Conni Bergmann Koury

home

authors

conni-bergmann-koury

Reimbursement for telehealth initiatives remains an uncertainty in the United States today, with capitated systems at the forefront in initial teleglaucoma applications.

Worldwide, healthcare systems are implementing models of teleglaucoma care. Clarifying reimbursement considerations, however, is necessary for greater strides toward U.S. adoption, according to 

, assistant professor of ophthalmology at 

. Dr. Rathi noted some examples for consideration.

University of Alberta’s teleglaucoma program

 consists of a remote or in-house pathway, he noted. Patients on the remote pathway visit a local ophthalmologist or optometrist who collects standardized history, examination, and imaging findings.

The eye-care provider securely transmits the information to a remote glaucoma specialist who delivers an electronic recommendation to the referring clinician. The in-house program is a tertiary-care referral center in Edmonton.

These individuals see an ophthalmic technician who obtains the history, exam, and imaging, according to Dr. Rathi. A glaucoma specialist reviews the data and sends a report to the referring provider. The program seeks to reduce the time patients spend in the clinic, and wait to have a glaucoma evaluation. In Canada, Medicare reimburses at two-thirds of the conventional in-person fee for these consultations.

, the patient sees a local optometrist who sends the history, exam findings, and imaging to the remote ophthalmologist. Dr. Rathi said that the specialist video conferences with the patient and the local provider to deliver the recommendations.

Australia Medicare reimburses clinicians if there is a live audio-video component to the encounter and the patient is located at least 15 kilometers away from the consulting ophthalmologist or resides in a care facility for indigenous Australians.

“Initially, there was no reimbursement for the local referring optometrist,” Dr. Rathi said, “After Medicare implemented reimbursement covering technical costs for the referring physician, the program had a 3.5-fold increase in utilization during the next 12 months.”

the mix of fee-for-service and capitated care health-care delivery models 

in the United States, as well as the evolution of 

, a combination of teleglaucoma models could be sustainable, according to Dr. Rathi.

“For example, glaucoma care could be provided via synchronized consultation with the patient who is at home or in the primary-care physician’s office,” he said. “In the future, dedicated telehealth centers could have locations across the country.”

Dr. Rathi noted that like the Canadian version, asynchronized consultations could be useful where the optometrist or general ophthalmologist routes the clinical information to an off-site specialist for collaboration.

“Remote monitoring of glaucoma patients could include home-based IOP measurements and virtual reality visual field exams,” he said.

These remote glaucoma management models have unique advantages, but adoption of telehealth services is often determined by reimbursement. In the United States, a direct-to-consumer model where patients pay for telehealth services is not well-suited to glaucoma.

“Within a capitated healthcare system on the other hand, resources can more readily be dedicated toward creating the needed infrastructure,” according to Dr. Rathi.

Reading centers with peer-to-peer consultation networks would allow high-risk patients to be prioritized for in-person glaucoma clinic visits, while low-risk patients could be followed remotely. 

Fee-for-service is the predominant payment model in the United States

Medicare reimburses for telehealth if strict requirements are met. First, the patient must be physically located in a rural area-there is no coverage for patients in urban or suburban settings. Second, the patient must be located in a health-care facility (i.e., critical access hospital, rural clinic, or a physician’s office). The home setting is not included. The interaction must be over live two-way audio/video communication.

The physician must be physically located in the United States. If these requirements are met, payment is on par with in-person fees using standard remote patient monitoring codes with modifier 95 for synchronized telemedicine. Medicare covers asynchronized telemedicine only in Alaska and Hawaii, under active telemedicine demonstration programs (primarily for diabetic retinopathy screening).

Nutrition a priority for dry eye patients

 updates included now covering remote consultation and pre-recorded patient information where a physician can evaluate a video or image with an established patient and offer interpretation within 24 hours,” Dr. Rathi explained.

“Now, virtual check-ins with audio and medical discussions are reimbursable without rural location requirements. Medicare provides coverage for remote physiologic monitoring for chronic disease-IOP may fall into this category. It is important to note that this is new territory for ophthalmology and is evolving, and the specialty has no prior experience with these codes.”

