TITLE 2. AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES
Final Regulation
REGISTRAR'S NOTICE: The
Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services is claiming an exemption from
the Administrative Process Act in accordance with § 2.2-4002 A 13 of the
Code of Virginia, which excludes the commissioner and the board when
promulgating regulations pursuant to § 3.2-5406 of the Code of Virginia
including adopting (i) by reference any regulation under the federal acts as it
pertains to Chapter 54 (§ 3.2-5400 et seq.) of Title 3.2 of the Code of
Virginia, amending it as necessary for intrastate applicability and (ii) any
regulation containing provisions no less stringent than those contained in
federal regulation. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services will
receive, consider, and respond to petitions by any interested person at any
time with respect to reconsideration or revision.
Title of Regulation: 2VAC5-210. Rules and Regulations
Pertaining to Meat and Poultry Inspection under the Virginia Meat and Poultry
Products Inspection Act (amending 2VAC5-210-10).
Statutory Authority: § 3.2-5406 of the Code of Virginia.
Effective Date: July 9, 2018.
Agency Contact: Barry Jones, Program Manager, Meat and
Poultry Services, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, P.O. Box
1163, Richmond, VA 23218, telephone (804) 786-4569, FAX (804) 786-1003, TTY
(800) 828-1120, or email barry.jones@vdacs.virginia.gov.
Small Business Impact Review Report of Findings:
This regulatory action serves as the report of the findings of the regulatory
review pursuant to § 2.2-4007.1 of the Code of Virginia.
Summary:
The amendments update the publication date for Title 9,
Chapter III, Subchapters A and E of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) from
January 1, 2016, to January 1, 2018. The U.S. Department of Agriculture/Food
Safety and Inspection Service (USDA/FSIS) updates Title 9, Chapter III on
January 1 of each year. The USDA/FSIS revisions to the CFR that are
incorporated by reference include (i) a provision stating that livestock
owners, transporters, haulers, and other persons not employed by an official
establishment will be held responsible if they commit acts involving inhumane
handling of livestock in connection with slaughter when on the premises of an
official establishment; (ii) the removal of a provision that permits
establishments to set apart and hold for treatment veal calves that are unable
to rise from recumbent position and walk because they are tired or cold; (iii)
a requirement that all nonambulatory disabled cattle be promptly disposed of
after they have been condemned; (iv) the removal of a provision that requires
antemortem inspection to be conducted in pens; (v) an amendment to the definition
and standard of identity for the "roaster" or "roasting
chicken" poultry class to better reflect the characteristics of
"roaster" chickens in the market today; and (vi) an update to the
definition of "roaster" to remove the eight-week minimum age criterion
and increase the ready-to-cook carcass weight from five pounds to five and
one-half pounds.
Part I
Adoption by Reference
2VAC5-210-10. Adoption by reference.
The rules and regulations governing the meat and poultry
inspection of the United States U.S. Department of
Agriculture specified in this part, as contained in Title 9, Chapter III,
Subchapters A and E of the Code of Federal Regulations, as it exists and has
been published in the January 1, 2016 2018, update with
amendments and with administrative changes therein as needed to make them
appropriate and applicable to intrastate operations and transactions subject to
the Virginia Meat and Poultry Products Inspection Act, are hereby adopted by
reference.
VA.R. Doc. No. R18-5455; Filed June 12, 2018, 9:55 a.m.
TITLE 3. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL AUTHORITY
Emergency Regulation
Title of Regulation: 3VAC5-50. Retail Operations (adding 3VAC5-50-250).
Statutory Authority: §§ 4.1-103 and 4.1-111 of the Code
of Virginia.
Effective Dates: July 1, 2018, through December 30,
2019.
Agency Contact: LaTonya D. Hucks, Legal Liaison,
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 2901 Hermitage Road, Richmond, VA
23220, telephone (804) 213-4698, FAX (804) 213-4574, or email
latonya.hucks@abc.virginia.gov.
Preamble:
Section 2.2-4011 A of the Code of Virginia states that
regulations that an agency finds are necessitated by an emergency situation may
be adopted upon consultation with the Attorney General, which approval shall be
granted only after the agency has submitted a request stating in writing the
nature of the emergency, and the necessity for such action shall be at the sole
discretion of the Governor.
The emergency action implements the confectionery license
created by Chapters 173 and 334 of the 2018 Acts of Assembly, which authorizes
the licensee to prepare and sell on the licensed premises for off-premises
consumption confectionery. The provisions require that the confectionery
contain 5.0% or less alcohol by volume and that any alcohol contained in such
confectionery shall not be in liquid form at the time such confectionery is
sold. The regulation defines the term "confectionery" and includes
labeling requirements for such confectionery.
3VAC5-50-250. Confectionery; definition; restrictions;
labeling.
A. "Confectionery" means a general class of sweet
foods and edibles, including baked goods and candies, having an alcohol content
not more than 5.0% by volume.
B. Any alcohol contained in such confectionery shall not
be in liquid form at the time such confectionery is sold. Such alcohol shall be
fully integrated or blended into the confectionery product.
C. Any such confectionery shall only be sold to those
individuals who can lawfully consume alcohol.
D. Any establishment licensed to sell confectioneries for
off-premises consumption shall properly label the product with such label
including:
1. Notice that the product contains alcohol;
2. Notice that the product can only be consumed off
premises; and
3. Warning that the product should not be consumed by
anyone under the age of 21.
VA.R. Doc. No. R18-5486; Filed June 20, 2018, 11:03 a.m.
TITLE 4. CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MARINE RESOURCES COMMISSION
Final Regulation
REGISTRAR'S NOTICE: The
Marine Resources Commission is claiming an exemption from the Administrative
Process Act in accordance with § 2.2-4006 A 11 of the Code of Virginia;
however, the commission is required to publish the full text of final
regulations.
Title of Regulation: 4VAC20-240. Pertaining to the
Tangier Island Crab Scrape Sanctuary (adding 4VAC20-240-25).
Statutory Authority: § 28.2-201 of the Code of Virginia.
Effective Date: July 1, 2018.
Agency Contact: Jennifer Farmer, Regulatory Coordinator,
Marine Resources Commission, 2600 Washington Avenue, 3rd Floor, Newport News,
VA 23607, telephone (757) 247-2248, or email
jennifer.farmer@mrc.virginia.gov.
Summary:
The amendments establish a seasonal bycatch allowance of
female hard crabs, not to exceed three bushels per day, for crab scrape
licensees during the months of August through October.
4VAC20-240-25. Bycatch allowance.
From August 1 through October 31, there shall be a limited
daily bycatch allowance of up to three bushels of female hard crabs for valid
peeler scrape licensees.
VA.R. Doc. No. R18-5555; Filed June 25, 2018, 11:19 a.m.
TITLE 4. CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MARINE RESOURCES COMMISSION
Final Regulation
REGISTRAR'S NOTICE: The
Marine Resources Commission is claiming an exemption from the Administrative
Process Act in accordance with § 2.2-4006 A 11 of the Code of Virginia;
however, the commission is required to publish the full text of final
regulations.
Title of Regulation: 4VAC20-270. Pertaining to
Crabbing (amending 4VAC20-270-40, 4VAC20-270-51).
Statutory Authority: § 28.2-201 of the Code of Virginia.
Effective Date: July 5, 2018.
Agency Contact: Jennifer Farmer, Regulatory Coordinator,
Marine Resources Commission, 2600 Washington Avenue, 3rd Floor, Newport News,
VA 23607, telephone (757) 247-2248, or email
jennifer.farmer@mrc.virginia.gov.
Summary:
The amendments update dates for the 2018-2019
commercial crabbing season in Virginia waters.
4VAC20-270-40. Season limits.
A. In 2017 2018, the lawful season for the
commercial harvest of crabs by crab pot shall be March 1 17
through November 30. In 2018 2019, the lawful season for the
commercial harvest of crabs by crab pot shall be March 17 through November 30.
For all other lawful commercial gear used to harvest crabs, as described in
4VAC20-1040, the lawful seasons for the harvest of crabs shall be April 1
through October 31.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to harvest crabs or to
possess crabs on board a vessel, except during the lawful season, as described
in subsection A of this section.
C. It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to place,
set, fish, or leave any hard crab pot in any tidal waters of Virginia from
December 1, 2017 2018, through March 16, 2018 2019.
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly to place, set,
fish, or leave any lawful commercial gear used to harvest crabs, except any
hard crab pot, or any gear as described in 4VAC20-460-25, in any
tidal waters of Virginia from November 1, 2017 2018, through
March 31, 2018 2019.
D. It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to place,
set, fish, or leave any fish pot in any tidal waters from March 12 through
March 16, except as provided in subdivisions 1 and 2 of this subsection.
1. It shall be lawful for any person to place, set, or fish
any fish pot in those Virginia waters located upriver of the following boundary
lines:
a. In the James River the boundary shall be a line connecting
Hog Point and the downstream point at the mouth of College Creek.
b. In the York River the boundary lines shall be the Route 33
bridges at West Point.
c. In the Rappahannock River the boundary line shall be the
Route 360 bridge at Tappahannock.
d. In the Potomac River the boundary line shall be the Route
301 bridge that extends from Newberg, Maryland to Dahlgren, Virginia.
2. This subsection shall not apply to legally licensed eel
pots as described in 4VAC20-500-50.
E. It shall be unlawful for any person to place, set, or fish
any number of fish pots in excess of 10% of the amount allowed by the gear
license limit, up to a maximum of 30 fish pots per vessel, when any person on
that vessel has set any crab pots.
1. This subsection shall not apply to fish pots set in the
areas described in subdivision D 1 of this section.
2. This subsection shall not apply to legally licensed eel
pots as described in 4VAC20-500.
3. This subsection shall not apply to fish pots constructed of
a mesh less than one-inch square or hexagonal mesh.
4VAC20-270-51. Daily commercial harvester, vessel, and harvest
and possession limits.
A. Any barrel used by a harvester to contain or possess any
amount of crabs will be equivalent in volume to no more than 3 bushels of
crabs.
B. From July 5, 2017 2018, through October 31, 2017
2018, and April 1, 2018 2019, through July 4, 2018 2019,
any Commercial Fisherman Registration Licensee legally licensed for any crab
pot license, as described in 4VAC20-270-50 B, shall be limited to the following
maximum daily harvest and possession limits for any of the following crab pot
license categories:
1. 10 bushels, or 3 barrels and 1 bushel, of crabs if licensed
for up to 85 crab pots.
2. 14 bushels, or 4 barrels and 2 bushels, of crabs if
licensed for up to 127 crab pots.
3. 18 bushels, or 6 barrels, of crabs if licensed for up to
170 crab pots.
4. 29 bushels, or 9 barrels and 2 bushels, of crabs if
licensed for up to 255 crab pots.
5. 47 bushels, or 15 barrels and 2 bushels, of crabs if
licensed for up to 425 crab pots.
C. From November 1, 2017 2018, through November
30, 2017 2018, and March 17, 2018 2019, through
March 31, 2018 2019, any Commercial Fisherman Registration
Licensee legally licensed for any crab pot license, as described in
4VAC20-270-50 B, shall be limited to the following maximum daily harvest and
possession limits for any of the following crab pot license categories:
1. 8 bushels, or 2 barrels and 2 bushels, of crabs if licensed
for up to 85 crab pots.
2. 10 bushels, or 3 barrels and 1 bushel, of crabs if licensed
for up to 127 crab pots.
3. 13 bushels, or 4 barrels and 1 bushel, of crabs if licensed
for up to 170 crab pots.
4. 21 bushels, or 7 barrels, of crabs if licensed for up to
255 crab pots.
5. 27 bushels, or 9 barrels, of crabs if licensed for up to
425 crab pots.
D. When a single harvester or multiple harvesters are on
board any vessel, that vessel's daily harvest and possession limit shall be
equal to only one daily harvest and possession limit, as described in
subsections B and C of this section, and that daily limit shall correspond to
the highest harvest and possession limit of only one licensee on board that
vessel.
E. When transporting or selling one or more legal crab pot
licensee's crab harvest in bushels or barrels, any agent shall possess either
the crab pot license of that one or more crab pot licensees or a bill of lading
indicating each crab pot licensee's name, address, Commercial Fisherman
Registration License number, date, and amount of bushels or barrels of crabs to
be sold.
F. If any police officer finds crabs in excess of any lawful
daily bushel, barrel, or vessel limit, as described in this section, that
excess quantity of crabs shall be returned immediately to the water by the
licensee or licensees who possess that excess over lawful daily harvest or
possession limit. The refusal to return crabs, in excess of any lawful daily
harvest or possession limit, to the water shall constitute a separate violation
of this chapter.
G. When any person on board any boat or vessel possesses a
crab pot license, it shall be unlawful for that person or any other person
aboard that boat or vessel to possess a seafood buyers boat license and buy any
crabs on any day.
VA.R. Doc. No. R18-5553; Filed June 25, 2018, 11:29 a.m.
TITLE 4. CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MARINE RESOURCES COMMISSION
Final Regulation
REGISTRAR'S NOTICE: The
Marine Resources Commission is claiming an exemption from the Administrative
Process Act in accordance with § 2.2-4006 A 11 of the Code of Virginia;
however, the commission is required to publish the full text of final
regulations.
Title of Regulation: 4VAC20-450. Pertaining to the
Taking of Bluefish (amending 4VAC20-450-30).
Statutory Authority: § 28.2-201 of the Code of Virginia.
Effective Date: July 1, 2018.
Agency Contact: Jennifer Farmer, Regulatory Coordinator,
Marine Resources Commission, 2600 Washington Avenue, 3rd Floor, Newport News,
VA 23607, telephone (757) 247-2248, or email
jennifer.farmer@mrc.virginia.gov.
Summary:
The amendments establish the 2018 commercial bluefish quota
as 860,518 pounds.
4VAC20-450-30. Commercial landings quota.
A. The commercial landings of bluefish shall be limited to 1,014,773
860,518 pounds during the current calendar year.
B. When it is projected that 95% of the commercial landings
quota has been realized, a notice will be posted to close commercial harvest
and landings from the bluefish fishery within five days of posting.
C. It shall be unlawful for any person to harvest or land
bluefish for commercial purposes after the closure date set forth in the notice
described in subsection B of this section.
VA.R. Doc. No. R18-5554; Filed June 25, 2018, 11:13 a.m.
TITLE 4. CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MARINE RESOURCES COMMISSION
Final Regulation
REGISTRAR'S NOTICE: The
Marine Resources Commission is claiming an exemption from the Administrative
Process Act in accordance with § 2.2-4006 A 11 of the Code of Virginia;
however, the commission is required to publish the full text of final
regulations.
Title of Regulation: 4VAC20-1140. Prohibition of Crab
Dredging in Virginia Waters (amending 4VAC20-1140-20).
Statutory Authority: § 28.2-201 of the Code of Virginia.
Effective Date: July 5, 2018.
Agency Contact: Jennifer Farmer, Regulatory Coordinator,
Marine Resources Commission, 2600 Washington Avenue, 3rd Floor, Newport News,
VA 23607, telephone (757) 247-2248, or email
jennifer.farmer@mrc.virginia.gov.
Summary:
The amendments close the season for crab dredging in
Virginia waters December 1, 2018, through March 31, 2019.
4VAC20-1140-20. Crab dredging prohibited.
In accordance with the provisions of § 28.2-707 of the Code
of Virginia, the crab dredging season of December 1, 2017 2018,
through March 31, 2018 2019, is closed, and it shall be unlawful
to use a dredge for catching crabs from the waters of the Commonwealth during
that season.
VA.R. Doc. No. R18-5552; Filed June 25, 2018, 11:10 a.m.
