Medical Cannabis: The Debate

Medical cannabis legislation has been a lingering debate in our nation’s history. In Pennsylvania, it is one with no definitive resolution in sight – and that may be a good thing. Why is that? Because it gives us time to get it right. In 2014, the Pennsylvania State Nurses Association (PSNA) supported original medical cannabis legislation because it was (1) strictly monitored, (2) tightly controlled and (3) medically prescribed. A recent amendment to the current legislation, Senate Bill 3, has weakened its focus on the patient by becoming cost prohibitive and hindering inter-collaborative practice by health care teams.

Research shows that inter-professional collaboration in practice decreases overall health care costs while increasing quality outcomes. While the original legislation defined practitioners to include the entire health care team, SB 3 now defines a health care practitioner strictly as MD or a doctor of osteopathic medicine. This change perpetuates both access to and patient cost of care.

Many patients with qualifying conditions are experiencing limited resources – both monetary and medical – and this bill will further increase their costs. SB 3 calls for patients to pay a fee to obtain an Access card while not providing reimbursement or financial assistance for the cannabis itself. In addition, SB 3 no longer protects patients and providers from criminal prosecution, civil liabilities and/or professional sanctioning.

PSNA takes seriously our social and ethical responsibility of advocating for the nurses of Pennsylvania and the patients for whom we care. As amended, PSNA does not support SB 3.

Americans Are Drinking More Heavily, Especially Women

Whether quaffing artisanal cocktails at hipster bars or knocking back no-name beers on the couch, Americans are drinking more heavily – and binge-drinking more often, concludes a major study of alcohol use.

Heavy drinking among Americans rose 17.2 percent between 2005 and 2012, largely due to rising rates among women, according to the study by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, published Thursday in the American Journal of Public Health.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines heavy drinking as exceeding an average of one drink per day during the past month for women and two drinks per day for men. Binge drinking is defined as four or more drinks for women and five or more drinks for men on a single occasion.

The increases are driven largely by women’s drinking habits as social norms change, researchers found. In Santa Clara County, Calif., for example, women’s binge drinking rates rose by nearly 36 percent between 2002 and 2012, compared with 23 percent among men.

Nationwide over the course of the decade, the rate of binge drinking among women increased more than seven times the rate among men.

“It seems like women are trying to catch up to the men in binge drinking,” said Ali Mokdad, a lead author of the study. “It’s really, really scary.”

The study is the first to track adult drinking patterns at the county level. Despite the increases in heavy drinking, the percentage of people who drink any alcohol has remained relatively unchanged over time, it found.

Madison County, Idaho, reported the lowest rate of binge drinking in 2012, at 6 percent, while Menominee, Wis., had the highest, at 36 percent. Hancock County, Tenn. had the fewest heavy drinkers (2 percent of residents) and Esmeralda County, Nev., recorded the most (22 percent).

About 88,600 U.S. deaths were attributed to alcohol in 2010, the researchers note, and the cost of excessive drinking has been estimated at more than $220 billion per year.

The increase in binge drinking doesn’t surprise Terri Fukagawa, clinical director of the New Life Recovery Centers in San Jose, Calif., where 15 of her 24 treatment beds are filled with clients primarily addicted to alcohol. She said she’s seen more people seeking treatment for alcoholism in the past four years.

Still, she noted, “there are a lot of people still out there needing treatment, but they won’t come in unless they have a consequence like losing a job or [getting] a DUI. They think they have control over it.”

Public health experts offer a number of cultural and economic explanations for the increase in excessive drinking.

As a result of changed social norms, it’s now more acceptable for women to drink the way men traditionally have, said Tom Greenfield, scientific director at the Alcohol Research Group at the Oakland, Calif.-based Public Health Institute.

Young people are more likely to binge drink, and affluent people have the money to drink more. So the influx of wealthy professionals in cities like San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland – many in hard-working, hard-partying tech jobs – may have helped spur significant spikes in drinking rates in the Bay Area and similar communities, experts said.

Taxes on alcohol have not risen along with the Consumer Price Index, so wine, beer and liquor have gotten cheaper over time in real dollars, he said.

Alcohol advertising, particularly for hard liquor, has increased in recent years. A Federal Trade Commission study found that companies spent about $3.45 billion to advertise alcoholic beverages in 2011.

Alcohol control policies, such as limits on when and where alcohol can be sold and how long bars can stay open, have weakened in past decades, Greenfield said. That may partly explain rising consumption nationwide, particularly in some states where “blue laws” once prohibited alcohol sales on Sundays or in supermarkets.

To conduct the study, researchers analyzed data on about 3.7 million Americans aged 21 and older from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, an ongoing telephone survey of health behaviors conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Officials Weighing Options To Hold Down Medicare Costs For Hospice

Medicare officials are considering changes in the hospice benefit to stop the federal government from paying twice for care given to dying patients. But patient advocates and hospice providers fear a new policy could make the often difficult decision to move into hospice care even tougher.

Patients are eligible for hospice care when doctors determine they have no more than six months to live. They agree to forgo curative treatment for their terminal illness and instead receive palliative or comfort care. However, they are also still allowed Medicare coverage for health problems not related to their terminal illness, including chronic health conditions, or for accidental injuries.

Medicare pays a set amount to the hospice provider for all treatment and services related to the terminal illness, including doctor’s visits, nursing home stays, hospitalization, medical equipment and drugs.  If a patient needs treatment that hospice doesn’t provide because it is not related to the terminal illness — or the patient seeks care outside of hospice — Medicare pays the non-hospice providers. The problem is that sometimes Medicare pays for care outside the hospice benefit that it already paid hospice to cover.

