven, lacks accurate science based evidence, and fails to show any improvement over less aggressive incisions. In addition, there is no accurate or consistent process of identifying the required guideline anatomy (matrix - eponychium) during nail avulsion process, since the avulsion technique is inexact and imprecise. Medicare also fails to properly define and specify the exact location of the matrix - eponychium anatomy used in the guidelines (sterile matrix, germinal matrix, nail bed matrix, nail fold matrix, matrix horns, apical matrix, proximal matrix, distal matrix) by simply requiring incision to the matrix, without any specificity. Finally, in spite of requiring incisions to the matrix, the guidelines fail to incorporate accurate matrix stem cell function, damage, and biology research and studies, showing this anatomy as being a sensitive, delicate, structure, susceptible to damage, which often leads to nail plate dystrophy.
With regards to the nail avulsion guidelines, they seem to have been based on poorly designed studies, of low quality research, while at the same time, appropriate research and studies regarding nail anatomy and matrix stem cell function and damage have been ignored. In contrast to guideline requirements of incisions to the matrix - eponychium, treatment of nail infections prior to the 80’s offered the resolution of nail infections, using less aggressive incisions, which were proximal to the matrix and eponychium, with anatomy that was easily identifiable, and lacking matrix involvement or damage. This would suggest the current Medicare guidelines being unproven, unsafe and unnecessary.
As part of good medical evidenced based decision making, treatments must take into account individual patient needs and variables, and the possibility of individualizing treatments. With regards to the nail avulsion procedure, we must ask if the individual interest of patients are met, when every nail infection is being treated using the same Medicare required incision to the matrix - eponychium. The answer to this question is an obvious no. This can best be seen by answers to the following questions. Should a severe nail infection, receive the same aggressive treatment as a minor infection? Should an infection limited to the distal aspect of the nail plate be treated the same as one located more proximally? Should an infection caused by tight footgear, be treated the same as one caused by poor nail trimming? Should a patient with vascular disease or diabetes have the same aggressive treatment as a patient in good health? These are questions that physicians must face every day, which are left unanswered by Medicare nail avulsion guidelines, requiring the same treatment option for almost every nail infection. If this is the case, why have the guidelines taken such an unnecessary treatment approach.
Logically, good medical protocol for the treatment of nail infections, involves individualized treatments, to meet variables involving comorbidities, the severity of infection, the condition of the nail, and patient wishes. The Medicare guidelines leave no room for these important treatment variables, leaving questions of safety, necessity, and what is in the best interest of patients largely unaddressed. While it appears less aggressive incisions and treatment, used for 100’s of years, which avoided the matrix and eponychium, and offered greater safety and equally effective treatment, continues to be ignored by the Medicare guidelines. This is clearly evident, when the same nail avulsion guidelines have been used without any significant changes for the past 40 years, in spite of an abundance of cautionary research and studies involving matrix stem cell anatomy, function, damage, and biology. In this instance, Medicare has failed to evaluate and reevaluate treatment outcomes, to ensure that the effect of their treatment guidelines remain positive and timely. Ralph Zicherman, DPM, Detroit, MI
Other messages in this thread:
07/19/2023 Lawrence Rubin, DPM
Medicare Simple Partial Nail Avulsion Guidelines Unproven, Unnecessary, Unsafe (Ralph Zicherman, DPM)
Dr. Zicherman's response to my post regarding Medicare's past revision of utilization guidelines for CPT coded nail avulsion procedures questioned the authority of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to require Medicare to curb "abusive" billing by podiatrists. The following link to the OIG website explains this ability: https://www.ftc.gov/office-inspector-general/what- you-need-know-about-office-inspector-general
It is also important to know that since 2002, podiatrists have been at high risk of audits and punitive actions for what the OIG considers abusive billing for debridement of onychomycosis. Read more about this here: https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-04-99-00460.pdf
The reality of all this is that Medicare claims from podiatrists that involve toenail avulsion and/or debridement are under close monitoring by Medicare. They are among the most common services that subject a podiatrist to an audit.