TITLE 8. EDUCATION
COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY
Final Regulation
REGISTRAR'S NOTICE: The
College of William and Mary is claiming an exemption from the Administrative
Process Act in accordance with § 2.2-4002 A 6 of the Code of Virginia,
which exempts educational institutions operated by the Commonwealth.
Title of Regulation: 8VAC115-40. Open Flames on
Campus (adding 8VAC115-40-10 through 8VAC115-40-50).
Statutory Authority: § 23.1-1301 of the Code of Virginia.
Effective Date: June 21, 2018.
Agency Contact: Carla Costello, ADA Coordinator and
Compliance Investigator, College of William and Mary, 108 James Blair Hall,
Williamsburg, VA 23185, telephone (757) 221-1254, or email
cacostello@wm.edu.
Summary:
The regulation (i) establishes the limitations on the
presence of open flames in university buildings or on university property and
(ii) imposes the requirement for a permit for certain activities involving open
burning or open flames.
CHAPTER 40
OPEN FLAMES ON CAMPUS
8VAC115-40-10. Definitions.
The following words and terms when used in this chapter
shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates
otherwise:
"Open flame" means any activity or device
producing a flame, including candles, tiki torches, oil lanterns, butane or
other gas burners, incense, campfires, bonfires, fire pits, and grills.
"University property" means any property,
vehicle, or vessel owned, leased, or controlled by the College of William &
Mary in Virginia, including the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
8VAC115-40-20. Permit required for open burning and open
flames; exceptions.
A. Open flames are prohibited on all university property,
including within university buildings and facilities, except pursuant to a
permit issued by the university.
B. Exceptions to the requirement for a permit are:
1. Activities taking place within the scope of academic
coursework when under the supervision of the relevant faculty member;
2. Flames created for the transient purpose of lighting a
cigarette, cigar, pipe, or similar smoking device, provided such activity is in
an authorized location, such activity is otherwise lawful, and the burning or
smoking elements are safely and responsibly disposed; and
3. Activities undertaken by university contractors whose
contract has been approved by the office of Procurement Services and which
contract authorizes open flames.
8VAC115-40-30. Permits.
Persons seeking to ignite an open flame must apply to the
Environmental Health and Safety Office for a permit to perform the activity.
Permits may be issued for a one-time event or activity, or on a recurring or
ongoing basis.
Applicants must apply at least five working days in
advance of the activity to ensure consideration. An applicant's history of compliance
with previous permits will be considered in a decision to grant a permit.
Persons granted permits are required to comply with all
conditions of the permit.
8VAC115-40-40. Person lawfully in charge.
In addition to individuals authorized by university
policy, College of William & Mary police officers and representatives of
the Environmental Health and Safety Office are lawfully in charge for the
purposes of forbidding entry upon or extending permission to remain upon
university property of those who are in violation of this prohibition.
8VAC115-40-50. Compliance with policy.
Persons who fail to obtain a permit or to comply with its
conditions will be asked to extinguish the open flame or bring the activity
into compliance with the term of the permit. Failure to comply with this
request may result in arrest for trespass. Members of the university community
are also subject to disciplinary action, including termination or expulsion.
VA.R. Doc. No. R18-5543; Filed June 18, 2018, 12:30 p.m.
TITLE 12. HEALTH
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES
Final Regulation
REGISTRAR'S NOTICE: The
State Board of Medical Assistance Services is claiming an exemption from
Article 2 of the Administrative Process Act in accordance with § 2.2-4006
A 4 a of the Code of Virginia, which excludes regulations that are necessary to
conform to changes in Virginia statutory law or the appropriation act where no
agency discretion is involved. The State Board of Medical Assistance Services
will receive, consider, and respond to petitions by any interested person at
any time with respect to reconsideration or revision.
Titles of Regulations: 12VAC30-70. Methods and
Standards for Establishing Payment Rates - Inpatient Hospital Services (amending 12VAC30-70-351).
12VAC30-80. Methods and Standards for Establishing Payment
Rates; Other Types of Care (amending 12VAC30-80-20, 12VAC30-80-30,
12VAC30-80-36).
Statutory Authority: § 32.1-325 of the Code of
Virginia; 42 USC § 1396.
Effective Date: August 8, 2018.
Agency Contact: Emily McClellan, Regulatory Supervisor,
Department of Medical Assistance Services, 600 East Broad Street, Suite 1300,
Richmond, VA 23219, telephone (804) 371-4300, FAX (804) 786-1680, or email
emily.mcclellan@dmas.virginia.gov.
Summary:
The amendments (i) allow an exception of 100% inflation for
certain Virginia freestanding children's hospitals in fiscal year 2017 and
fiscal year 2018 per Item 306 GGGG of Chapter 1 of the 2018 Acts of Assembly,
Special Session I (the budget bill) and (ii) incorporate language approved for
the State Plan for Medical Assistance by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services12VAC30-70-351. Updating rates for inflation.
A. Each July, the Virginia moving average values as compiled
and published by Global Insight (or its successor), under contract with the
department shall be used to update the base year standardized operating costs
per case, as determined in 12VAC30-70-361, and the base year standardized
operating costs per day, as determined in 12VAC30-70-371, to the midpoint of
the upcoming state fiscal year. The most current table available prior to the
effective date of the new rates shall be used to inflate base year amounts to
the upcoming rate year. Thus, corrections made by Global Insight (or its
successor), in the moving averages that were used to update rates for previous
state fiscal years shall be automatically incorporated into the moving averages
that are being used to update rates for the upcoming state fiscal year.
B. The inflation adjustment for hospital operating rates,
disproportionate share hospitals (DSH) payments, and graduate medical education
payments shall be eliminated for fiscal year (FY) 2010. The elimination of the
inflation adjustments shall not be applicable to rebasing in FY 2011.
C. In FY 2011, hospital operating rates shall be rebased;
however the 2008 base year costs shall only be increased 2.58% for inflation.
For FY 2011 there shall be no inflation adjustment for graduate medical
education (GME) or freestanding psychiatric facility rates. The inflation
adjustment shall be eliminated for hospital operating rates, GME payments, and
freestanding psychiatric facility rates for FY 2012. The inflation adjustment
shall be 2.6% for inpatient hospitals, including hospital operating rates, GME
payments, DSH payments, and freestanding psychiatric facility rates for FY
2013, and 0.0% for the same facilities for FY 2014, FY 2015, and FY 2016. For
FY 2017, the inflation adjustment for inpatient hospital operating rates, GME,
DSH, and freestanding psychiatric hospitals shall be 50% of the adjustment
calculated in subsection A of this section. In FY 2018, the inflation
adjustment for inpatient hospital operating rates, GME, DSH, and freestanding
psychiatric hospitals shall be eliminated for inpatient hospitals. A full
inflation adjustment payment shall be made in both FY 2017 and FY 2018 to
Virginia freestanding children's hospitals with greater than 50% Medicaid
utilization in 2009.
12VAC30-80-20. Services that are reimbursed on a cost basis.
A. Payments for services listed in this section shall be on
the basis of reasonable cost following the standards and principles applicable
to the Title XVIII Program with the exception provided for in subdivision D 1 e
of this section. The upper limit for reimbursement shall be no higher than
payments for Medicare patients on a facility-by-facility basis in
accordance with 42 CFR 447.321 and 42 CFR 447.325. In no instance,
however, shall charges for beneficiaries of the program be in excess of charges
for private patients receiving services from the provider. The professional
component for emergency room physicians shall continue to be uncovered as a
component of the payment to the facility.
B. Reasonable costs will be determined from the filing of a
uniform Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-approved cost report
by participating providers. The cost reports are due not later than 150 days
after the provider's fiscal year end. If a complete cost report is not received
within 150 days after the end of the provider's fiscal year, DMAS or its
designee shall take action in accordance with its policies to assure that an
overpayment is not being made. All cost reports shall be reviewed and
reconciled to final costs within 180 days of the receipt of a completed cost
report. The cost report will be judged complete when DMAS has all of the
following:
1. Completed cost reporting form provided by DMAS, with signed
certification;
2. The provider's trial balance showing adjusting journal
entries;
3. The provider's financial statements including, but not
limited to, a balance sheet, a statement of income and expenses, a statement of
retained earnings (or fund balance), and a statement of changes in financial
position;
4. Schedules that reconcile financial statements and trial
balance to expenses claimed in the cost report;
5. Depreciation schedule or summary;
6. Home office cost report, if applicable; and
7. Such other analytical information or supporting documents
requested by DMAS when the cost reporting forms are sent to the provider.
C. Item 398 D of the 1987 Appropriation Act (as amended),
effective April 8, 1987, eliminated reimbursement of return on equity capital
to proprietary providers.
D. The services that are cost
reimbursed are:
1. For dates of service prior to January 1, 2014, outpatient
hospital services, including rehabilitation hospital outpatient services and
excluding laboratory services.
a. Definitions. The following words and terms when used in
this section shall have the following meanings when applied to emergency
services unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
"All-inclusive" means all emergency department and
ancillary service charges claimed in association with the emergency room visit,
with the exception of laboratory services.
"DMAS" means the Department of Medical Assistance
Services consistent with Chapter 10 (§ 32.1-323 et seq.) of Title 32.1 of the
Code of Virginia.
"Emergency hospital services" means services that
are necessary to prevent the death or serious impairment of the health of the
recipient. The threat to the life or health of the recipient necessitates the
use of the most accessible hospital available that is equipped to furnish the
services.
"Recent injury" means an injury that has occurred
less than 72 hours prior to the emergency department visit.
b. Scope. DMAS shall differentiate, as determined by the
attending physician's diagnosis, the kinds of care routinely rendered in
emergency departments and reimburse for nonemergency care rendered in emergency
departments at a reduced rate.
(1) With the exception of laboratory services, DMAS shall
reimburse at a reduced and all-inclusive reimbursement rate for all services
rendered in emergency departments that DMAS determines were nonemergency care.
(2) Services determined by the attending physician to be
emergencies shall be reimbursed under the existing methodologies and at the
existing rates.
(3) Services performed by the attending physician that may be
emergencies shall be manually reviewed. If such services meet certain criteria,
they shall be paid under the methodology for subdivision 1 b (2) of this
subsection. Services not meeting certain criteria shall be paid under the
methodology of subdivision 1 b (1) of this subsection. Such criteria shall
include, but not be limited to:
(a) The initial treatment following a recent obvious injury.
(b) Treatment related to an injury sustained more than 72
hours prior to the visit with the deterioration of the symptoms to the point of
requiring medical treatment for stabilization.
(c) The initial treatment for medical emergencies including
indications of severe chest pain, dyspnea, gastrointestinal hemorrhage,
spontaneous abortion, loss of consciousness, status epilepticus, or other
conditions considered life threatening.
(d) A visit in which the recipient's condition requires
immediate hospital admission or the transfer to another facility for further
treatment or a visit in which the recipient dies.
(e) Services provided for acute vital sign changes as
specified in the provider manual.
(f) Services provided for severe pain when combined with one
or more of the other guidelines.
(4) Payment shall be determined based on ICD diagnosis codes
and necessary supporting documentation. As used here, the term "ICD"
is defined in 12VAC30-95-5.
(5) DMAS shall review on an ongoing basis the effectiveness of
this program in achieving its objectives and for its effect on recipients,
physicians, and hospitals. Program components may be revised subject to achieving
program intent, the accuracy and effectiveness of the ICD code designations,
and the impact on recipients and providers. As used here, the term
"ICD" is defined in 12VAC30-95-5.
c. Limitation of allowable cost. Effective for services on and
after July 1, 2003, reimbursement of Type Two hospitals for outpatient services
shall be at various percentages as noted in subdivisions 1 c (1) and 1 c (2) of
this subsection of allowable cost, with cost to be determined as provided in
subsections A, B, and C of this section. For hospitals with fiscal years that
do not begin on July 1, outpatient costs, both operating and capital, for the
fiscal year in progress on that date shall be apportioned between the time
period before and the time period after that date, based on the number of
calendar months in the cost reporting period, falling before and after that
date.
(1) Type One hospitals.
(a) Effective July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2010, hospital
outpatient operating reimbursement shall be at 94.2% of allowable cost and
capital reimbursement shall be at 90% of allowable cost.
(b) Effective July 1, 2010, through September 30, 2010,
hospital outpatient operating reimbursement shall be at 91.2% of allowable cost
and capital reimbursement shall be at 87% of allowable cost.
(c) Effective October 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011, hospital
outpatient operating reimbursement shall be at 94.2% of allowable cost and
capital reimbursement shall be at 90% of allowable cost.
(d) Effective July 1, 2011, hospital outpatient operating reimbursement
shall be at 90.2% of allowable cost and capital reimbursement shall be at 86%
of allowable cost.
(2) Type Two hospitals.
(a) Effective July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2010, hospital
outpatient operating and capital reimbursement shall be 80% of allowable cost.
(b) Effective July 1, 2010, through September 30, 2010,
hospital outpatient operating and capital reimbursement shall be 77% of
allowable cost.
(c) Effective October 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011, hospital
outpatient operating and capital reimbursement shall be 80% of allowable cost.
(d) Effective July 1, 2011, hospital outpatient operating and
capital reimbursement shall be 76% of allowable cost.
d. The last cost report with a fiscal year end on or after
December 31, 2013, shall be used for reimbursement for dates of service through
December 31, 2013, based on this section. Reimbursement shall be based on
charges reported for dates of service prior to January 1, 2014. Settlement will
be based on four months of runout from the end of the provider's fiscal year.
Claims for services paid after the cost report runout period will not be
settled.
e. Payment for direct medical education costs of nursing
schools, paramedical programs and graduate medical education for interns and
residents.
(1) Direct medical education costs of nursing schools and
paramedical programs shall continue to be paid on an allowable cost basis.
(2) Effective with cost reporting periods beginning on or
after July 1, 2002, direct graduate medical education (GME) costs for interns
and residents shall be reimbursed on a per-resident prospective basis. See
12VAC30-70-281 for prospective payment methodology for graduate medical
education for interns and residents.
2. Rehabilitation agencies or comprehensive outpatient
rehabilitation.
a. Effective July 1, 2009, rehabilitation agencies or
comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facilities that are operated by
community services boards or state agencies shall be reimbursed their costs.
For reimbursement methodology applicable to all other rehabilitation agencies,
see 12VAC30-80-200.
b. Effective October 1, 2009, rehabilitation agencies or
comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facilities operated by state agencies
shall be reimbursed their costs. For reimbursement methodology applicable to
all other rehabilitation agencies, see 12VAC30-80-200.
3. Supplement payments to Type One hospitals for outpatient
services.
a. In addition to payments for services set forth elsewhere in
the State Plan, DMAS makes supplemental payments to qualifying state government
owned or operated hospitals for outpatient services furnished to Medicare
members on or after July 1, 2010. To qualify for a supplement payment, the
hospital must be part of the state academic health system or part of an
academic health system that operates under a state authority.
b. The amount of the supplemental payment made to each
qualifying hospital shall be equal to the difference between the total
allowable cost and the amount otherwise actually paid for the services by the Medicaid
program based on cost settlement.
c. Payment for furnished services under this section shall be
paid at settlement of the cost report.
4. Supplemental payments for private hospital partners of Type
One hospitals. Effective for dates of service on or after October 25, 2011,
quarterly supplemental payments shall be issued to qualifying private hospitals
for outpatient services rendered during the quarter.
a. In order to qualify for the supplemental payment, the
hospital shall be enrolled currently as a Virginia Medicaid provider and shall
be owned or operated by a private entity in which a Type One hospital has a
nonmajority interest.
b. Reimbursement methodology.
(1) Hospitals not participating in the Medicaid
disproportionate share hospital (DSH) program shall receive quarterly
supplemental payments for the outpatient services rendered during the quarter.
