BHF response to MedicalDental Practitioners submission to Parliament

BHF response to Medical/Dental Practitioners submission to Parliament Dr. Rajesh Patel BHF August 2012

Outline • • Coding issues Cost studies to determine fee level Quality of care Concluding remarks

Abbreviations HPCSA Health Professional Council of SA DBM Doctor's Billing Manual. SAMA coding and fee publication SAMA NHRPL South African Medical Association National Health Reference Price List BHF CPT NDo. H Board of Healthcare Funders of Southern Africa Clinical Procedure terminology National department of health FBC FFS Full Blood count. Commonest pathology test. Fee for Service

Coding Issues • Coding structure published by HPCSA is based on “Scale of benefits” and NHRPL, rather than DBM as claimed by SAMA. • 2012 DBM Problems – “Intellectual property” poses copyright risk – Coding manipulation aligned to CPT (US coding). Risk of copyright cost. • NDo. H, HPCSA and BHF: public domain coding structure – Full of coding manipulation over many years

Coding Manipulation & Scope of practice • “Guide to Billing” not linked to coding structure – Provides room to unilaterally change interpretation. Abused over last decade • E. g. Hip replacement billing – Hip replacement + debridement + partial Synovectomy + tendon separation. This is charged as routine. What does Hip replacement code represent? – Current coding therefore does not reflect scope of practice an must be fixed. 2006 structure least abused.

Coding Manipulation & Scope of practice • Oncology coding change in 2005 was in response to dispensing fee regulation and single exit price for medicine. Coding change intention is to retain levels of oncologist income. New codes not consistent to scope of practice: – E. g. non-infusional facility fee R 500 for dispensing tablets/injection • Pathology fees in HPCSA publication represents overremuneration – FBC (commonest test) cost is <R 25. tariff price <R 160 – Numerous duplicate code that must be fixed. Billing abuse to maximise revenue. – Uncontrolled, unregulated introduction of new technology

Coding Manipulation & Scope of practice • Coding changes in DBM 2012 (SAMA) compared to 2006 published codes by CMS – Unilateral changes, no consultation with stakeholders • Mostly change in existing codes rather new codes for new scope of practice – No transparency – Existence of coding abuses and duplicate codes suggests SAMA review process is flawed

• Current SA pricing abuses being exported to other SADC countries.

HPCSA must be allowed to publish! • Scope of practice determination and its aligned coding structure development should be function of Regulator not representative body like SAMA that changes coding unilaterally. • Healthcare access is a public good. Need for price regulation! – To assure access to care without risk of co-pay. – To address arbitrary price setting by providers

“Cost studies” • Method suggested by Competition Commissioner (2004) • Excellent example of badly conducted research – Output therefore is flawed – Cannot be used for policy making • Must consider willingness to purchase/Affordability as well…this is ignored!

Quality of Care • Latest and greatest type care: good quality • Outpatient care: significant room for improvement

Diabetes (2007): FFS vs Center of Excellence Benchmark for primary care services

Concluding remarks • Biased coding structure must be fixed • Public must be protected from arbitrary determined provider pricing • Need to fix pricing in private sector through regulated pricing mechanism • HPCSA must public fee: – for protection of public – Allow coding and pricing to be fixed. • Providers must be made accountable for quality of care delivered