Coverage by commercial carriers is often dictated by state. Some states have passed telemedicine parity laws that mandate commercial insurers extend telemedicine coverage for any covered in-person service. Although a positive development, most of these laws do not mandate payment parity.

A carrier can have large differences in its reimbursement rates for services rendered in telemedicine compared with in-person services, possibly disincentivizing physicians from providing these services. Physician medical licensure requiring physicians to be licensed in the state where the patient is physically located has been a regulatory barrier to telehealth adoption. In 2017, the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact allowed expedited licensure in party states.

“Reimbursement for telehealth initiatives is far from guaranteed, with capitated systems likely leading the way in initial teleglaucoma applications,” Dr. Rathi noted. As shown in Australia, reimbursement leads to 

increased adoption of telemedicine and virtual consultation

. Telemedicine parity laws are helping to move efforts forward as Medicare coverage of telehealth is evolving.

Practical tips, pearls help ease patients’ financial burdens

This article was adapted from Dr. Rathi’s presentation at the 2019 American Glaucoma Society annual meeting. He has no financial interest in any aspect of this report.

Articles

Capitated health-care models may be best positioned to take advantage of telehealth

Reimbursement remains a hurdle for teleglaucoma in United States


In a validation study of the software’s algorithm, investigators reported that the iris registration from preoperative keratometry and steep axis values measurement enables identification of the patient’s steep axis within 2 degrees of actual cyclorotation in the Catalys user interface in 94% of eyes.

Big data drives opportunity for real-world evidence



Used to make relaxing incisions or corneal marks for toric IOLs, the astigmatism management function saves time and allows for a more efficient workflow, according to the findings.

It is known that astigmatism reduces distance and near visual acuity, vision quality, and depth perception.

It has been shown that 38% of US patients with cataracts have astigmatism (≥ 1.00 D).

Due in part to limitations in the currently available diagnostic and surgical methods for the surgical correction of astigmatism, it often goes undercorrected or uncorrected.

Astigmatism: A ‘clear-as-mud’ concept to patients


To assess the accuracy of the femtosecond laser artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm for measuring cyclotorsion in cataract surgery, Douglas D. Koch, MD, and colleagues compared an initial set of data with the reference, or truth, then applied the AI methodology.

Koch, professor and the Allen, Mosbacher, and Law Chairman in Ophthalmology, Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, presented the results of this investigation during the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2020 virtual annual meeting.

The team used a set of 52 eyes to refine and develop the software, then validated the algorithm with a set of 49 eyes. 

Preoperative images and data from undilated eyes were measured by the Cassini and matched with images of dilated eyes captured when docked to the Catalys. 



Teaching AI algorithms to identify corneal pathology: The future is now

The goal was to register at least 90% of images and achieve an accuracy within 2 degrees, Koch said.

“For the development set, 3 human graders manually graded the Cassini and Catalys images to define true cyclorotation,” he noted. “This set had to have a standard deviation of <2.5 degrees to be included, and for docking, the eye was centered ±2.3 mm within the liquid optics interface of the suction ring.”

The system’s iris registration software automatically compensates for cyclorotation, displaying on the screen the amount of rotation and the alignment coordinates. It then indicates a “quality factor” of “strong match,” “limited match,” or “failed match.”

“For the validation eyes, we compared data from the iris registration software with images classified by 5 graders,” Koch said. “We found that 96% of these eyes (47 of 49) were registered with acceptable quality readings. For the 2 eyes that failed according to the software, the surgeon was notified to ensure manual marking. We also found that 98% of the registered eyes, 46 of 47, were accurate within 2 degrees.”

The software offers an extremely accurate option for astigmatism management, allowing femtosecond laser cataract surgery to fulfill its promise of enhanced precision.

“This step forward cements the technology’s benefit for patients in terms of more exact outcomes, and it introduces time-saving elements for surgeons as well,” Koch said.



Macular OCT imaging is vital in work-up of cataract surgery patients


The software creates a streamlined workflow, speeds up the surgical process, and improves accuracy. Specifically, with direct entry of preoperative data, the software minimizes data entry verification and manual transcription errors, according to the manufacturer. 

Because it includes automatic calculations of the arcuate incision parameters into the treatment planning screen with a built-in nomogram, time spent on calculations is reduced.