I strongly advise all podiatrists who submit Medicare claims for nail avulsion and debridement services to follow the advice of the OIG itself: Implement the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Individual and Small Group Practice Compliance Program that evidences your adherence to published CMS-Medicare utilization guidelines.
The OIG states that, even if there is a suspicion of abusive billing following a Medicare audit, having a practice compliance program, "will be a mitigating factor" against punitive action. In my past and present work involving Medicare compliance issues, I have found this OIG statement to be true.
Here are the details about the OIG Individual and Small Group Compliance Program Act: https://oig.hhs.gov/documents/compliance- guidance/801/physician.pdf
Lawrence Rubin, DPM, Las Vegas, NV
07/18/2023 Ralph Zicherman, DPM
Medicare Simple Partial Nail Avulsion Guidelines Unproven, Unnecessary, Unsafe (Lawrence Rubin, DPM)
Thank you Dr. Rubin (who served on the Medicare HFCA CAC). You say that the reason for changes to the Medicare nail avulsion guidelines were mandated by The Medicare office Of the Inspector General. I find this quite surprising and shocking, since the “Inspectors General are empowered by congress to identify and inform the legislative branch of incidence of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement,” not formulate medical decisions or guidelines.
In reviewing the 21st Century Cures Act, The Social Security Act, and the Medicare Integrity Manuel, there is no mention of The OIG having any role in developing LCD or treatment guidelines. MACs (Medicare Advisory Committee) have science committees, professional consultants, medical writers, scientist, researchers, advisory committees, statisticians, physicians, actuaries, the office Of Inspector General is not part of the equation in making medical decisions. The OIG does not have the resources, expertise, manpower. or congressional authority to formulate or change guidelines.
If it is accurate, that the nail avulsion guidelines were changed and based on a mandate by the OIG, we should all be concerned that an investigative body of the federal government has formulated medical policy, without having the power or structure to do so. The rules and guidelines for formulating LCD”s are lengthy and complex, to insure patient safety, patients best interest, and good medical protocol and decision making for treatment that is medically necessary. There is no process, mechanism, governmental authority, or administrative checks, balances to allow for the OIG to be involved in LCD guideline or medical decision making.
Having the OIG make medical decisions, would be like the FBI, telling us how to do a bunionectomy, If it is accurate, that the OIG mandated the changes to the nail avulsion guidelines, what is the purpose of MAC’s or LCD’s. We should all be alarmed and concerned. This would imply that for the past 40 years our treatment of nail avulsions had no basis in science, or research, rather the explanation that guidelines were changed in order to limit reimbursements and procedure numbers. How many practitioners have understood, that for the past 40 years, we were following guidelines formulated by the OIG, not the HCFA (Medicare), and that our actions were primarily to reduce reimbursements and procedure numbers, not necessarily the best interest of patients
The medical-ethical legal implications, of changing a medical treatment or guidelines, making them more aggressive and traumatic, in order to reduce reimbursements and procedure numbers, should alarm physicians and patients alike. We should have been informing patients that the need for incising nail infections to the matrix and eponychium, were to reduce reimbursements and procedure numbers, not for reasons of medical necessity. That patients had unnecessarily aggressive procedures performed, which resulted in nail plate dystrophy, vascular damage, matrix damage, amputation, and in some instances bone damage, as a result of the OIG trying to reduce reimbursements and procedure numbers, not medical necessity.
How many practitioners or patients were made aware of the fact that medical decisions were being made by an investigative branch of the government, having no congressional power or administrative process for making such decisions. MAKING A PROCEDURE MORE AGGRESSIVE, IN ORDER TO REDUCE REIMBURSEMENTS, IS INDEFENSIBLE, AND UNCONSCIONABLE.
If true, this represents a failure of the entire medical guideline decision making process. There needs to be an immediate investigation by the APMA, HFCA, MAC, Congress, and OIG. Patients have been damaged unnecessarily, physicians have been following guidelines based on OIG mandates, not LCD requirements established by congress, and physicians have been audited and prosecuted, without properly being informed of the basis of the nail avulsion guidelines.
