The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), finalized CMS-1785-P in August, a rule that links Medicare reimbursement to the treatment of sepsis. Previously, hospitals were required to report on their sepsis treatment patients, but there was no penalty for not adhering to treatment guidelines. Beginning in Fall 2024, hospitals must meet the specific treatment benchmarks integrated into Medicare’s Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program (MHVBPP) specifically the provisions outlined in the Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1). Failing to meet these benchmarks could result in significant financial losses for hospitals, ranging from thousands to millions of dollars for larger entities. While hospitals should presently be aware of these requirements and implement plans to meet them, there are concerns about whether the proposed rule is the optimal solution for improving outcomes for sepsis patients.
Recent instances of politicians experiencing medical episodes in the public eye have sparked discussions regarding age limits for politicians. However, a parallel conversation is emerging about the healthcare professionals responsible for our well-being. About four years ago, a small number of health care institutions began implementing various forms of neuropsychological testing policies for older physicians. Since then – over the past few years – this practice has continued to grow and become increasingly controversial. The ongoing debate centers around determining the appropriate age to commence testing for physicians, the specific parameters to test for, and the ethics of mandating such testing. These questions remain subjects of ongoing debate, yet considering the rising demographic of physicians over the age of 60, there is a growing argument for integrating some form of neuropsychological examination.
The political debate surrounding Gender Affirming Care (GAC) is gaining momentum nationwide as 22 states have already enacted laws that restrict medical professionals from offering hormonal and/or surgical treatments to transgender minors. Despite endorsement and approval of this treatment by various medical organizations, such as the AMA, efforts to limit access for minors continues to press forward. Aside from the ongoing battle between politicians and medical providers, the constitutional implications of such legislation remain uncertain.