No Such Thing as a Safe Tan
Three papers published in the October issue of Pigment Cell and Melanoma Research contend that there's no evidence supporting the safety of tanningespecially indoor tanningand they call on the tanning bed industry to cease promoting its services. Dr. David Fisher, president of the Society of Melanoma Research, and colleagues from Massachusetts General Hospital's dermatology department write that while genetic and other factors play a role in skin cancer risk, "the role of UV is incontrovertible, and efforts to confuse the public, particularly for purposes of economic gain by the indoor tanning industry, should be vigorously combated for the public health." Dr. Marianne Berwick of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, writes, "Epidemiologic dataincomplete and unsatisfactorysuggests that tanning beds are not safer than solar ultraviolet radiation and that they may have independent effects from solar exposure that increase risk for melanoma." Finally, Dr. Dorothy Bennett of the University of London argues that recreational exposure to ultraviolet light should be discouraged because UV is a known mutagen.
Industry Groups Protest IVIG Cuts
The Biotechnology Industry Organization, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the Association of Community Cancer Centers, and the Alliance for Plasma Therapies are urging the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to preserve the preadministration fee currently paid for administering intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) therapy in hospital outpatient settings. The CMS proposed to eliminate the payment as part of its hospital outpatient prospective payment system rule for next year. The preadministration payment began in 2006 at a time when IVIG supplies were tight, driving up the price. The CMS says it's not clear that supply is still an issue, but manufacturers and patient organizations say there are still difficulties. "BIO does not believe that there is stability in the IVIG marketplace when over 40% of the providers cannot purchase IVIG at or below the Medicare payment rate," said the group in its comments. The CMS also said that it wants to cut the add-on fee because IVIG use has gone up markedly. BIO argued that increased use shows that the preadministration payment has helped providers acquire and administer the drug.
CMS Alters Overpayment Policy
CMS officials are changing the procedures for recovering certain overpayments made to physicians. The CMS will no longer seek payment from a physician for an overpayment while the physician is seeking a reconsideration of the overpayment determination by a qualified independent contractor. Under the new policy, which was mandated by the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, the CMS can only seek to recoup the payment after a decision has been made on the reconsideration. The changes, which went into effect Sept. 29, will apply to all Part A and Part B claims for which a demand letter has been issued. However, a number of claims have been excluded, including Part A cost reports, hospice caps calculations, provider initiated adjustments, home health agency requests for anticipated payment, accelerated/advanced payments, and certain other claims adjustments. The changes do not affect the appeal process or the normal debt collection and referral process, according to the CMS.
HHS Privacy Efforts Lacking
The Health and Human Services department has taken some steps to safeguard patient privacy, but efforts in several areas are still lacking, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office. The report notes that although the HHS has made progress in developing a confidentiality, security, and privacy framework for health records, it has looked at some areas only in a narrow view. For example, the agency's efforts at harmonizing certification and standards mostly address technical issues such as data encryption and password protections, while the recommendations submitted by the HHS's advisory committees are primarily aimed at policy and legal issues. In response, the report noted that the "HHS agreed that more work remains to be done in the department's efforts to protect the privacy of electronic personal health information and stated that it is actively pursuing a two-phased process for assessing and prioritizing privacy-related initiatives intended to build public trust and confidence in health IT, particularly in electronic health information exchange."
Immigrants Must Get HPV Vaccine
Young women seeking to immigrate to the United States currently are required to be vaccinated against the human papillomavirus, under an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act. Under the 1996 amendment, individuals seeking immigrant visas must provide proof of vaccination for all vaccines recommended by the U.S. Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices. This list, which is updated periodically, now includes HPV vaccination for females aged 1112 years, with catch-up vaccination among those aged 1326 years. The addition of the HPV vaccine to the list of required vaccines for immigrants was automatic and required by statute, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spokesman Curtis Allen, and was not part of ACIP deliberations when the committee originally recommended use of the HPV vaccine. According to a spokeswoman for Merck & Co., the HPV vaccine Gardasil costs approximately $290-$375 for the three-dose series. The company was not aware of the immigration policy and did not lobby for that provision, she added.