Currently, there are already two national law firms investigating class actions involving patient damaged as a result of nail avulsion procedures. As a profession, we need to get in front of this issue before it turns into a national headline. I have spent the past 10 years trying to warn the profession about serious problems with the nail avulsion guidelines, and hope that the profession views these concerns as serious as well.
Ralph Zicherman, DPM, Detroit, MI
07/13/2023 Lawrence Rubin, DPM
Medicare Simple Partial Nail Avulsion Guidelines Unproven, Unnecessary, Unsafe (Jack Ressler, DPM) From:
I want to thank Dr. Ressler for his, “Killing the Chicken Who Lays the Golden Eggs” story. He witnessed the flagrant abuse and outright fraud in the early 1980's that occurred when all too many podiatrists abused the billing of CPT code 11730 - nail avulsion.
It is so sad that even now, because of this long ago situation, it is no longer a question of whether or not a podiatrist will be subjected to a random or targeted audit of 11730 coding and billing. It is more a question of when this audit will occur. But this is not the end of the Golden Egg story. Things got worse.
In the early 1980s, the abuse Dr. Ressler describes tarnished the reputation of podiatry in the minds of HCFA administrators. Congress was aware of that reputation, probably from information obtained from HCFA. So, reportedly to prevent the same podiatry abuse that was occurring via 11730 false billing, in the late 1980s, Congress reacted by putting into law restrictive medical necessity and utilization control requirements. These requirements had to be met before a diabetic patient could receive a pair of soon to be available therapeutic shoes prescribed and supplied by a podiatrist. The law went into effect in 1993, and remains in effect today.
Then as now, in order for a diabetic patient to receive therapeutic shoes supplied directly from their prescribing podiatrist, a primary care physician must confirm the medical necessity documentation the prescribing podiatrist submits – even when that licensed and qualified prescribing and supplying podiatrist adheres to required documentation that adequately supports the medical necessity of the shoes.
And if you research this on the Internet, you will find references to the fact that HCFA wanted this “second opinion,” because administrators believed many podiatrists would, “just offer patients a pair of free shoes every year, and they would bill Medicare for those shoes without following medical necessity guidelines.”
There is no question about it. Compliance matters matter more than we may think.
Lawrence Rubin, DPM, Las Vegas, NV
07/12/2023 Jack Ressler, DPM
Medicare Simple Partial Nail Avulsion Guidelines Unproven, Unnecessary, Unsafe (Ralph Zicherman, DPM)
I totally agree with everything Dr. Zicherman has concisely written. To understand Medicare's reasoning is as simple as Goggling "The goose and the golden eggs". Sadly it tells a story of a countryman who possessed a wonderful goose that laid golden eggs. Every day he would visit the nest to find one golden egg which he would take into town to sell. He began to get rich but as greed took over, he wasn't getting rich fast enough. He decided to cut open the goose to remove all of the golden eggs, obviously killing the goose.
While in podiatry school in the early ‘80s, I shadowed a podiatrist during his visit to a nursing home. He must have seen around 30 patients that day. As he would see a patient, he would utter the phrase "bilateral bilateral" to his assistant as he debrided the patients nails. A brief clean-up was then done, sometimes followed by applying topical antibiotic ointment. This was done on around 70% of the patients he treated. Curiously, I asked him, what does bilateral bilateral mean. His reply was that he did a simple nail excision procedure on both borders of both great toes. Enough said. The 11730 procedure code has been the golden egg in many podiatry practices. Unfortunately, it became a code that has been highly abused and closely scrutinized by Medicare.
As stated in other posts, I actually went through what I would call a silent Medicare audit based on the high frequency I used this code. Medicare actually showed up at two of my patients homes that I did a 11730 procedure on. They asked my patients two questions, did your toe hurt before the procedure and did the doctor inject local anesthesia. I would have had a mess on my hands had I not gone by Medicare's guidelines with this procedure. I do think Medicare's requirements on this procedure could be overkill but that is what we as a profession have created. We haven't yet removed all the golden eggs, but the goose is definitely on life support.
Jack Ressler, DPM, Boca Raton, FL
|
|
|
|
|