The system eliminates the need for intraoperative registration systems by creating radial laser marks for toric IOL alignment with the laser that provide more precise alignment than do manual ink marks.

The collaboration with Cassini for iris registration with automatic cyclorotation compensation further serves to refine the accuracy of astigmatic outcomes, according to Johnson & Johnson Vision.



Toric stability: A minor change with a major impact for patients

Koch explained that although data show that manual marking can certainly be precise, it allows for virtually no margin of error.

“To me, this means making the marks and then diagramming the precise location of the marks in a drawing to be taken into the operating room,” he said. “Those steps consume surgeon time.”

Now, with the software’s iris registration capabilities, surgeons can dock the patient and let the astigmatism management software find the desired alignment meridian and create the marks as part of the procedure, he said. The software will alert the surgeon if it is unable to obtain alignment.

“The robustness of the iris registration capability of Catalys is exciting, particularly remembering that we matched preoperative undilated eyes to dilated images obtained when the eye was docked using the liquid interface,” Koch concluded. “I am impressed by the fact that the system can so accurately look at an undilated pupil, in air, and compare it with a dilated pupil in fluid.” 


1. Wolffsohn JS, Bhogal G, Shah S. Effect of uncorrected astigmatism on vision. 

 2011;37(3):454-460. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.09.022

2. Read SA, Vincent SJ, Collins MJ. The visual and functional impacts of astigmatism and its clinical management. 

. 2014;34(3):267-294. doi:10.1111/opo.12128

3. Hill WE. Prevalence of corneal astigmatism prior to cataract surgery. East Valley Ophthalmology.https://www.doctor-hill.com/iol-main/astigmatism_chart.htm

4. Koch DD, Wang L, Vogels J, Dewey D. Evaluation of intraocular pressure change after the femtosecond laser procedure for cataract surgery. Paper presented at: American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery Virtual Annual Meeting; May 16-17, 2020. https://beta.ascrs.org/clinical-education/cataract/2020-pod-sps-103-65609-assessment-of-the-accuracy-of-an-iris-registration-algorithm-of-a-f

5. Visser N, Berendschot TTJM, Bauer NJC, et al. Accuracy of toric intraocular lens implantation in cataract and refractive surgery. 

. 2011;37(8):1394-1402. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.02.024

6. Dick HB, Schultz T. Laser-assisted marking for toric intraocular lens alignment. 

. 2016;42(1):7-10. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.12.004

Newly cleared technology for laser cataract gives ophthalmologists another tool.

Astigmatism management software proving to be accurate, precise 

For ophthalmology practices, drug prices continue to be an issue for patients, and step-therapy and pre-authorization are responses to increasing drug costs, which exceed any other component of healthcare. While inflation is less than 2% per year, name brand drug price increases reach double digits year after year, according to George A. Williams, MD, president of the American

That leaves industry leaders to wonder why. The argument has always been that it is expensive to develop drugs, to innovate and invest in necessary research, said Dr. Williams. who also is chairman of ophthalmology at 

“Although true, the real relationship between marketing and administrative costs for pharmaceutical companies compared with what they spend on research is approximately two to one,” he said. “Worldwide and during the past decade, there has been a static relationship between research investment and sales, averaging around 15% to 18%.”

 approves about 200 new drugs every year, with only 15 to 50 classified as new molecular entities, or NMEs. The FDA says that NMEs contain active moieties that have not been approved by the FDA previously, either as a single ingredient drug or as part of a combination product.

“Some drugs are characterized as NMEs for administrative purposes, but nonetheless contain active moieties that are closely related to active moieties in products that have previously been approved by FDA,” according to the FDA website.

New battles taking place in fight to control drug costs

One reason for this gap could be the U.S. patent system, Dr. Williams said. Experts have argued that drug prices keep increasing because pharmaceutical companies are running out of new agents that can command premium prices. One detailed analysis reveals that as some higher-end drugs come off-patent, manufacturers have responded by increasing the price of drugs that remain on patent.

“The system is set up to generate profits, not research and innovation,” Dr. Williams said. The majority of the costs are attributable to a relatively small number of drugs, he explained. “For Medicare Part B and Part D-where glaucoma patients live-the per capita growth rate for drug cost is 10% per year. Profit margins for the top 25 drug makers are robust, and these companies have consistently doubled the profit margins of all other companies in the Fortune 500,” Dr. Williams said. “There appears to be bipartisan support for addressing this issue.”