To reduce the chances of these duplicative payments, Medicare officials have announced that they are examining whether to assume “virtually all” the care hospice patients receive should be covered under the hospice benefit.

Medicare has been paying millions of dollars in recent years to non-hospice providers for care for terminally ill patients under hospice care, according to government reports.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), an independent organization that advised Congress, found that in 2012, Medicare paid $1 billion to hospitals, nursing homes, therapists and other providers for services for hospice patients unrelated to their terminal illness.

The commission did not estimate how much of that was incorrectly billed and should have been covered by hospices. Prescription drug plans received more than $33 million in 2009 for drugs that probably should have been covered by the hospice benefit, according to an investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services’ inspector general.

Hospice is growing rapidly among older Americans. Of those Medicare beneficiaries who died in 2013, nearly half used hospice, double the rate in 2000, MedPAC also found. Over the same time period, Medicare spending for hospice services grew five-fold, to $15 billion.

Medicare officials initially mentioned last year that they were exploring possible changes. Concerns about duplicative payments “strongly suggests that hospice services are being ‘unbundled,’ negating the hospice philosophy of comprehensive, holistic care and shifting the costs to other parts of Medicare, and creating additional cost-sharing burden to those vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries who are at end-of-life,” they wrote in regulations containing this year’s hospice payment rates and other program rules. Officials have not yet issued a formal proposal.

“There will always be exceptions for people who have terminal conditions and have other conditions that need to be attended to,” said Sean Cavanaugh, deputy administrator at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “But the majority of their services would be provided through hospice.”

Seniors’ advocates are worried that putting all coverage under the hospice benefit will create obstacles for patients. Instead, Medicare should go after hospice providers who are shifting costs to other providers that Medicare expects hospice to cover, said Terry Berthelot, a senior attorney at the Center for Medicare Advocacy, who urged the government to protect hospice patients’ access to non-hospice care.

“The easiest thing for CMS to do is to say everything would be related to the terminal illness and then there would be no billing problems,” Berthelot said. But federal law, guarantees hospice patients Medicare coverage to control diabetes, blood pressure or other conditions not related to their terminal illness.

“If your blood sugar gets out of control, that could hasten your death,” she said. “But people shouldn’t be rushed off to die because they’ve elected the hospice benefit.”

Cavanaugh said the government is not trying to restrict drugs or other Medicare benefits for hospice patients.

“It’s more about getting the payment right,” he said. “The question is how to clearly circumscribe the benefit, to define what’s in the hospice benefit and what is not.”

That’s not always easy to figure out.

If a cancer patient in hospice slips on some ice and breaks her wrist, the injury could have happened because the cancer has attacked the bones, making them thin and brittle, said Dr. May Al-Abousi, medical director for hospice services at University Hospitals in Cleveland. Treatment for the injury would be covered by hospice.  But the injury would not necessarily be part of the hospice benefit for someone with a terminal illness other than cancer, she said.

“Medicine has no cookbook, where we can apply all-or-none rules,” she said.

Sometimes a hospice provider may not even know when a patient has gone to the hospital and there’s usually no way the hospital knows the patient is in hospice unless the patient makes that clear, said Judi Lund Person, at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization,  [http://www.nhpco.org/ ]  which represents nearly 2,000 hospice companies.

“The emergency room physician should be aware that this is a hospice patient with lung cancer as opposed to an 85-year-old male who fell at Denny’s,” she said.

Patients and their families may be afraid to volunteer that information, said Dr. Al-Abousi.  “A lot of people get scared when they hear the “H” word,” she said.  “They think once they sign that paper for Medicare, nothing else is going to be covered.”

Contact Susan Jaffe at Jaffe.KHN@gmail.com

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Medical Cannabis Opposition

The Pennsylvania State Nurses Association (PSNA), representing more than 218,000 registered nurses in Pennsylvania, stated that they will not support Senate Bill 3 PN 793, “Reintroduction of Medical Cannabis”, after an amendment was approved on April 21, 2015 by the  Senate State Government Committee. As currently written, Senate Bill 3 PN 793 is no longer patient-centered with nurses as key members of the care team.

In January 2014, PSNA was the first health care association to support SB 1182, “Medical Cannabis,” introduced by Senators Mike Folmer and Daylin Leach. SB 1182 was model legislation that was strictly monitored, tightly controlled and medically prescribed. SB 1182 allowed for registered nurses to dispense medical cannabis, which is ideal in a health care environment that faces a physician shortage.

“Pennsylvania’s medical cannabis legislation originally focused on patient-centered care,” states PSNA Chief Executive Officer Betsy M. Snook, MEd, RN, BSN. “Not only did it provide patients with safe access to therapeutic cannabis for symptom management of intractable medical conditions, but it also protected both patients and health care providers from criminal prosecution, civil liabilities and/or professional sanctioning. Finally, it provided for the establishment of efficient drug delivery, growing and dispensing systems, including registered nurses as dispensers.”

Senate Bill 3 PN 793 no longer contains the provisions that initiated PSNA to support the previous version of the bill. PSNA and the American Nurses Association (ANA) have supported patients’ rights to legally and safely utilize medical marijuana for symptom management of intractable diseases and their sequelae and will continue to advocate doing so.

 

The Pennsylvania State Nurses Association (PSNA) is the non-profit voice for nurses in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Representing more than 218,000 nurses, PSNA leads, advocates, educates and connects with registered nurses across the Commonwealth. PSNA is a constituent member of the American Nurses Association. www.psna.org