Each quarterly payment distribution shall occur not more than two years after
the year in which the qualifying hospital's entitlement arises. The annual
supplemental payments in a fiscal year shall be the lesser of:
(a) The difference between each qualifying hospital's
outpatient Medicaid billed charges and Medicaid payments the hospital receives
for services processed for fee-for-service Medicaid individuals during the
fiscal year; or
(b) $1,894 per Medicaid outpatient visit for state plan rate
year 2012. For future state plan rate years, this number shall be adjusted by
inflation based on the Virginia moving average values as compiled and published
by Global Insight (or its successor) under contract with the department.
(2) Hospitals participating in the DSH program shall receive
quarterly supplemental payments for the outpatient services rendered during the
quarter. Each quarterly payment distribution shall occur not more than two
years after the year in which the qualifying hospital's entitlement arises. The
annual supplemental payments in a fiscal year shall be the lesser of:
(a) The difference between each qualifying hospital's
outpatient Medicaid billed charges and Medicaid payments the hospital receives
for services processed for fee-for-service Medicaid individuals during the
fiscal year;
(b) $1,894 per Medicaid outpatient visit for state plan rate
year 2012. For future state plan rate years, this number shall be adjusted by
inflation based on the Virginia moving average values as compiled and published
by Global Insight (or its successor) under contract with the department; or
(c) The difference between the limit calculated under § 1923(g)
of the Social Security Act and the hospital's DSH payments for the applicable
payment period.
c. Limit. Maximum aggregate payments to all qualifying
hospitals in this group shall not exceed the available upper payment limit per
state fiscal year.
12VAC30-80-30. Fee-for-service providers.
A. Payment for the following services, except for physician
services, shall be the lower of the state agency fee schedule (12VAC30-80-190
has information about the state agency fee schedule) or actual charge (charge
to the general public): Except as otherwise noted in this section,
state developed fee schedule rates are the same for both governmental and
private individual practitioners. Fee schedules and any annual or periodic
adjustments to the fee schedules are published on the DMAS website at http://www.dmas.virginia.gov.
1. Physicians' services. Payment for physician services shall
be the lower of the state agency fee schedule or actual charge (charge to the
general public).
2. Dentists' services.
3. Mental health services including: (i) community mental
health services, (ii) services of a licensed clinical psychologist, (iii)
mental health services provided by a physician, or (iv) peer support services.
a. Services provided by licensed clinical psychologists shall
be reimbursed at 90% of the reimbursement rate for psychiatrists.
b. Services provided by independently enrolled licensed
clinical social workers, licensed professional counselors or licensed clinical
nurse specialists-psychiatric shall be reimbursed at 75% of the reimbursement
rate for licensed clinical psychologists.
4. Podiatry.
5. Nurse-midwife services.
6. Durable medical equipment (DME) and supplies.
Definitions. The following words and terms when used in this
section shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates
otherwise:
"DMERC" means the Durable Medical Equipment Regional
Carrier rate as published by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services at http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/DMEPOSFeeSched/DMEPOS-Fee-Schedule.html.
"HCPCS" means the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding
System, Medicare's National Level II Codes, HCPCS 2006 (Eighteenth edition), as
published by Ingenix, as may be periodically updated.
a. Obtaining prior authorization shall not guarantee Medicaid
reimbursement for DME.
b. The following shall be the reimbursement method used for
DME services:
(1) If the DME item has a DMERC rate, the reimbursement rate
shall be the DMERC rate minus 10%. For dates of service on or after July 1,
2014, DME items subject to the Medicare competitive bidding program shall be
reimbursed the lower of:
(a) The current DMERC rate minus 10% or
(b) The average of the Medicare competitive bid rates in
Virginia markets.
(2) For DME items with no DMERC rate, the agency shall use the
agency fee schedule amount. The reimbursement rates for DME and supplies shall
be listed in the DMAS Medicaid Durable Medical Equipment (DME) and Supplies
Listing and updated periodically. The agency fee schedule shall be available on
the agency website at www.dmas.virginia.gov.
(3) If a DME item has no DMERC rate or agency fee schedule
rate, the reimbursement rate shall be the manufacturer's net charge to the
provider, less shipping and handling, plus 30%. The manufacturer's net charge
to the provider shall be the cost to the provider minus all available discounts
to the provider. Additional information specific to how DME providers,
including manufacturers who are enrolled as providers, establish and document
their cost or costs for DME codes that do not have established rates can be
found in the relevant agency guidance document.
c. DMAS shall have the authority to amend the agency fee
schedule as it deems appropriate and with notice to providers. DMAS shall have
the authority to determine alternate pricing, based on agency research, for any
code that does not have a rate.
d. The reimbursement for incontinence supplies shall be by
selective contract. Pursuant to § 1915(a)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act
and 42 CFR 431.54(d), the Commonwealth assures that adequate services or
devices shall be available under such arrangements.
e. Certain durable medical equipment used for intravenous
therapy and oxygen therapy shall be bundled under specified procedure codes and
reimbursed as determined by the agency. Certain services or durable medical
equipment such as service maintenance agreements shall be bundled under
specified procedure codes and reimbursed as determined by the agency.
(1) Intravenous therapies. The DME for a single therapy,
administered in one day, shall be reimbursed at the established service day
rate for the bundled durable medical equipment and the standard pharmacy
payment, consistent with the ingredient cost as described in 12VAC30-80-40,
plus the pharmacy service day and dispensing fee. Multiple applications of the
same therapy shall be included in one service day rate of reimbursement.
Multiple applications of different therapies administered in one day shall be reimbursed
for the bundled durable medical equipment service day rate as follows: the most
expensive therapy shall be reimbursed at 100% of cost; the second and all
subsequent most expensive therapies shall be reimbursed at 50% of cost.
Multiple therapies administered in one day shall be reimbursed at the pharmacy
service day rate plus 100% of every active therapeutic ingredient in the
compound (at the lowest ingredient cost methodology) plus the appropriate
pharmacy dispensing fee.
(2) Respiratory therapies. The DME for oxygen therapy shall
have supplies or components bundled under a service day rate based on oxygen
liter flow rate or blood gas levels. Equipment associated with respiratory
therapy may have ancillary components bundled with the main component for
reimbursement. The reimbursement shall be a service day per diem rate for
rental of equipment or a total amount of purchase for the purchase of
equipment. Such respiratory equipment shall include oxygen tanks and tubing,
ventilators, noncontinuous ventilators, and suction machines. Ventilators,
noncontinuous ventilators, and suction machines may be purchased based on the
individual patient's medical necessity and length of need.
(3) Service maintenance agreements. Provision shall be made
for a combination of services, routine maintenance, and supplies, to be known
as agreements, under a single reimbursement code only for equipment that is
recipient owned. Such bundled agreements shall be reimbursed either monthly or
in units per year based on the individual agreement between the DME provider
and DMAS. Such bundled agreements may apply to, but not necessarily be limited
to, either respiratory equipment or apnea monitors.
7. Local health services.
8. Laboratory services (other than inpatient hospital). The
agency's rates for clinical laboratory services were set as of July 1, 2014,
and are effective for services on or after that date.
9. Payments to physicians who handle laboratory specimens, but
do not perform laboratory analysis (limited to payment for handling).
10. X-ray services.
11. Optometry services.
12. Reserved.
13. Home health services. Effective June 30, 1991, cost
reimbursement for home health services is eliminated. A rate per visit by
discipline shall be established as set forth by 12VAC30-80-180.
14. Physical therapy; occupational therapy; and speech,
hearing, language disorders services when rendered to noninstitutionalized
recipients.
15. Clinic services, as defined under 42 CFR 440.90,
except for services in ambulatory surgery clinics reimbursed under
12VAC30-80-35.
16. Supplemental payments for services provided by Type I
physicians.
a. In addition to payments for physician services specified
elsewhere in this chapter, DMAS provides supplemental payments to Type I
physicians for furnished services provided on or after July 2, 2002. A Type I
physician is a member of a practice group organized by or under the control of
a state academic health system or an academic health system that operates under
a state authority and includes a hospital, who has entered into contractual
agreements for the assignment of payments in accordance with 42 CFR
447.10.
b. Effective July 2, 2002, the supplemental payment amount for
Type I physician services shall be the difference between the Medicaid payments
otherwise made for Type I physician services and Medicare rates. Effective
August 13, 2002, the supplemental payment amount for Type I physician services
shall be the difference between the Medicaid payments otherwise made for
physician services and 143% of Medicare rates. Effective January 3, 2012, the
supplemental payment amount for Type I physician services shall be the
difference between the Medicaid payments otherwise made for physician services
and 181% of Medicare rates. Effective January 1, 2013, the supplemental payment
amount for Type I physician services shall be the difference between the
Medicaid payments otherwise made for physician services and 197% of Medicare
rates. Effective April 8, 2014, the supplemental payment amount for Type I physician
services shall be the difference between the Medicaid payments otherwise made
for physician services and 201% of Medicare rates.
c. The methodology for determining the Medicare equivalent of
the average commercial rate is described in 12VAC30-80-300.
d. Supplemental payments shall be made quarterly no later than
90 days after the end of the quarter.
e. Payment will not be made to the extent that the payment
would duplicate payments based on physician costs covered by the supplemental
payments.
17. Supplemental payments for services provided by physicians
at Virginia freestanding children's hospitals.
a. In addition to payments for physician services specified
elsewhere in this chapter, DMAS provides supplemental payments to Virginia
freestanding children's hospital physicians providing services at freestanding
children's hospitals with greater than 50% Medicaid inpatient utilization in
state fiscal year 2009 for furnished services provided on or after July 1,
2011. A freestanding children's hospital physician is a member of a practice
group (i) organized by or under control of a qualifying Virginia freestanding
children's hospital, or (ii) who has entered into contractual agreements for
provision of physician services at the qualifying Virginia freestanding
children's hospital and that is designated in writing by the Virginia
freestanding children's hospital as a practice plan for the quarter for which
the supplemental payment is made subject to DMAS approval. The freestanding
children's hospital physicians also must have entered into contractual
agreements with the practice plan for the assignment of payments in accordance
with 42 CFR 447.10.
b. Effective July 1, 2011, the supplemental payment amount for
freestanding children's hospital physician services shall be the difference
between the Medicaid payments otherwise made for freestanding children's
hospital physician services and 143% of Medicare rates as defined in the
supplemental payment calculation described in the Medicare equivalent of the
average commercial rate methodology (see 12VAC30-80-300), subject to the
following reduction. Final payments shall be reduced on a prorated basis so
that total payments for freestanding children's hospital physician services are
$400,000 less annually than would be calculated based on the formula in the
previous sentence. Effective July 1, 2015, the supplemental payment amount for
freestanding children's hospital physician services shall be the difference
between the Medicaid payments otherwise made for freestanding children's
hospital physician services and 178% of Medicare rates as defined in the
supplemental payment calculation for Type I physician services. Payments shall
be made on the same schedule as Type I physicians.
18. Supplemental payments for services provided by physicians
affiliated with Eastern Virginia Medical Center.
a. In addition to payments for physician services specified
elsewhere in this chapter, the Department of Medical Assistance Services
provides supplemental payments to physicians affiliated with Eastern Virginia
Medical Center for furnished services provided on or after October 1, 2012. A
physician affiliated with Eastern Virginia Medical Center is a physician who is
employed by a publicly funded medical school that is a political subdivision of
the Commonwealth of Virginia, who provides clinical services through the
faculty practice plan affiliated with the publicly funded medical school, and
who has entered into contractual arrangements for the assignment of payments in
accordance with 42 CFR 447.10.
b. Effective October 1, 2015, the supplemental payment amount
shall be the difference between the Medicaid payments otherwise made for
physician services and 137% of Medicare rates. The methodology for determining
the Medicare equivalent of the average commercial rate is described in
12VAC30-80-300.
c. Supplemental payments shall be made quarterly, no later
than 90 days after the end of the quarter.
19. Supplemental payments for services provided by physicians
at freestanding children's hospitals serving children in Planning District 8.
a. In addition to payments for physician services specified
elsewhere in this chapter, DMAS shall make supplemental payments for physicians
employed at a freestanding children's hospital serving children in Planning
District 8 with more than 50% Medicaid inpatient utilization in fiscal year
2014. This applies to physician practices affiliated with Children's National
Health System.
b. The supplemental payment amount for qualifying physician
services shall be the difference between the Medicaid payments otherwise made
and 178% of Medicare rates but no more than $551,000 for all qualifying
physicians. The methodology for determining allowable percent of Medicare rates
is based on the Medicare equivalent of the average commercial rate described in
this chapter.
c. Supplemental payments shall be made quarterly no later than
90 days after the end of the quarter. Any quarterly payment that would have
been due prior to the approval date shall be made no later than 90 days after
the approval date.
20. Supplemental payments to nonstate government-owned or
operated clinics.
a. In addition to payments for clinic services specified
elsewhere in the regulations, DMAS provides supplemental payments to qualifying
nonstate government-owned or government-operated clinics for outpatient
services provided to Medicaid patients on or after July 2, 2002. Clinic means a
facility that is not part of a hospital but is organized and operated to
provide medical care to outpatients. Outpatient services include those
furnished by or under the direction of a physician, dentist or other medical professional
acting within the scope of his license to an eligible individual. Effective
July 1, 2005, a qualifying clinic is a clinic operated by a community services
board. The state share for supplemental clinic payments will be funded by
general fund appropriations.
b. The amount of the supplemental payment made to each
qualifying nonstate government-owned or government-operated clinic is
determined by:
(1) Calculating for each clinic the annual difference between
the upper payment limit attributed to each clinic according to subdivision 20 d
of this subsection and the amount otherwise actually paid for the services by
the Medicaid program;
(2) Dividing the difference determined in subdivision 20 b (1)
of this subsection for each qualifying clinic by the aggregate difference for
all such qualifying clinics; and
(3) Multiplying the proportion determined in subdivision 20 b
(2) of this subsection by the aggregate upper payment limit amount for all such
clinics as determined in accordance with 42 CFR 447.321 less all payments made
to such clinics other than under this section.
c. Payments for furnished services made under this section
will be made annually in a lump sum during the last quarter of the fiscal year.
d. To determine the aggregate upper payment limit referred to
in subdivision 20 b (3) of this subsection, Medicaid payments to nonstate
government-owned or government-operated clinics will be divided by the
"additional factor" whose calculation is described in 12VAC30-80-190
B 2 in regard to the state agency fee schedule for Resource Based Relative
Value Scale. Medicaid payments will be estimated using payments for dates of
service from the prior fiscal year adjusted for expected claim payments.
Additional adjustments will be made for any program changes in Medicare or
Medicaid payments.
21. Personal assistance services (PAS) for individuals
enrolled in the Medicaid Buy-In program described in 12VAC30-60-200. These
services are reimbursed in accordance with the state agency fee schedule
described in 12VAC30-80-190. The state agency fee schedule is published on the
DMAS website at http://www.dmas.virginia.gov.
B. Hospice services payments must be no lower than the
amounts using the same methodology used under Part A of Title XVIII, and take
into account the room and board furnished by the facility, equal to at least
95% of the rate that would have been paid by the state under the plan for
facility services in that facility for that individual. Hospice services shall
be paid according to the location of the service delivery and not the location
of the agency's home office.
12VAC30-80-36. Fee-for-service providers: outpatient hospitals.
A. Definitions. The following words and terms when used in
this section shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly
indicates otherwise:
"Enhanced ambulatory patient group" or
"EAPG" means a defined group of outpatient procedures, encounters, or
ancillary services that incorporates International Classification of Diseases
(ICD) diagnosis codes, Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, and
Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes.