Pre-authorization, familiar to all physicians and ophthalmology practices, can involve drugs, devices or surgery. It is granted about 90% of the time, but it is still an impediment to patients’ access. This has piqued the interest of Congress, and the AAO has been advocating for standardization with follow-through in the pre-authorization environment. Step-therapy

“Step-therapy, a potential game-changer in the drug space, comes from the 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

 decision to allow Medicare Advantage (MA) plans the option of implementing step-therapy across all Part B drugs, including off-label compounded treatments,” Dr. Williams said.

Many questions remain, however, such as: What constitutes a trial or treatment failure? How much vision does the patient have to lose (or not gain)? What happens with the fellow eye?

“These questions create access issues for patients,” Dr. Williams said. “The Academy has been involved in step-therapy for years and will continue to speak to policy makers about the need for consistent, patient-centered coverage policies.”

There remains significant variation in coverage, however, and only 16% of drug indications are covered by all plans, Dr. Williams noted.

A comprehensive analysis indicates that less than half of drug indications are covered by 75% or more of commercial carriers. Prescribing protocols are consistent with the FDA label barely half of the time; they are more restrictive a third of the time; and 5% of the time there is no coverage even when FDA approved, according to Dr. Williams. The AAO has written to the CMS expressing concern about the impact this has on patients’ access to care, Dr Williams noted.

 report, may incentivize payers to deny access to services and payment in order to increase the profit of these private companies.

In fact, 75% of the denials the MA plans implement that are appealed are reversed, but only 1% of the denials were actually appealed.

The OIG concluded that “this is especially burdensome for beneficiaries with urgent health conditions.” This issue is likely to become more significant with the continuing expansion of MA. In 2018, 35% of Medicare beneficiaries were in Medicare Advantage with some states as high as 60%, Dr. Williams said.

Drug availability, pricing negatively affect the practice of glaucoma

One possible solution is to have Americans pay what other countries pay. “In the United States, we pay approximately 80% more for all drugs-in the retina space, it is substantially more.” Dr. Williams said.

“With Medicare part D, patients pay the first $415. Medicare pays 75% of the next 3,800. After that, patients go into the donut hole.”

The ever growing gross-to-net rebate bubble is the difference between the manufacturer’s list price and the net price, after negotiated rebates and discounts decided by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). Last year, it was $166 billion.

“This can produce perverse incentives for drug companies to raise prices and increase discounts, because PBMs are paid by insurers based on the amounts they negotiate for each discount,” Dr. Williams concluded. “These discounts are supposed to be shared with either the insurance provider or with the patient-but it turns out they are not, and our patients pay co-pays on the inflated price. This rebate bubble has exploded in recent years, from $59 billion in 2012 to $126 billion currently.”


	p: 248/288-2280  e: George.Williams@beaumont.edu
	This article was adapted from Dr. Williams’ presentation at the 2019 American Glaucoma Society annual meeting. Dr. Williams has no other financial disclosures related to this report.

Escalating prices continue to be an issue for patients. They also hamper treatment options for physicians.

New battles taking shape in fight to control drug costs

This article was reviewed by George A. Williams, MD


	
	For ophthalmology practices, drug prices continue to be an issue for patients, and step-therapy and pre-authorization are responses to increasing drug costs, which exceed any other component of healthcare.
	
	While inflation is less than 2% per year, name brand drug price increases reach double digits year after year, according to George A. Williams, MD, president of the American Academy of Ophthalmology.
	That leaves industry leaders to wonder why.
	
	The argument has always been that it is expensive to develop drugs, to innovate and invest in necessary research, said Dr. Williams. who also is chairman of ophthalmology at Oakland University. “Although true, the real relationship between marketing and administrative costs for pharmaceutical companies compared with what they spend on research is approximately two to one,” he said. “Worldwide and during the past decade, there has been a static relationship between research investment and sales, averaging around 15% to 18%.”
	
	


	The FDA approves about 200 new drugs every year, with only 15 to 50 classified as new molecular entities, or NMEs. The FDA says that NMEs contain active moieties that have not been approved by the FDA previously, either as a single ingredient drug or as part of a combination product.
	