"EAPG relative weight" means the expected average
costs for each EAPG divided by the relative expected average costs for visits
assigned to all EAPGs.
"Base year" means the state fiscal year for which
data is used to establish the EAPG base rate. The base year will change when
the EAPG payment system is rebased and recalibrated. In subsequent rebasings,
DMAS shall notify affected providers of the base year to be used in this
calculation.
"Cost" means the reported cost as described in
12VAC30-80-20 A and B.
"Cost-to-charge ratio" equals the hospital's total
costs divided by the hospital's total charges. The cost-to-charge ratio shall
be calculated using data from cost reports from hospital fiscal years ending in
the state fiscal year used as the base year.
"Medicare wage index" means the Medicare wage index
published annually in the Federal Register by the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services. The indices used in this section shall be those in effect in
the base year.
B. Effective January 1, 2014, the prospective enhanced
ambulatory patient group (EAPG) based payment system described in this
subsection shall apply to reimbursement for outpatient hospital services (with
the exception of laboratory services referred to the hospital but not
associated with an outpatient hospital visit, which will be reimbursed
according to the laboratory fee schedule).
1. The payments for outpatient hospital visits shall be determined
on the basis of a hospital-specific base rate per visit multiplied by the
relative weight of the EAPG (and the payment action) assigned for each of the
services performed during a hospital visit.
2. The EAPG relative weights shall be the weights determined
and published periodically by DMAS and shall be consistent with applicable
Medicaid reimbursement limits and policies. The weights shall be updated at
least every three years.
3. The statewide base rate shall be equal to the total costs
described in this subdivision divided by the wage-adjusted sum of the EAPG
weights for each facility. The wage-adjusted sum of the EAPG weights shall
equal the sum of the EAPG weights multiplied by the labor percentage times
the hospital's Medicare wage index plus the sum of the EAPG weights multiplied
by the nonlabor percentage. The base rate shall be determined for outpatient
hospital services at least every three years so that total expenditures will
equal the following:
a. When using base years prior to January 1, 2014, for all
services, excluding all laboratory services and emergency services described in
subdivision 3 c of this subsection, a percentage of costs as reported in the
available cost reports for the base period for each type of hospital as defined
in 12VAC30-70-221.
(1) Type One hospitals. Effective January 1, 2014, hospital
outpatient operating reimbursement shall be calculated at 90.2% of cost, and
capital reimbursement shall be at 86% of cost inflated to the rate year.
(2) Type Two hospitals. Effective January 1, 2014, hospital
outpatient operating and capital reimbursement shall be calculated at 76% of
cost inflated to the rate year.
When using base years after January 1, 2014, the percentages
described in subdivision 3 a of this subsection shall be adjusted according to
subdivision 3 c of this subsection.
b. Laboratory services, excluding laboratory services referred
to the hospital but not associated with a hospital visit, are calculated at the
fee schedule in effect for the rate year.
c. Services rendered in emergency departments determined to be
nonemergencies as prescribed in 12VAC30-80-20 D 1 b shall be calculated at the
nonemergency reduced rate reported in the base year for base years prior to
January 1, 2014. For base years after January 1, 2014, the cost percentages in
subdivision 3 a of this subsection shall be adjusted to reflect services paid
at the nonemergency reduced rate in the last year prior to January 1, 2014.
4. Inflation adjustment to base year costs. Each July, the Virginia
moving average values as compiled and published by Global Insight (or its
successor), under contract with DMAS, shall be used to update the base year
costs to the midpoint of the rate year. The most current table available prior
to the effective date of the new rates shall be used to inflate base year
amounts to the upcoming rate year. Thus, corrections made by Global Insight (or
its successor) in the moving averages that were used to update rates for
previous state fiscal years shall be automatically incorporated into the moving
averages that are being used to update rates for the upcoming state fiscal
year. Inflation shall be applied to the costs identified in subdivision 3 a of
this subsection. The inflation adjustment for state fiscal year 2017 shall be
50% of the full inflation adjustment calculated according to this section.
There shall be no inflation adjustment for state fiscal year 2018. A full
inflation adjustment shall be made in both fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year
2018 to Virginia freestanding children's hospitals with greater than 50%
Medicaid utilization in 2009.
5. Hospital-specific base rate. The hospital-specific base
rate per case shall be adjusted for geographic variation. The hospital-specific
base rate shall be equal to the labor portion of the statewide base rate
multiplied by the hospital's Medicare wage index plus the nonlabor percentage
of the statewide base rate. The labor percentage shall be determined at each
rebasing based on the most recently reliable data. For rural hospitals, the
hospital's Medicare wage index used to calculate the base rate shall be the
Medicare wage index of the nearest metropolitan wage area or the effective
Medicare wage index, whichever is higher. A base rate differential of 5.0%
shall be established for freestanding Type Two children's hospitals. The base
rate for non-cost-reporting hospitals shall be the average of the
hospital-specific base rates of in-state Type Two hospitals.
6. The total payment shall represent the total allowable
amount for a visit including ancillary services and capital.
7. The transition from cost-based reimbursement to EAPG
reimbursement shall be transitioned over a four-year period. DMAS shall
calculate a cost-based base rate at January 1, 2014, and at each rebasing
during the transition.
a. Effective for dates of service on or after January 1, 2014,
DMAS shall calculate the hospital-specific base rate as the sum of 75% of the
cost-based base rate and 25% of the EAPG base rate.
b. Effective for dates of service on or after July 1, 2014,
DMAS shall calculate the hospital-specific base rate as the sum of 50% of the
cost-based base rate and 50% of the EAPG base rate.
c. Effective for dates of service on or after July 1, 2015,
DMAS shall calculate the hospital-specific base rate as the sum of 25% of the
cost-based base rate and 75% of the EAPG base rate.
d. Effective for dates of service on or after July 1, 2016,
DMAS shall calculate the hospital-specific base rate as the EAPG base rate.
8. To maintain budget neutrality during the first six years of
the transition to EAPG reimbursement, DMAS shall compare the total
reimbursement of hospital claims based on the parameters in subdivision 3 of
this subsection to EAPG reimbursement every six months based on the six months
of claims ending three months prior to the potential adjustment. If the
percentage difference between the reimbursement target in subdivision 3 of this
subsection and EAPG reimbursement is greater than 1.0%, plus or minus, DMAS
shall adjust the statewide base rate by the percentage difference the following
July 1 or January 1. The first possible adjustment would be January 1, 2015,
using reimbursement between January 1, 2014, and October 31, 2014.
C. The enhanced ambulatory patient group (EAPG) grouper
version used for outpatient hospital services shall be determined by DMAS.
Providers or provider representatives shall be given notice prior to
implementing a new grouper.
D. The primary data sources used in the development of the
EAPG payment methodology are the DMAS hospital computerized claims history file
and the cost report file. The claims history file captures available claims
data from all enrolled, cost-reporting general acute care hospitals. The cost
report file captures audited cost and charge data from all enrolled general
acute care hospitals. The following table identifies key data elements that are
used to develop the EAPG payment methodology. DMAS may supplement this data
with similar data for Medicaid services furnished by managed care organizations
if DMAS determines that it is reliable.
Data Elements for EAPG Payment Methodology
|
Data Elements
|
Source
|
Total charges for each outpatient hospital visit
|
Claims history file
|
Number of groupable claims lines in each EAPG
|
Claims history file
|
Total number of groupable claim lines
|
Claims history file
|
Total charges for each outpatient hospital revenue line
|
Claims history file
|
Total number of EAPG assignments
|
Claims history file
|
Cost-to-charge ratio for each hospital
|
Cost report file
|
Medicare wage index for each hospital
|
Federal Register
|
VA.R. Doc. No. R18-5387; Filed June 18, 2018, 9:43 a.m.
TITLE 12. HEALTH
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES
Final Regulation
REGISTRAR'S NOTICE: The
State Board of Medical Assistance Services is claiming an exemption from
Article 2 of the Administrative Process Act in accordance with § 2.2-4006
A 4 a of the Code of Virginia, which excludes regulations that are necessary to
conform to changes in Virginia statutory law or the appropriation act where no
agency discretion is involved. The State Board of Medical Assistance Services
will receive, consider, and respond to petitions by any interested person at
any time with respect to reconsideration or revision.
Titles of Regulations: 12VAC30-70. Methods and
Standards for Establishing Payment Rates - Inpatient Hospital Services (amending 12VAC30-70-351).
12VAC30-80. Methods and Standards for Establishing Payment
Rates; Other Types of Care (amending 12VAC30-80-20, 12VAC30-80-30,
12VAC30-80-36).
Statutory Authority: § 32.1-325 of the Code of
Virginia; 42 USC § 1396.
Effective Date: August 8, 2018.
Agency Contact: Emily McClellan, Regulatory Supervisor,
Department of Medical Assistance Services, 600 East Broad Street, Suite 1300,
Richmond, VA 23219, telephone (804) 371-4300, FAX (804) 786-1680, or email
emily.mcclellan@dmas.virginia.gov.
Summary:
The amendments (i) allow an exception of 100% inflation for
certain Virginia freestanding children's hospitals in fiscal year 2017 and
fiscal year 2018 per Item 306 GGGG of Chapter 1 of the 2018 Acts of Assembly,
Special Session I (the budget bill) and (ii) incorporate language approved for
the State Plan for Medical Assistance by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services12VAC30-70-351. Updating rates for inflation.
A. Each July, the Virginia moving average values as compiled
and published by Global Insight (or its successor), under contract with the
department shall be used to update the base year standardized operating costs
per case, as determined in 12VAC30-70-361, and the base year standardized
operating costs per day, as determined in 12VAC30-70-371, to the midpoint of
the upcoming state fiscal year. The most current table available prior to the
effective date of the new rates shall be used to inflate base year amounts to
the upcoming rate year. Thus, corrections made by Global Insight (or its
successor), in the moving averages that were used to update rates for previous
state fiscal years shall be automatically incorporated into the moving averages
that are being used to update rates for the upcoming state fiscal year.
B. The inflation adjustment for hospital operating rates,
disproportionate share hospitals (DSH) payments, and graduate medical education
payments shall be eliminated for fiscal year (FY) 2010. The elimination of the
inflation adjustments shall not be applicable to rebasing in FY 2011.
C. In FY 2011, hospital operating rates shall be rebased;
however the 2008 base year costs shall only be increased 2.58% for inflation.
For FY 2011 there shall be no inflation adjustment for graduate medical
education (GME) or freestanding psychiatric facility rates. The inflation
adjustment shall be eliminated for hospital operating rates, GME payments, and
freestanding psychiatric facility rates for FY 2012. The inflation adjustment
shall be 2.6% for inpatient hospitals, including hospital operating rates, GME
payments, DSH payments, and freestanding psychiatric facility rates for FY
2013, and 0.0% for the same facilities for FY 2014, FY 2015, and FY 2016. For
FY 2017, the inflation adjustment for inpatient hospital operating rates, GME,
DSH, and freestanding psychiatric hospitals shall be 50% of the adjustment
calculated in subsection A of this section. In FY 2018, the inflation
adjustment for inpatient hospital operating rates, GME, DSH, and freestanding
psychiatric hospitals shall be eliminated for inpatient hospitals. A full
inflation adjustment payment shall be made in both FY 2017 and FY 2018 to
Virginia freestanding children's hospitals with greater than 50% Medicaid
utilization in 2009.
12VAC30-80-20. Services that are reimbursed on a cost basis.
A. Payments for services listed in this section shall be on
the basis of reasonable cost following the standards and principles applicable
to the Title XVIII Program with the exception provided for in subdivision D 1 e
of this section. The upper limit for reimbursement shall be no higher than
payments for Medicare patients on a facility-by-facility basis in
accordance with 42 CFR 447.321 and 42 CFR 447.325. In no instance,
however, shall charges for beneficiaries of the program be in excess of charges
for private patients receiving services from the provider. The professional
component for emergency room physicians shall continue to be uncovered as a
component of the payment to the facility.
B. Reasonable costs will be determined from the filing of a
uniform Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-approved cost report
by participating providers. The cost reports are due not later than 150 days
after the provider's fiscal year end. If a complete cost report is not received
within 150 days after the end of the provider's fiscal year, DMAS or its
designee shall take action in accordance with its policies to assure that an
overpayment is not being made. All cost reports shall be reviewed and
reconciled to final costs within 180 days of the receipt of a completed cost
report. The cost report will be judged complete when DMAS has all of the
following:
1. Completed cost reporting form provided by DMAS, with signed
certification;
2. The provider's trial balance showing adjusting journal
entries;
3. The provider's financial statements including, but not
limited to, a balance sheet, a statement of income and expenses, a statement of
retained earnings (or fund balance), and a statement of changes in financial
position;
4. Schedules that reconcile financial statements and trial
balance to expenses claimed in the cost report;
5. Depreciation schedule or summary;
6. Home office cost report, if applicable; and
7. Such other analytical information or supporting documents
requested by DMAS when the cost reporting forms are sent to the provider.
C. Item 398 D of the 1987 Appropriation Act (as amended),
effective April 8, 1987, eliminated reimbursement of return on equity capital
to proprietary providers.
D. The services that are cost
reimbursed are:
1. For dates of service prior to January 1, 2014, outpatient
hospital services, including rehabilitation hospital outpatient services and
excluding laboratory services.
a. Definitions. The following words and terms when used in
this section shall have the following meanings when applied to emergency
services unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
"All-inclusive" means all emergency department and
ancillary service charges claimed in association with the emergency room visit,
with the exception of laboratory services.
"DMAS" means the Department of Medical Assistance
Services consistent with Chapter 10 (§ 32.1-323 et seq.) of Title 32.1 of the
Code of Virginia.
"Emergency hospital services" means services that
are necessary to prevent the death or serious impairment of the health of the
recipient. The threat to the life or health of the recipient necessitates the
use of the most accessible hospital available that is equipped to furnish the
services.
"Recent injury" means an injury that has occurred
less than 72 hours prior to the emergency department visit.
b. Scope. DMAS shall differentiate, as determined by the
attending physician's diagnosis, the kinds of care routinely rendered in
emergency departments and reimburse for nonemergency care rendered in emergency
departments at a reduced rate.
(1) With the exception of laboratory services, DMAS shall
reimburse at a reduced and all-inclusive reimbursement rate for all services
rendered in emergency departments that DMAS determines were nonemergency care.
(2) Services determined by the attending physician to be
emergencies shall be reimbursed under the existing methodologies and at the
existing rates.
(3) Services performed by the attending physician that may be
emergencies shall be manually reviewed. If such services meet certain criteria,
they shall be paid under the methodology for subdivision 1 b (2) of this
subsection. Services not meeting certain criteria shall be paid under the
methodology of subdivision 1 b (1) of this subsection. Such criteria shall
include, but not be limited to:
(a) The initial treatment following a recent obvious injury.
(b) Treatment related to an injury sustained more than 72
hours prior to the visit with the deterioration of the symptoms to the point of
requiring medical treatment for stabilization.
(c) The initial treatment for medical emergencies including
indications of severe chest pain, dyspnea, gastrointestinal hemorrhage,
spontaneous abortion, loss of consciousness, status epilepticus, or other
conditions considered life threatening.
(d) A visit in which the recipient's condition requires
immediate hospital admission or the transfer to another facility for further
treatment or a visit in which the recipient dies.
(e) Services provided for acute vital sign changes as
specified in the provider manual.
(f) Services provided for severe pain when combined with one
or more of the other guidelines.
(4) Payment shall be determined based on ICD diagnosis codes
and necessary supporting documentation. As used here, the term "ICD"
is defined in 12VAC30-95-5.
(5) DMAS shall review on an ongoing basis the effectiveness of
this program in achieving its objectives and for its effect on recipients,
physicians, and hospitals. Program components may be revised subject to achieving
program intent, the accuracy and effectiveness of the ICD code designations,
and the impact on recipients and providers. As used here, the term
"ICD" is defined in 12VAC30-95-5.
c. Limitation of allowable cost. Effective for services on and
after July 1, 2003, reimbursement of Type Two hospitals for outpatient services
shall be at various percentages as noted in subdivisions 1 c (1) and 1 c (2) of
this subsection of allowable cost, with cost to be determined as provided in
subsections A, B, and C of this section. For hospitals with fiscal years that
do not begin on July 1, outpatient costs, both operating and capital, for the
fiscal year in progress on that date shall be apportioned between the time
period before and the time period after that date, based on the number of
calendar months in the cost reporting period, falling before and after that
date.
(1) Type One hospitals.
(a) Effective July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2010, hospital
outpatient operating reimbursement shall be at 94.2% of allowable cost and
capital reimbursement shall be at 90% of allowable cost.
(b) Effective July 1, 2010, through September 30, 2010,
hospital outpatient operating reimbursement shall be at 91.2% of allowable cost
and capital reimbursement shall be at 87% of allowable cost.
(c) Effective October 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011, hospital
outpatient operating reimbursement shall be at 94.2% of allowable cost and
capital reimbursement shall be at 90% of allowable cost.
(d) Effective July 1, 2011, hospital outpatient operating reimbursement
shall be at 90.2% of allowable cost and capital reimbursement shall be at 86%
of allowable cost.
(2) Type Two hospitals.
(a) Effective July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2010, hospital
outpatient operating and capital reimbursement shall be 80% of allowable cost.
(b) Effective July 1, 2010, through September 30, 2010,
hospital outpatient operating and capital reimbursement shall be 77% of
allowable cost.
(c) Effective October 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011, hospital
outpatient operating and capital reimbursement shall be 80% of allowable cost.
(d) Effective July 1, 2011, hospital outpatient operating and
capital reimbursement shall be 76% of allowable cost.
d. The last cost report with a fiscal year end on or after
December 31, 2013, shall be used for reimbursement for dates of service through
December 31, 2013, based on this section. Reimbursement shall be based on
charges reported for dates of service prior to January 1, 2014. Settlement will
be based on four months of runout from the end of the provider's fiscal year.
Claims for services paid after the cost report runout period will not be
settled.
e. Payment for direct medical education costs of nursing
schools, paramedical programs and graduate medical education for interns and
residents.
(1) Direct medical education costs of nursing schools and
paramedical programs shall continue to be paid on an allowable cost basis.
(2) Effective with cost reporting periods beginning on or
after July 1, 2002, direct graduate medical education (GME) costs for interns
and residents shall be reimbursed on a per-resident prospective basis. See
12VAC30-70-281 for prospective payment methodology for graduate medical
education for interns and residents.
2. Rehabilitation agencies or comprehensive outpatient
rehabilitation.
a. Effective July 1, 2009, rehabilitation agencies or
comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facilities that are operated by
community services boards or state agencies shall be reimbursed their costs.
For reimbursement methodology applicable to all other rehabilitation agencies,
see 12VAC30-80-200.
b. Effective October 1, 2009, rehabilitation agencies or
comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facilities operated by state agencies
shall be reimbursed their costs. For reimbursement methodology applicable to
all other rehabilitation agencies, see 12VAC30-80-200.
3. Supplement payments to Type One hospitals for outpatient
services.
a. In addition to payments for services set forth elsewhere in
the State Plan, DMAS makes supplemental payments to qualifying state government
owned or operated hospitals for outpatient services furnished to Medicare
members on or after July 1, 2010. To qualify for a supplement payment, the
hospital must be part of the state academic health system or part of an
academic health system that operates under a state authority.
b. The amount of the supplemental payment made to each
qualifying hospital shall be equal to the difference between the total
allowable cost and the amount otherwise actually paid for the services by the Medicaid
program based on cost settlement.
c. Payment for furnished services under this section shall be
paid at settlement of the cost report.
4. Supplemental payments for private hospital partners of Type
One hospitals. Effective for dates of service on or after October 25, 2011,
quarterly supplemental payments shall be issued to qualifying private hospitals
for outpatient services rendered during the quarter.
a. In order to qualify for the supplemental payment, the
hospital shall be enrolled currently as a Virginia Medicaid provider and shall
be owned or operated by a private entity in which a Type One hospital has a
nonmajority interest.
b. Reimbursement methodology.
(1) Hospitals not participating in the Medicaid
disproportionate share hospital (DSH) program shall receive quarterly
supplemental payments for the outpatient services rendered during the quarter.
Each quarterly payment distribution shall occur not more than two years after
the year in which the qualifying hospital's entitlement arises. The annual
supplemental payments in a fiscal year shall be the lesser of:
(a) The difference between each qualifying hospital's
outpatient Medicaid billed charges and Medicaid payments the hospital receives
for services processed for fee-for-service Medicaid individuals during the
fiscal year; or
(b) $1,894 per Medicaid outpatient visit for state plan rate
year 2012. For future state plan rate years, this number shall be adjusted by
inflation based on the Virginia moving average values as compiled and published
by Global Insight (or its successor) under contract with the department.
(2) Hospitals participating in the DSH program shall receive
quarterly supplemental payments for the outpatient services rendered during the
quarter. Each quarterly payment distribution shall occur not more than two
years after the year in which the qualifying hospital's entitlement arises. The
annual supplemental payments in a fiscal year shall be the lesser of:
(a) The difference between each qualifying hospital's
outpatient Medicaid billed charges and Medicaid payments the hospital receives
for services processed for fee-for-service Medicaid individuals during the
fiscal year;
(b) $1,894 per Medicaid outpatient visit for state plan rate
year 2012. For future state plan rate years, this number shall be adjusted by
inflation based on the Virginia moving average values as compiled and published
by Global Insight (or its successor) under contract with the department; or
(c) The difference between the limit calculated under § 1923(g)
of the Social Security Act and the hospital's DSH payments for the applicable
payment period.
c. Limit. Maximum aggregate payments to all qualifying
hospitals in this group shall not exceed the available upper payment limit per
state fiscal year.
12VAC30-80-30. Fee-for-service providers.
A. Payment for the following services, except for physician
services, shall be the lower of the state agency fee schedule (12VAC30-80-190
has information about the state agency fee schedule) or actual charge (charge
to the general public): Except as otherwise noted in this section,
state developed fee schedule rates are the same for both governmental and
private individual practitioners. Fee schedules and any annual or periodic
adjustments to the fee schedules are published on the DMAS website at http://www.dmas.virginia.gov.
1. Physicians' services. Payment for physician services shall
be the lower of the state agency fee schedule or actual charge (charge to the
general public).
2. Dentists' services.
3. Mental health services including: (i) community mental
health services, (ii) services of a licensed clinical psychologist, (iii)
mental health services provided by a physician, or (iv) peer support services.
a. Services provided by licensed clinical psychologists shall
be reimbursed at 90% of the reimbursement rate for psychiatrists.
b. Services provided by independently enrolled licensed
clinical social workers, licensed professional counselors or licensed clinical
nurse specialists-psychiatric shall be reimbursed at 75% of the reimbursement
rate for licensed clinical psychologists.
4. Podiatry.
5. Nurse-midwife services.
6. Durable medical equipment (DME) and supplies.
Definitions. The following words and terms when used in this
section shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates
otherwise:
"DMERC" means the Durable Medical Equipment Regional
Carrier rate as published by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services at http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/DMEPOSFeeSched/DMEPOS-Fee-Schedule.html.
"HCPCS" means the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding
System, Medicare's National Level II Codes, HCPCS 2006 (Eighteenth edition), as
published by Ingenix, as may be periodically updated.
a. Obtaining prior authorization shall not guarantee Medicaid
reimbursement for DME.
b. The following shall be the reimbursement method used for
DME services:
(1) If the DME item has a DMERC rate, the reimbursement rate
shall be the DMERC rate minus 10%. For dates of service on or after July 1,
2014, DME items subject to the Medicare competitive bidding program shall be
reimbursed the lower of:
(a) The current DMERC rate minus 10% or
(b) The average of the Medicare competitive bid rates in
Virginia markets.
(2) For DME items with no DMERC rate, the agency shall use the
agency fee schedule amount. The reimbursement rates for DME and supplies shall
be listed in the DMAS Medicaid Durable Medical Equipment (DME) and Supplies
Listing and updated periodically. The agency fee schedule shall be available on
the agency website at www.dmas.virginia.gov.
(3) If a DME item has no DMERC rate or agency fee schedule
rate, the reimbursement rate shall be the manufacturer's net charge to the
provider, less shipping and handling, plus 30%. The manufacturer's net charge
to the provider shall be the cost to the provider minus all available discounts
to the provider. Additional information specific to how DME providers,
including manufacturers who are enrolled as providers, establish and document
their cost or costs for DME codes that do not have established rates can be
found in the relevant agency guidance document.
c. DMAS shall have the authority to amend the agency fee
schedule as it deems appropriate and with notice to providers. DMAS shall have
the authority to determine alternate pricing, based on agency research, for any
code that does not have a rate.
d. The reimbursement for incontinence supplies shall be by
selective contract. Pursuant to § 1915(a)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act
and 42 CFR 431.54(d), the Commonwealth assures that adequate services or
devices shall be available under such arrangements.
e. Certain durable medical equipment used for intravenous
therapy and oxygen therapy shall be bundled under specified procedure codes and
reimbursed as determined by the agency. Certain services or durable medical
equipment such as service maintenance agreements shall be bundled under
specified procedure codes and reimbursed as determined by the agency.
(1) Intravenous therapies. The DME for a single therapy,
administered in one day, shall be reimbursed at the established service day
rate for the bundled durable medical equipment and the standard pharmacy
payment, consistent with the ingredient cost as described in 12VAC30-80-40,
plus the pharmacy service day and dispensing fee. Multiple applications of the
same therapy shall be included in one service day rate of reimbursement.
Multiple applications of different therapies administered in one day shall be reimbursed
for the bundled durable medical equipment service day rate as follows: the most
expensive therapy shall be reimbursed at 100% of cost; the second and all
subsequent most expensive therapies shall be reimbursed at 50% of cost.
Multiple therapies administered in one day shall be reimbursed at the pharmacy
service day rate plus 100% of every active therapeutic ingredient in the
compound (at the lowest ingredient cost methodology) plus the appropriate
pharmacy dispensing fee.
(2) Respiratory therapies. The DME for oxygen therapy shall
have supplies or components bundled under a service day rate based on oxygen
liter flow rate or blood gas levels. Equipment associated with respiratory
therapy may have ancillary components bundled with the main component for
reimbursement. The reimbursement shall be a service day per diem rate for
rental of equipment or a total amount of purchase for the purchase of
equipment. Such respiratory equipment shall include oxygen tanks and tubing,
ventilators, noncontinuous ventilators, and suction machines. Ventilators,
noncontinuous ventilators, and suction machines may be purchased based on the
individual patient's medical necessity and length of need.
(3) Service maintenance agreements. Provision shall be made
for a combination of services, routine maintenance, and supplies, to be known
as agreements, under a single reimbursement code only for equipment that is
recipient owned. Such bundled agreements shall be reimbursed either monthly or
in units per year based on the individual agreement between the DME provider
and DMAS. Such bundled agreements may apply to, but not necessarily be limited
to, either respiratory equipment or apnea monitors.
7. Local health services.
8. Laboratory services (other than inpatient hospital). The
agency's rates for clinical laboratory services were set as of July 1, 2014,
and are effective for services on or after that date.
9. Payments to physicians who handle laboratory specimens, but
do not perform laboratory analysis (limited to payment for handling).
10. X-ray services.
11. Optometry services.
12. Reserved.
13. Home health services. Effective June 30, 1991, cost
reimbursement for home health services is eliminated. A rate per visit by
discipline shall be established as set forth by 12VAC30-80-180.
14. Physical therapy; occupational therapy; and speech,
hearing, language disorders services when rendered to noninstitutionalized
recipients.
15. Clinic services, as defined under 42 CFR 440.90,
except for services in ambulatory surgery clinics reimbursed under
12VAC30-80-35.
16. Supplemental payments for services provided by Type I
physicians.
a. In addition to payments for physician services specified
elsewhere in this chapter, DMAS provides supplemental payments to Type I
physicians for furnished services provided on or after July 2, 2002. A Type I
physician is a member of a practice group organized by or under the control of
a state academic health system or an academic health system that operates under
a state authority and includes a hospital, who has entered into contractual
agreements for the assignment of payments in accordance with 42 CFR
447.10.
b. Effective July 2, 2002, the supplemental payment amount for
Type I physician services shall be the difference between the Medicaid payments
otherwise made for Type I physician services and Medicare rates. Effective
August 13, 2002, the supplemental payment amount for Type I physician services
shall be the difference between the Medicaid payments otherwise made for
physician services and 143% of Medicare rates. Effective January 3, 2012, the
supplemental payment amount for Type I physician services shall be the
difference between the Medicaid payments otherwise made for physician services
and 181% of Medicare rates. Effective January 1, 2013, the supplemental payment
amount for Type I physician services shall be the difference between the
Medicaid payments otherwise made for physician services and 197% of Medicare
rates. Effective April 8, 2014, the supplemental payment amount for Type I physician
services shall be the difference between the Medicaid payments otherwise made
for physician services and 201% of Medicare rates.
c. The methodology for determining the Medicare equivalent of
the average commercial rate is described in 12VAC30-80-300.
d. Supplemental payments shall be made quarterly no later than
90 days after the end of the quarter.
e. Payment will not be made to the extent that the payment
would duplicate payments based on physician costs covered by the supplemental
payments.
17. Supplemental payments for services provided by physicians
at Virginia freestanding children's hospitals.
a. In addition to payments for physician services specified
elsewhere in this chapter, DMAS provides supplemental payments to Virginia
freestanding children's hospital physicians providing services at freestanding
children's hospitals with greater than 50% Medicaid inpatient utilization in
state fiscal year 2009 for furnished services provided on or after July 1,
2011. A freestanding children's hospital physician is a member of a practice
group (i) organized by or under control of a qualifying Virginia freestanding
children's hospital, or (ii) who has entered into contractual agreements for
provision of physician services at the qualifying Virginia freestanding
children's hospital and that is designated in writing by the Virginia
freestanding children's hospital as a practice plan for the quarter for which
the supplemental payment is made subject to DMAS approval. The freestanding
children's hospital physicians also must have entered into contractual
agreements with the practice plan for the assignment of payments in accordance
with 42 CFR 447.10.
b. Effective July 1, 2011, the supplemental payment amount for
freestanding children's hospital physician services shall be the difference
between the Medicaid payments otherwise made for freestanding children's
hospital physician services and 143% of Medicare rates as defined in the
supplemental payment calculation described in the Medicare equivalent of the
average commercial rate methodology (see 12VAC30-80-300), subject to the
following reduction. Final payments shall be reduced on a prorated basis so
that total payments for freestanding children's hospital physician services are
$400,000 less annually than would be calculated based on the formula in the
previous sentence. Effective July 1, 2015, the supplemental payment amount for
freestanding children's hospital physician services shall be the difference
between the Medicaid payments otherwise made for freestanding children's
hospital physician services and 178% of Medicare rates as defined in the
supplemental payment calculation for Type I physician services. Payments shall
be made on the same schedule as Type I physicians.