	“Some drugs are characterized as NMEs for administrative purposes, but nonetheless contain active moieties that are closely related to active moieties in products that have previously been approved by FDA,” according to the FDA website.
	
	One reason for this gap could be the U.S. patent system, Dr. Williams said.
	
	Experts have argued that drug prices keep increasing because pharmaceutical companies are running out of new agents that can command premium prices. One detailed analysis reveals that as some higher-end drugs come off-patent, manufacturers have responded by increasing the price of drugs that remain on patent. 
	
	“The system is set up to generate profits, not research and innovation,” Dr. Williams said. 
	
	The majority of the costs are attributable to a relatively small number of drugs, he explained.
	
	“For Medicare Part B and Part D-where glaucoma patients live-the per capita growth rate for drug cost is 10% per year. Profit margins for the top 25 drug makers are robust, and these companies have consistently doubled the profit margins of all other companies in the Fortune 500,” Dr. Williams said.  “There appears to be bipartisan support for addressing this issue.”
	
	

Reimbursment remains a hurdle for teleglaucoma in United States 


	Pre-authorization, familiar to all physicians and ophthalmology practices, can involve drugs, devices or surgery. It is granted about 90% of the time, but it is still an impediment to patients’ access. This has piqued the interest of Congress, and the AAO has been advocating for standardization with follow-through in the pre-authorization environment.
	
	


	“Step-therapy, a potential game-changer in the drug space, comes from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services decision to allow Medicare Advantage (MA) plans the option of implementing step-therapy across all Part B drugs, including off-label compounded treatments,” Dr. Williams said.
	
	Many questions remain, however, such as: What constitutes a trial or treatment failure? How much vision does the patient have to lose (or not gain)? What happens with the fellow eye?
	“These questions create access issues for patients,” Dr. Williams said. “The Academy has been involved in step-therapy for years and will continue to speak to policy makers about the need for consistent, patient-centered coverage policies.”
	
	There remains significant variation in coverage, however, and only 16% of drug indications are covered by all plans, Dr. Williams noted.
	
	


	
	A comprehensive analysis indicates that less than half of drug indications are covered by 75% or more of commercial carriers. Prescribing protocols are consistent with the FDA label barely half of the time; they are more restrictive a third of the time; and 5% of the time there is no coverage even when FDA approved, according to Dr. Williams.
	
	The AAO has written to the CMS expressing concern about the impact this has on patients’ access to care, Dr Williams noted. Changes to MA, according to a recent Office of the Inspector General report, may incentivize payers to deny access to services and payment in order to increase the profit of these private companies. In fact, 75% of the denials the MA plans implement that are appealed are reversed, but only 1% of the denials were actually appealed.
	
	The OIG concluded that “this is especially burdensome for beneficiaries with urgent health conditions.” This issue is likely to become more significant with the continuing expansion of MA. In 2018, 35% of Medicare beneficiaries were in Medicare Advantage with some states as high as 60%, Dr. Williams said.
	
	

Lack of Medicare coverage leads to less eyeglass use, study finds


	One possible solution is to have Americans pay what other countries pay.
	
	“In the United States, we pay approximately 80% more for all drugs-in the retina space, it is substantially more.” Dr. Williams said. “With Medicare part D, patients pay the first $415. Medicare pays 75% of the next 3,800. After that, patients go into the donut hole.”
	
	The ever growing gross-to-net rebate bubble is the difference between the manufacturer’s list price and the net price, after negotiated rebates and discounts decided by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). Last year, it was $166 billion.
	
	“This can produce perverse incentives for drug companies to raise  prices and increase discounts, because PBMs are paid by insurers based on the amounts they negotiate for each discount,” Dr. Williams concluded. “These discounts are supposed to be shared with either the insurance provider or with the patient-but it turns out they are not, and our patients pay co-pays on the inflated price. This rebate bubble has exploded in recent years, from $59 billion in 2012 to $126 billion currently.”
	
	


	p: 248/288-2280 
	e: George.Williams@beaumont.edu
	

This article was adapted from Dr. Williams’ presentation at the 2019 American Glaucoma Society annual meeting. Dr. Williams has no other financial disclosures related to this report.