18. Supplemental payments for services provided by physicians
affiliated with Eastern Virginia Medical Center.
a. In addition to payments for physician services specified
elsewhere in this chapter, the Department of Medical Assistance Services
provides supplemental payments to physicians affiliated with Eastern Virginia
Medical Center for furnished services provided on or after October 1, 2012. A
physician affiliated with Eastern Virginia Medical Center is a physician who is
employed by a publicly funded medical school that is a political subdivision of
the Commonwealth of Virginia, who provides clinical services through the
faculty practice plan affiliated with the publicly funded medical school, and
who has entered into contractual arrangements for the assignment of payments in
accordance with 42 CFR 447.10.
b. Effective October 1, 2015, the supplemental payment amount
shall be the difference between the Medicaid payments otherwise made for
physician services and 137% of Medicare rates. The methodology for determining
the Medicare equivalent of the average commercial rate is described in
12VAC30-80-300.
c. Supplemental payments shall be made quarterly, no later
than 90 days after the end of the quarter.
19. Supplemental payments for services provided by physicians
at freestanding children's hospitals serving children in Planning District 8.
a. In addition to payments for physician services specified
elsewhere in this chapter, DMAS shall make supplemental payments for physicians
employed at a freestanding children's hospital serving children in Planning
District 8 with more than 50% Medicaid inpatient utilization in fiscal year
2014. This applies to physician practices affiliated with Children's National
Health System.
b. The supplemental payment amount for qualifying physician
services shall be the difference between the Medicaid payments otherwise made
and 178% of Medicare rates but no more than $551,000 for all qualifying
physicians. The methodology for determining allowable percent of Medicare rates
is based on the Medicare equivalent of the average commercial rate described in
this chapter.
c. Supplemental payments shall be made quarterly no later than
90 days after the end of the quarter. Any quarterly payment that would have
been due prior to the approval date shall be made no later than 90 days after
the approval date.
20. Supplemental payments to nonstate government-owned or
operated clinics.
a. In addition to payments for clinic services specified
elsewhere in the regulations, DMAS provides supplemental payments to qualifying
nonstate government-owned or government-operated clinics for outpatient
services provided to Medicaid patients on or after July 2, 2002. Clinic means a
facility that is not part of a hospital but is organized and operated to
provide medical care to outpatients. Outpatient services include those
furnished by or under the direction of a physician, dentist or other medical professional
acting within the scope of his license to an eligible individual. Effective
July 1, 2005, a qualifying clinic is a clinic operated by a community services
board. The state share for supplemental clinic payments will be funded by
general fund appropriations.
b. The amount of the supplemental payment made to each
qualifying nonstate government-owned or government-operated clinic is
determined by:
(1) Calculating for each clinic the annual difference between
the upper payment limit attributed to each clinic according to subdivision 20 d
of this subsection and the amount otherwise actually paid for the services by
the Medicaid program;
(2) Dividing the difference determined in subdivision 20 b (1)
of this subsection for each qualifying clinic by the aggregate difference for
all such qualifying clinics; and
(3) Multiplying the proportion determined in subdivision 20 b
(2) of this subsection by the aggregate upper payment limit amount for all such
clinics as determined in accordance with 42 CFR 447.321 less all payments made
to such clinics other than under this section.
c. Payments for furnished services made under this section
will be made annually in a lump sum during the last quarter of the fiscal year.
d. To determine the aggregate upper payment limit referred to
in subdivision 20 b (3) of this subsection, Medicaid payments to nonstate
government-owned or government-operated clinics will be divided by the
"additional factor" whose calculation is described in 12VAC30-80-190
B 2 in regard to the state agency fee schedule for Resource Based Relative
Value Scale. Medicaid payments will be estimated using payments for dates of
service from the prior fiscal year adjusted for expected claim payments.
Additional adjustments will be made for any program changes in Medicare or
Medicaid payments.
21. Personal assistance services (PAS) for individuals
enrolled in the Medicaid Buy-In program described in 12VAC30-60-200. These
services are reimbursed in accordance with the state agency fee schedule
described in 12VAC30-80-190. The state agency fee schedule is published on the
DMAS website at http://www.dmas.virginia.gov.
B. Hospice services payments must be no lower than the
amounts using the same methodology used under Part A of Title XVIII, and take
into account the room and board furnished by the facility, equal to at least
95% of the rate that would have been paid by the state under the plan for
facility services in that facility for that individual. Hospice services shall
be paid according to the location of the service delivery and not the location
of the agency's home office.
12VAC30-80-36. Fee-for-service providers: outpatient hospitals.
A. Definitions. The following words and terms when used in
this section shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly
indicates otherwise:
"Enhanced ambulatory patient group" or
"EAPG" means a defined group of outpatient procedures, encounters, or
ancillary services that incorporates International Classification of Diseases
(ICD) diagnosis codes, Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, and
Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes.
"EAPG relative weight" means the expected average
costs for each EAPG divided by the relative expected average costs for visits
assigned to all EAPGs.
"Base year" means the state fiscal year for which
data is used to establish the EAPG base rate. The base year will change when
the EAPG payment system is rebased and recalibrated. In subsequent rebasings,
DMAS shall notify affected providers of the base year to be used in this
calculation.
"Cost" means the reported cost as described in
12VAC30-80-20 A and B.
"Cost-to-charge ratio" equals the hospital's total
costs divided by the hospital's total charges. The cost-to-charge ratio shall
be calculated using data from cost reports from hospital fiscal years ending in
the state fiscal year used as the base year.
"Medicare wage index" means the Medicare wage index
published annually in the Federal Register by the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services. The indices used in this section shall be those in effect in
the base year.
B. Effective January 1, 2014, the prospective enhanced
ambulatory patient group (EAPG) based payment system described in this
subsection shall apply to reimbursement for outpatient hospital services (with
the exception of laboratory services referred to the hospital but not
associated with an outpatient hospital visit, which will be reimbursed
according to the laboratory fee schedule).
1. The payments for outpatient hospital visits shall be determined
on the basis of a hospital-specific base rate per visit multiplied by the
relative weight of the EAPG (and the payment action) assigned for each of the
services performed during a hospital visit.
2. The EAPG relative weights shall be the weights determined
and published periodically by DMAS and shall be consistent with applicable
Medicaid reimbursement limits and policies. The weights shall be updated at
least every three years.
3. The statewide base rate shall be equal to the total costs
described in this subdivision divided by the wage-adjusted sum of the EAPG
weights for each facility. The wage-adjusted sum of the EAPG weights shall
equal the sum of the EAPG weights multiplied by the labor percentage times
the hospital's Medicare wage index plus the sum of the EAPG weights multiplied
by the nonlabor percentage. The base rate shall be determined for outpatient
hospital services at least every three years so that total expenditures will
equal the following:
a. When using base years prior to January 1, 2014, for all
services, excluding all laboratory services and emergency services described in
subdivision 3 c of this subsection, a percentage of costs as reported in the
available cost reports for the base period for each type of hospital as defined
in 12VAC30-70-221.
(1) Type One hospitals. Effective January 1, 2014, hospital
outpatient operating reimbursement shall be calculated at 90.2% of cost, and
capital reimbursement shall be at 86% of cost inflated to the rate year.
(2) Type Two hospitals. Effective January 1, 2014, hospital
outpatient operating and capital reimbursement shall be calculated at 76% of
cost inflated to the rate year.
When using base years after January 1, 2014, the percentages
described in subdivision 3 a of this subsection shall be adjusted according to
subdivision 3 c of this subsection.
b. Laboratory services, excluding laboratory services referred
to the hospital but not associated with a hospital visit, are calculated at the
fee schedule in effect for the rate year.
c. Services rendered in emergency departments determined to be
nonemergencies as prescribed in 12VAC30-80-20 D 1 b shall be calculated at the
nonemergency reduced rate reported in the base year for base years prior to
January 1, 2014. For base years after January 1, 2014, the cost percentages in
subdivision 3 a of this subsection shall be adjusted to reflect services paid
at the nonemergency reduced rate in the last year prior to January 1, 2014.
4. Inflation adjustment to base year costs. Each July, the Virginia
moving average values as compiled and published by Global Insight (or its
successor), under contract with DMAS, shall be used to update the base year
costs to the midpoint of the rate year. The most current table available prior
to the effective date of the new rates shall be used to inflate base year
amounts to the upcoming rate year. Thus, corrections made by Global Insight (or
its successor) in the moving averages that were used to update rates for
previous state fiscal years shall be automatically incorporated into the moving
averages that are being used to update rates for the upcoming state fiscal
year. Inflation shall be applied to the costs identified in subdivision 3 a of
this subsection. The inflation adjustment for state fiscal year 2017 shall be
50% of the full inflation adjustment calculated according to this section.
There shall be no inflation adjustment for state fiscal year 2018. A full
inflation adjustment shall be made in both fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year
2018 to Virginia freestanding children's hospitals with greater than 50%
Medicaid utilization in 2009.
5. Hospital-specific base rate. The hospital-specific base
rate per case shall be adjusted for geographic variation. The hospital-specific
base rate shall be equal to the labor portion of the statewide base rate
multiplied by the hospital's Medicare wage index plus the nonlabor percentage
of the statewide base rate. The labor percentage shall be determined at each
rebasing based on the most recently reliable data. For rural hospitals, the
hospital's Medicare wage index used to calculate the base rate shall be the
Medicare wage index of the nearest metropolitan wage area or the effective
Medicare wage index, whichever is higher. A base rate differential of 5.0%
shall be established for freestanding Type Two children's hospitals. The base
rate for non-cost-reporting hospitals shall be the average of the
hospital-specific base rates of in-state Type Two hospitals.
6. The total payment shall represent the total allowable
amount for a visit including ancillary services and capital.
7. The transition from cost-based reimbursement to EAPG
reimbursement shall be transitioned over a four-year period. DMAS shall
calculate a cost-based base rate at January 1, 2014, and at each rebasing
during the transition.
a. Effective for dates of service on or after January 1, 2014,
DMAS shall calculate the hospital-specific base rate as the sum of 75% of the
cost-based base rate and 25% of the EAPG base rate.
b. Effective for dates of service on or after July 1, 2014,
DMAS shall calculate the hospital-specific base rate as the sum of 50% of the
cost-based base rate and 50% of the EAPG base rate.
c. Effective for dates of service on or after July 1, 2015,
DMAS shall calculate the hospital-specific base rate as the sum of 25% of the
cost-based base rate and 75% of the EAPG base rate.
d. Effective for dates of service on or after July 1, 2016,
DMAS shall calculate the hospital-specific base rate as the EAPG base rate.
8. To maintain budget neutrality during the first six years of
the transition to EAPG reimbursement, DMAS shall compare the total
reimbursement of hospital claims based on the parameters in subdivision 3 of
this subsection to EAPG reimbursement every six months based on the six months
of claims ending three months prior to the potential adjustment. If the
percentage difference between the reimbursement target in subdivision 3 of this
subsection and EAPG reimbursement is greater than 1.0%, plus or minus, DMAS
shall adjust the statewide base rate by the percentage difference the following
July 1 or January 1. The first possible adjustment would be January 1, 2015,
using reimbursement between January 1, 2014, and October 31, 2014.
C. The enhanced ambulatory patient group (EAPG) grouper
version used for outpatient hospital services shall be determined by DMAS.
Providers or provider representatives shall be given notice prior to
implementing a new grouper.
D. The primary data sources used in the development of the
EAPG payment methodology are the DMAS hospital computerized claims history file
and the cost report file. The claims history file captures available claims
data from all enrolled, cost-reporting general acute care hospitals. The cost
report file captures audited cost and charge data from all enrolled general
acute care hospitals. The following table identifies key data elements that are
used to develop the EAPG payment methodology. DMAS may supplement this data
with similar data for Medicaid services furnished by managed care organizations
if DMAS determines that it is reliable.
Data Elements for EAPG Payment Methodology
|
Data Elements
|
Source
|
Total charges for each outpatient hospital visit
|
Claims history file
|
Number of groupable claims lines in each EAPG
|
Claims history file
|
Total number of groupable claim lines
|
Claims history file
|
Total charges for each outpatient hospital revenue line
|
Claims history file
|
Total number of EAPG assignments
|
Claims history file
|
Cost-to-charge ratio for each hospital
|
Cost report file
|
Medicare wage index for each hospital
|
Federal Register
|
VA.R. Doc. No. R18-5387; Filed June 18, 2018, 9:43 a.m.
TITLE 18. PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING
BOARD OF DENTISTRY
Proposed Regulation
Title of Regulation: 18VAC60-21. Regulations
Governing the Practice of Dentistry (adding 18VAC60-21-101 through
18VAC60-21-106).
Statutory Authority: §§ 54.1-2400 and 54.1-2708.4
of the Code of Virginia.
Public Hearing Information:
July 27, 2018 - 9 a.m. - Department of Health
Professions, Perimeter Center, 9960 Mayland Drive, 2nd Floor, Richmond, VA
23233
Public Comment Deadline: September 7, 2018.
Agency Contact: Sandra Reen, Executive Director, Board
of Dentistry, 9960 Mayland Drive, Suite 300, Richmond, VA 23233, telephone
(804) 367-4437, FAX (804) 527-4428, or email sandra.reen@dhp.virginia.gov.
Basis: Regulations are promulgated under the general
authority of § 54.1-2400 of the Code of Virginia, which provides the Board
of Dentistry the authority to promulgate regulations to administer the
regulatory system. In addition, the board has been mandated to adopt
regulations related to prescribing of opioids by § 54.1-2708.4 of the Code
of Virginia.
Purpose: The purpose of the regulatory action is the
establishment of requirements for prescribing of controlled substances
containing opioids to address the overdose and addiction crisis in the
Commonwealth. The goal is to provide dentists with definitive rules to follow
so that they may feel more assured of their ability to treat pain in an
appropriate manner to avoid under-prescribing or over-prescribing.
Substance: Regulations for the management of acute pain
include requirements for the evaluation of the patient, limitations on quantity
and dosage, and recordkeeping. Management of chronic pain requires either
referral to a pain management specialist or adherence to regulations of the
Board of Medicine. All dentists who prescribe Schedules II through IV drugs are
required to take two hours of continuing education on pain management.
Issues: The primary advantage to the public is a
reduction in the amount of opioid medication that is available in our
communities. A limitation on the quantity of opioids that may be prescribed
should result in fewer people becoming addicted to pain medication, which
sometimes leads them to turn to heroin and other illicit drugs. Persons who are
receiving opioids for chronic pain should be more closely monitored to ensure
that the prescribing is appropriate and necessary. There are no disadvantages
to the public; dentists prescribing for chronic pain must follow the
regulations as those for Board of Medicine. The primary advantage to the Commonwealth
is the potential reduction in the number of persons addicted to opioids and
deaths from overdoses. There are no disadvantages.
The Department of Planning and Budget's Economic Impact
Analysis:
Summary of the Proposed Amendments to Regulation. Pursuant to
Chapters 2911 and 6822 of the 2017 Acts of Assembly, the
Board of Dentistry (Board) proposes a new regulation for the prescription of
opioids in the management of acute and chronic pain. This regulation will
replace an emergency regulation that became effective on April 24, 2017, and
that is currently set to expire on October 23, 2018.
Result of Analysis. There are insufficient data to accurately
compare the magnitude of the benefits versus the costs.
Estimated Economic Impact. The Board reports that this
regulation is being proposed to "address the opioid abuse crisis in
Virginia." Prior to the legislation enacted by the 2017 General Assembly,
no regulations existed for opioid treatment of acute or chronic pain. In March
2017, Chapters 291 and 682 of the 2017 Acts of the Assembly became law. Each
Chapter requires the Board of Dentistry to promulgate regulations for
prescription of opioids.
Acute and chronic pain are defined in the proposed regulation
as follows:
• Acute pain, is "pain that occurs within the normal
course of a disease or condition or as the result of surgery for which
controlled substances may be prescribed for no more than three months."
• Chronic pain, is "nonmalignant pain that goes beyond the
normal course of a disease or condition for which controlled substances may be
prescribed for a period of greater than three months."
For the treatment of acute pain,
these Chapters require that the Board's regulation include:
"(i) requirements for an appropriate patient history and
evaluation, (ii) limitations on dosages or day supply of drugs prescribed,
(iii) requirements for appropriate documentation in the patient's health
record, and (iv) a requirement that the prescriber request and review
information contained in the Prescription Monitoring Program in accordance with
§ 54.1-2522.1."
For the treatment of chronic pain, the Chapters require the
regulations to include the requirements listed above for acute pain treatment,
as well as requirements for:
"(i) development of a treatment plan for the patient, (ii)
an agreement for treatment signed by the provider and the patient that includes
permission to obtain urine drug screens [UDS], and (iii) periodic review of the
treatment provided at specific intervals to determine the continued appropriateness
of such treatment."
This proposed regulation will apply to all dentists.
Requirements in the Proposed Regulation.
Requirements for Evaluation of the Patient in Prescribing for
Acute Pain: For the evaluation of the patient, the regulation (section 102)
requires that the dentist: (1) consider nonpharmacologic and non-opioid
treatment for pain prior to treatment with opioids, (2) take a health history,
(3) perform a physical examination appropriate for the complaint, (4) assess
the patient's history and risk of substance abuse, and (5) query the state's
Prescription Monitoring Program (PMP) as set forth in § 54.1-2522.1. Section
54.2522.1 requires queries when initiating a new course of treatment in which
an opioid prescription is anticipated to last more than seven consecutive days.
That section also provides that a prescriber may make additional queries
"as may be required by routine prescribing practices."
Requirements for Treatment of Acute Pain with Opioids: The
Board proposes to limit opioid prescriptions for all acute care to the lowest
effective dose, and for no more than seven days unless extenuating
circumstances are clearly documented. The Board also proposes to require that,
"practitioners shall carefully consider and document in the medical record
the reasons to exceed 50 MME/day"3 if they prescribe opioids in
excess of that daily dosage, and to require that, "prior to exceeding 120
MME/day, the practitioner shall document in the medical record the reasonable
justification for such doses or refer to or consult with a pain management
specialist." Dentists will be required to prescribe naloxone4
"when risk factors of prior overdose, substance misuse, doses in excess of
120 MME/day, or concomitant benzodiazepine is present." Finally, dentists
will also be required to limit co-prescribing of drugs that may increase the
risk of accidental overdose when taken with opioids.
If another prescription for an opioid is to be written beyond
seven days, the Board also proposes (in section 103) to require that the
patient be re-evaluated and that a check of the PMP be run for the patient's
prescription history. The Board proposes to set record-keeping requirements for
acute pain to include a description of the pain, a presumptive diagnosis, a
treatment plan, and information on medication prescribed or administered
Requirements for the Treatment of Chronic Pain: For treatment
of chronic pain, the Board proposes to require that dentists either refer a
patient to a medical doctor who is a pain management specialist or comply with
the Board of Medicine's regulation, 18VAC85-21-60 through 18VAC85-21-120. Board
staff reports that although very few dentists treat chronic pain, oral and
maxillofacial surgeons may occasionally treat chronic pain.
Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Regulation. The requirements
in the proposed regulation appear to confer a mix of benefits and costs,
including those resulting from restrictions on medicine dosages, preferences
for non-opioid treatments, and use of the PMP. Except for the estimated costs
directly resulting from mandatory drug testing (listed in Board of Medicine
rules for treatment of chronic pain), there is insufficient quantitative data
to accurately determine, and thus compare, the magnitude of direct benefits
versus direct costs. In part this is because the scope and range of potential
impacts (cost and benefit) cannot be readily identified. To the extent that the
proposed regulation reduces the rate of prescription substance abuse, including
drug addiction, savings or cost avoidance could be achieved from reduction in
expenditures on the treatment of, and consequences from, substance abuse.
However, to the extent that the regulations create a disincentive to obtaining,
or limit access to, opioid therapy, any savings or cost avoidance may be offset
by direct and indirect costs resulting from untreated pain5 or a
shift to illicit drugs.6
Indirect Benefits and Costs of Prescription Monitoring Program
(PMP) Queries: Virginia statute presently requires PMP checks for any prescriptions
anticipated to be used for more than seven consecutive days. This regulation
proposes to require PMP queries as set forth in § 54.1-2522.1 of the Code of
Virginia prior to initiating treatment with opioids and PMP queries "if
another prescription for an opioid is to be written beyond seven days." To
the extent that the regulation is also interpreted to require PMP checks for
all prescriptions, as a "routine prescribing practice" (rather than
just prescriptions anticipated to last more than seven continuous days),
practitioners may incur additional time costs for running those queries. To the
extent that use of the PMP lowers the volume of drugs diverted from licit to
illicit uses, the new requirement will provide the benefit of reductions in the
costs of illicit drug use in the state.
Indirect Benefits and Costs of Record-Keeping Requirements: The
Board's proposed record-keeping requirements for acute pain are likely already
common for dental practices; thus licensees are unlikely to incur any costs
from that portion of the proposed regulation that covers the treatment of acute
pain. Likewise, most of the proposed requirements for taking a patient history
and assessing a patient's complaint are likely common practice now and should
not cause any additional costs. The proposed requirement that dentists in an
acute care setting perform a risk assessment for substance misuse on all
patients who may be prescribed opioids may not presently be a part of standard
patient care. To the extent that doctors treating acute pain do not currently
assess risk of substance abuse, costs would be incurred for their time to
perform such assessments.
Indirect Benefits and Costs of Preferences for Alternative
Treatments. The proposed regulation's requirements that alternative treatments
(both nonpharmacologic and non-opioid) be given consideration prior to
prescription of opioids for both acute pain and chronic pain is being proposed
to reduce the number of such prescriptions. Board staff state that
nonpharmacologic treatments may include physical therapy, chiropractic, and
acupuncture.
In addition, non-opioid treatments can include treatment with
acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as well as
selected antidepressants and anticonvulsants. Although these drugs do not have
the addiction risks of opioids, they may pose other health risks for certain
patients. As noted by the 2016 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain,7 although NSAIDs
are recommended as first-line treatment for osteoarthritis or low back pain
they do have risks, including gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation as well
as renal and cardiovascular risks. Increasing use of non-opioid treatments like
NSAIDs will therefore need to balance the benefits of non-opioid therapy with
these and other risks.
Direct Benefits and Costs of
Rules for Treating Chronic Pain: Very few dentists will likely treat chronic
pain. To the extent that they do, they will be required to follow Board of
Medicine rules for such treatment. An analysis of the benefits and costs for
the Board of Medicine's rules for chronic pain treatment can be found on the
Virginia Regulatory Town Hall.8
Businesses and Entities Affected.
These proposed regulatory changes will affect all 7,127 dentists currently
licensed in the Commonwealth as well as any individuals who will be licensed as
dentists in the future. Board staff report that the vast majority of these
dentists are small businesses. These proposed regulations will also affect all
dental patients who require acute or chronic pain management. Health insurance
providers may also be affected.
Localities Particularly Affected. No locality likely will be
affected by these proposed regulatory changes.
Projected Impact on Employment. To the extent that these
proposed regulatory changes lead to fewer individuals being effectively treated
for chronic pain, employee absenteeism may increase, which would tend to
depress total productivity. To the extent that this regulation reduces rates of
addiction, thereby allowing former addicts to hold employment, productivity may
increase.
Effects on the Use and Value of Private Property. There is no
apparent impact on the use and value of private property.
Real Estate Development Costs. These proposed regulatory
changes are unlikely to affect real estate development costs in the
Commonwealth.
Small Businesses:
Definition. Pursuant to § 2.2-4007.04 of the Code of Virginia,
small business is defined as "a business entity, including its affiliates,
that (i) is independently owned and operated and (ii) employs fewer than 500
full-time employees or has gross annual sales of less than $6 million."
Costs and Other Effects. Small
business dentists will likely incur increased costs associated with book
keeping, staff wages, increased documentation requirements, and new drug
testing requirements for chronic pain patients that will be enforced.
Alternatively, adherence to the practices required by the regulation may have
an unknown impact on liability insurance and associated costs that may result
in savings. It is unclear to what extent these costs or savings may be passed
on to insurance companies, patients, or other third parties.
Alternative Method that Minimizes
Adverse Impact. Allowing dentists the discretion as to whether and how often to
use drug testing would likely decrease the costs listed above. As noted above,
the CDC only recommends that practitioners "consider" drug testing on
an annual basis after the initial screen. For both the initial UDS and
subsequent testing, however, it appears that the CDC concludes that
practitioners should retain the discretion to determine whether to administer a
test. The CDC notes that the recommendation to use drug testing is a Category B
recommendation, which is one where "different choices will be appropriate
for different patients, so clinicians must help patients arrive at a decision
consistent with patient values and preferences, and specific clinical
situations."9
Adverse Impacts:
Businesses: Dentists who practice independently may incur
changes to current business practices related to increased bookkeeping, staff
impacts associated with increased documentation requirements, and
implementation of new drug testing requirements for chronic pain patients. It
is unclear to what extent these costs may be passed on to insurance companies,
patients, or other third parties.
Localities: Localities in the Commonwealth are unlikely to see
any adverse impacts from these proposed regulatory changes.
Other Entities: To the extent that dentists treat chronic-pain
patients, this proposed regulation may lead to those patients, or their
insurance companies, incurring increased annual costs on account of drug
testing requirements. To the extent that treatment by oral and maxillofacial
surgeons is covered by health insurance or dental insurance, the Commonwealth
of Virginia may incur increased costs on account of these proposed regulatory
changes, including employee health benefits, and the Department of Medical Assistance
Services may incur increased costs for Medicaid patients who are in treatment
for chronic pain.
References:
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Advancing Pain
Research, Care, and Education. Relieving Pain in America: A Blueprint for
Transforming Prevention, Care, Education, and Research. Washington (DC):
National Academies Press (US); 2011. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK91497/pdf
/Bookshelf_NBK91497.pdf.
Krishnamurthy, Partha, Govindaraj Ranganathan, Courtney
Williams, Gulshan Doulatram. 2016. "Impact of Urine Drug Screening on No
Shows and Dropouts among Chronic Pain Patients: A Propensity-Matched Cohort
Study." Pain Physician. 19. 89-100. http://www.painphysicianjournal.com
/current/pdf?article=MjUyNA%3D%3D&journal=94.
Nahin, Richard L. "Estimates of Pain Prevalence and
Severity in Adults: United States, 2012." The journal of Pain?:
official Journal of the American Pain Society 16.8 (2015): 769–780. PMC. Web.
19 Sept. 2017.
Pollack, Harold, Sheldon Danzinger, Rukmalie Jayakody, Kristen
Seefeldt. 2001. Drug Testing Welfare Recipients — False Positives, False Negatives,
Unanticipated Opportunities.
Virginia Departments of Forensic Science and Criminal Justice
Services. 2016. Drug Cases Submitted to the Virginia Department of Forensic
Science Calendar Year 2016. http://www.dfs.virginia.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/07
/CY16DfsDataReport_Final.pdf.
Virginia Department of Health Office of the Chief Medical
Examiner. 2017. Fatal Drug Overdose Quarterly Report First Quarter 2017.
Edition 2017.1. http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/content/uploads/sites/18/2016/04/Fatal-Drug-Overdoses-Quarterly-Report-Q1-2017_Updated.pdf.
Dowell Deborah, Tamara M Haegerich, Roger Chou. CDC Guideline
for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain. United States. 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep
2016; 65 (No. RR-1):1–49. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr6501e1.
___________________________________________
1http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?171+ful+CHAP0291.
2http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?171+ful+CHAP0682.
3MME is an abbreviation for morphine milligram
equivalent, which provides a standard value for equating the potency of different
opioids.
4Naloxone, sold under the brand name Narcan among
others, is a medication used to block the effects of opioids, especially in
overdose.
5Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Advancing Pain
Research, Care, and Education. Relieving Pain in America: A Blueprint for
Transforming Prevention, Care, Education, and Research. Washington (DC):
National Academies Press (US); 2011. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK91497/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK91497.pdf.
6Today's fentanyl crisis: Prohibition's Iron Law,
revisited, International Journal of Drug Policy 46 (2017) 156–159.
7https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/prescribing/guideline.html.
8http://townhall.virginia.gov/L/GetFile.cfm?File=C:\TownHall\docroot\26\4760\7981\EIA_DHP_7981_v2.pdf.
9CDC Guideline, page 4.
Agency's Response to Economic Impact Analysis: The Board
of Dentistry and the Department of Health Professions do not concur with the
result of the analysis that "there is insufficient data to accurately
compare the magnitude of the benefits versus the costs." We believe it
failed to fully analyze the personal and societal costs of opioid addiction. It
is the position of the agency that reducing the quantity of opioids in our
homes and communities has already been shown to have a cost benefit and will
ultimately have a direct benefit in a reduction in opioid misuse and opioid
overdose deaths.
1. The agency believes the analysis does not include sufficient
data about the current crisis in opioid overdose deaths.
In 2015, there were 811 opioid deaths, and in 2016 there were
1,133 – a 40% increase. In a preliminary report from the Department of Criminal
Justice Services (DCJS), the number for 2017 is expected to be 1,181. The
result of the 2017 National Drug Threat Assessment notes that controlled
prescription drugs (CPDs) have been linked to the largest number of overdose
deaths of any illicit drug class since 2001. For each of these deaths, there
are immeasurable costs. For the purpose of an economic analysis, medical malpractice
carriers and civil litigants can attribute costs in dollars and cents for each
year of life lost.
Yearly direct and indirect costs related to prescription
opioids have been estimated (based on studies published since 2010) to be $53.4
billion for nonmedical use of prescription opioids; $55.7 billion for abuse,
dependence (i.e., opioid use disorder), and misuse of prescription opioids; and
$20.4 billion for direct and indirect costs related to opioid-related overdose
alone. While we acknowledge that these are national figures, the economic
impact analysis (EIA) has used national data to extrapolate the costs of urine
drug screens for Virginians. Copious amounts of data exist in national and
state reports on the opioid crisis for which these regulations offer a partial
solution.
2. The agency believes the analysis does not make the
connection between the opioid crisis of fentanyl and heroin to the prescribing
of opioid pain medication.
One of the primary purposes of these regulations is to reduce
the number of persons who enter the pipeline of addiction through a
legitimately prescribed opioid. The National Institute on Drug Abuse reports
that a study of young, urban injection drug users interviewed in 2008 and 2009
found that 86% had used opioid pain relievers nonmedically prior to using
heroin, and their initiation into nonmedical use was characterized by three
main sources of opioids: family, friends, or personal prescriptions. Examining
national-level general population heroin data (including those in and not in
treatment), nearly 80% of heroin users reported using prescription opioids
prior to heroin.
The report from DCJS noted that "data from Department of
Forensic Sciences (DFS) and Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME)
demonstrate that there are still a large number of individuals using
prescription opioids non-medically. These individuals are at risk of overdose
death through the prescription drugs they are currently using, but they are
also at a higher risk of using heroin in the future. Although only a small
percentage of individuals who abuse prescription opioids move on to heroin, a
high percentage of heroin users report that their first opioid was a
prescription drug
(https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/relationship-between-prescription-drug-abuse-heroin-use/).
Additionally, non-medical users of prescription opioids may seek to acquire
those drugs illegally, putting themselves at risk of purchasing and using
counterfeit pills made with fentanyl and fentanyl analogs."
Data from OCME indicates that between 2013 and 2016, the number
of prescription opioid fatalities involving fentanyl and/or heroin increased
69%. In 2016, 37% of prescription opioid fatalities also involved fentanyl
and/or heroin. Although illicit fentanyl cases increased 207% between 2015 and
2016, there were almost four times as many heroin cases and four times as many
prescription opioid cases that year.
Data from the Virginia Prescription Monitoring Program shows
that since the adoption of emergency regulations there has been a drop in
morphine milligram equivalents (MME). MME per day is the amount of morphine an
opioid dose is equal to, often used to gauge the abuse and overdose potential
of the amount of opioid being prescribed at a particular time. The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicates that individuals taking greater
than 90 MME/day are at a higher risk of overdose and death. The total number of
patients prescribed high dosages declined from 169,145 individuals in the
fourth quarter of 2016 to 137,618 individuals in the third quarter of 2017, or
an 18.6% decline in individuals receiving greater than 100 MME/day. The data is
an indicator of the effectiveness of the emergency regulation being replaced
with the proposed regulations for which the EIA was prepared.
Numerous reports in the press have made the connection between
the overdose death of a person who was prescribed on opioid following an
accident or medical procedure. The intent of this regulation is to require
prescribers to prescribe fewer quantities for shorter periods of time and to
consider nonpharmacological alternatives or non-opioid medications that have
the effect of addressing a patient's pain without the potential for addiction
and long-term, costly consequences.
3. The agency believes the analysis has not included sufficient
data on cost savings relating to a reduction on opioid prescribing.
For example, this agency provided information from the
Department of Medical Assistance Services, which experienced a 44% decrease in
opioid days-supply and 27% decrease in opioid prescription spending when that
agency implemented the CDC guidelines on which these regulations were based,
for an annual reduction in drug spending on opioids of approximately $466,000.
It is that agency's belief that costs related to an increase in urine drug
screens, which have been routinely required by pain management physicians prior
to adoption of these regulations, would be more than offset by the decrease in
spending on opioid prescriptions, so it would be budget neutral or result in a
net cost savings.
Data from the Prescription Monitoring Program show that from
the fourth quarter of 2016 to the third quarter of 2017, pain reliever doses
declined from 129,797,789 to 77,729,833, which represents a 40.15% decline. It
is apparent that the emergency regulations are having a positive effect on the
costs of prescription opioids – a cost benefit to consumers and insurers that
could be reflected in the EIA.
Summary:
The proposed regulatory action adopts requirements for the
prescribing of opioids and products containing buprenorphine pursuant to
Chapters 291 and 682 of the 2017 Acts of Assembly. Provisions for the
management of acute pain include requirements for the evaluation of the
patient, limitations on quantity and dosage, and recordkeeping. A dentist who
manages a patient with chronic pain must either refer the patient to a pain
management specialist or adhere to the regulations of the Board of Medicine.
All dentists who prescribe Schedules II through IV controlled substances are
required to complete two hours of continuing education in pain management. The
proposed regulations replace emergency regulations currently in effect.
Part III
Prescribing for Pain Management
18VAC60-21-101. Definitions.
The following words and terms when used in this part shall
have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
"Acute pain" means pain that occurs within the
normal course of a disease or condition or as the result of surgery for which
controlled substances may be prescribed for no more than three months.
"Chronic pain" means nonmalignant pain that goes
beyond the normal course of a disease or condition for which controlled
substances may be prescribed for a period greater than three months.
"Controlled substance" means drugs listed in The
Drug Control Act (§ 54.1-3400 et seq. of the Code of Virginia) in Schedules II
through IV.
"MME" means morphine milligram equivalent.
"Prescription Monitoring Program" means the
electronic system within the Department of Health Professions that monitors the
dispensing of certain controlled substances.
18VAC60-21-102. Evaluation of the patient in prescribing for
acute pain.
A. Nonpharmacologic and non-opioid treatment for pain
shall be given consideration prior to treatment with opioids. If an opioid is
considered necessary for the treatment of acute pain, the dentist shall follow
the regulations for prescribing and treating with opioids in 18VAC60-21-103 and
18VAC60-21-104.
B. Prior to initiating treatment with a controlled
substance containing an opioid for a complaint of acute pain, the dentist shall
perform a health history and physical examination appropriate to the complaint,
query the Prescription Monitoring Program as set forth in § 54.1-2522.1 of the
Code of Virginia, and conduct an assessment of the patient's history and risk
of substance abuse.
18VAC60-21-103. Treatment of acute pain with opioids.
A. Initiation of opioid treatment for all patients with
acute pain shall include the following:
1. A prescription for an opioid shall be a short-acting
opioid in the lowest effective dose for the fewest number of days, not to
exceed seven days as determined by the manufacturer's directions for use,
unless extenuating circumstances are clearly documented in the patient record.
2. The dentist shall carefully consider and document in the
patient record the reasons to exceed 50 MME per day.
3. Prior to exceeding 120 MME per day, the dentist shall
refer the patient to or consult with a pain management specialist and document
in the patient record the reasonable justification for such dosage.
4. Naloxone shall be prescribed for any patient when there
is any risk factor of prior overdose, substance abuse, or doses in excess of
120 MME per day, and shall be considered when concomitant use of benzodiazepine
is present.
B. If another prescription for an opioid is to be written
beyond seven days, the dentist shall:
1. Reevaluate the patient and document in the patient
record the continued need for an opioid prescription; and
2. Check the patient's prescription history in the
Prescription Monitoring Program.
C. Due to a higher risk of fatal overdose when opioids are
prescribed with benzodiazepines, sedative hypnotics, carisoprodol, and
tramadol, the dentist shall only co-prescribe these substances when there are
extenuating circumstances and shall document in the patient record a
tapering plan to achieve the lowest possible effective doses if these
medications are prescribed.
18VAC60-21-104. Patient recordkeeping requirement in
prescribing for acute pain.
The patient record shall include a description of the
pain, a presumptive diagnosis for the origin of the pain, an examination
appropriate to the complaint, a treatment plan, and the medication prescribed,
including date, type, dosage, strength, and quantity prescribed.
18VAC60-21-105. Prescribing of opioids for chronic pain.
If a dentist treats a patient for whom an opioid
prescription is necessary for chronic pain, the dentist shall either:
1. Refer the patient to a medical doctor who is a pain
management specialist; or
2. Comply with regulations of the Board of Medicine,
18VAC85-21-60 through 18VAC85-21-120, if the dentist chooses to manage the
chronic pain with an opioid prescription.
18VAC60-21-106. Continuing education required for prescribers.
Any dentist who prescribes Schedules II through IV
controlled substances after April 24, 2017, shall obtain two hours of
continuing education on pain management, which must be taken by March 31, 2019.
Thereafter, any dentist who prescribes Schedules II through IV controlled
substances shall obtain two hours of continuing education on pain management
every two years. Continuing education hours required for prescribing of
controlled substances may be included in the 15 hours required for renewal of
licensure.
VA.R. Doc. No. R17-5064; Filed June 15, 2018, 12:27 p.m.
TITLE 18. PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING
BOARD OF MEDICINE
Final Regulation
Title of Regulation:
18VAC85-21. Regulations Governing Prescribing of Opioids and Buprenorphine (adding 18VAC85-21-10 through 18VAC85-21-170).
Statutory Authority: §§ 54.1-2400 and 54.1-2928.2
of the Code of Virginia.
Effective Date: August 8, 2018.
Agency Contact: William L. Harp, M.D., Executive
Director, Board of Medicine, 9960 Mayland Drive, Suite 300, Richmond, VA 23233,
telephone (804) 367-4558, FAX (804) 527-4429, or email
william.harp@dhp.virginia.gov.
Summary:
The regulatory action adopts requirements for the
prescribing of opioids and products containing buprenorphine as required by
Chapters 291 and 682 of the 2017 Acts of Assembly. The regulations establish
the practitioners to whom the regulations apply and the exceptions to or
nonapplicability of the regulations. Provisions for the management of acute
pain include requirements for the evaluation of the patient, limitations on
quantity and dosage, and medical recordkeeping. Provisions for the management
of chronic pain include requirements for evaluation and treatment, including a
treatment plan, informed consent and agreement, consultation with other
providers, and medical recordkeeping. Provisions for the prescribing of
buprenorphine include requirements for patient assessment and treatment
planning, limitations on prescribing the buprenorphine mono-product (without
naloxone), dosages, co-prescribing of other drugs, consultation, and medical
records for opioid addiction treatment. Changes since the proposed regulation
was published include (i) adding treatment for pain associated with sickle cell
as an exception to the regulations, (ii) adding information regarding the
nature of tramadol each time that drug is listed, and (iii) changing the
requirement for drug testing following the first year of chronic pain
management to be consistent with that of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
Summary of Public Comments and Agency's Response: A
summary of comments made by the public and the agency's response may be
obtained from the promulgating agency or viewed at the office of the Registrar
of Regulations.
CHAPTER 21
REGULATIONS GOVERNING PRESCRIBING OF OPIOIDS AND BUPRENORPHINE
Part I
General Provisions
18VAC85-21-10. Applicability.
A. This chapter shall apply to doctors of medicine,
osteopathic medicine, and podiatry and to physician assistants.
B. This chapter shall not apply to:
1. The treatment of acute or chronic pain related to (i)
cancer, (ii) [ sickle cell, (iii) ] a patient in
hospice care, or [ (iii) (iv) ] a patient
in palliative care;
2. The treatment of acute or chronic pain during an
inpatient hospital admission or in a nursing home or an assisted living
facility that uses a sole source pharmacy; or
3. A patient enrolled in a clinical trial as authorized by
state or federal law.
18VAC85-21-20. Definitions.
The following words and terms when used in this chapter
shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates
otherwise:
"Acute pain" means pain that occurs within the
normal course of a disease or condition or as the result of surgery for which
controlled substances may be prescribed for no more than three months.
"Board" means the Virginia Board of Medicine.
"Chronic pain" means nonmalignant pain that goes
beyond the normal course of a disease or condition for which controlled
substances may be prescribed for a period greater than three months.
"Controlled substance" means drugs listed in The
Drug Control Act (§ 54.1-3400 et seq. of the Code of Virginia) in Schedules II
through IV.
"FDA" means the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration.
"MME" means morphine milligram equivalent.
"Prescription Monitoring Program" means the
electronic system within the Department of Health Professions that monitors the
dispensing of certain controlled substances.
"SAMHSA" means the federal Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration.
Part II
Management of Acute Pain
18VAC85-21-30. Evaluation of the acute pain patient.
A. Nonpharmacologic and non-opioid treatment for pain
shall be given consideration prior to treatment with opioids. If an opioid is
considered necessary for the treatment of acute pain, the practitioner shall
give a short-acting opioid in the lowest effective dose for the fewest possible
days.
B. Prior to initiating treatment with a controlled
substance containing an opioid for a complaint of acute pain, the prescriber
shall perform a history and physical examination appropriate to the complaint,
query the Prescription Monitoring Program as set forth in § 54.1-2522.1 of the
Code of Virginia, and conduct an assessment of the patient's history and risk
of substance misuse.
18VAC85-21-40. Treatment of acute pain with opioids.
A. Initiation of opioid treatment for patients with acute
pain shall be with short-acting opioids.
1. A prescriber providing treatment for acute pain shall
not prescribe a controlled substance containing an opioid in a quantity that
exceeds a seven-day supply as determined by the manufacturer's directions for
use, unless extenuating circumstances are clearly documented in the
medical record. This shall also apply to prescriptions of a controlled
substance containing an opioid upon discharge from an emergency department.
2. An opioid prescribed as part of treatment for a surgical
procedure shall be for no more than 14 consecutive days in accordance with
manufacturer's direction and within the immediate perioperative period, unless
extenuating circumstances are clearly documented in the medical record.
B. Initiation of opioid treatment for all patients shall
include the following:
1. The practitioner shall carefully consider and document
in the medical record the reasons to exceed 50 MME/day.
2. Prior to exceeding 120 MME/day, the practitioner shall
document in the medical record the reasonable justification for such
doses or refer to or consult with a pain management specialist.
3. Naloxone shall be prescribed for any patient when risk
factors of prior overdose, substance misuse, doses in excess of 120 MME/day, or
concomitant benzodiazepine are present.
C. Due to a higher risk of fatal overdose when opioids are
prescribed with benzodiazepines, sedative hypnotics, carisoprodol, and tramadol
[ (an atypical opioid) ], the prescriber shall only
co-prescribe these substances when there are extenuating circumstances and
shall document in the medical record a tapering plan to achieve the
lowest possible effective doses if these medications are prescribed.
D. Buprenorphine is not indicated for acute pain in the
outpatient setting, except when a prescriber who has obtained a SAMHSA waiver
is treating pain in a patient whose primary diagnosis is the disease of
addiction.
18VAC85-21-50. Medical records for acute pain.
The medical record shall include a description of the
pain, a presumptive diagnosis for the origin of the pain, an examination
appropriate to the complaint, a treatment plan, and the medication prescribed
or administered to include the date, type, dosage, and quantity prescribed or
administered.
Part III
Management of Chronic Pain
18VAC85-21-60. Evaluation of the chronic pain patient.
A. Prior to initiating management of chronic pain with a
controlled substance containing an opioid, a medical history and physical
examination, to include a mental status examination, shall be performed and
documented in the medical record, including:
1. The nature and intensity of the pain;
2. Current and past treatments for pain;
3. Underlying or coexisting diseases or conditions;
4. The effect of the pain on physical and psychological
function, quality of life, and activities of daily living;
5. Psychiatric, addiction, and substance misuse history of
the patient and any family history of addiction or substance misuse;
6. A urine drug screen or serum medication level;
7. A query of the Prescription Monitoring Program as set
forth in § 54.1-2522.1 of the Code of Virginia;
8. An assessment of the patient's history and risk of
substance misuse; and
9. A request for prior applicable records.
B. Prior to initiating opioid treatment for chronic pain,
the practitioner shall discuss with the patient the known risks and benefits of
opioid therapy and the responsibilities of the patient during treatment to
include securely storing the drug and properly disposing of any unwanted or
unused drugs. The practitioner shall also discuss with the patient an exit
strategy for the discontinuation of opioids in the event they are not
effective.
18VAC85-21-70. Treatment of chronic pain with opioids.
A. Nonpharmacologic and non-opioid treatment for pain
shall be given consideration prior to treatment with opioids.
B. In initiating and treating with an opioid, the
practitioner shall:
1. Carefully consider and document in the medical record
the reasons to exceed 50 MME/day;
2. Prior to exceeding 120 MME/day, the practitioner shall
document in the medical record the reasonable justification for such doses or
refer to or consult with a pain management specialist;
3. Prescribe naloxone for any patient when risk factors of
prior overdose, substance misuse, doses in excess of 120 MME/day, or
concomitant benzodiazepine are present; and
4. Document the rationale to continue opioid therapy every
three months.
C. Buprenorphine mono-product in tablet form shall not be
prescribed for chronic pain.
D. Due to a higher risk of fatal overdose when opioids,
including buprenorphine, are given with other opioids, benzodiazepines,
sedative hypnotics, carisoprodol, and tramadol [ (an atypical
opioid) ], the prescriber shall only co-prescribe these substances
when there are extenuating circumstances and shall document in the medical
record a tapering plan to achieve the lowest possible effective doses of these
medications if prescribed.
E. The practitioner (i) shall regularly evaluate the
patient for opioid use disorder and (ii) shall initiate specific treatment for
opioid use disorder, consult with an appropriate health care provider, or refer
the patient for evaluation and treatment if indicated.
18VAC85-21-80. Treatment plan for chronic pain.
A. The medical record shall include a treatment plan that
states measures to be used to determine progress in treatment, including pain
relief and improved physical and psychosocial function, quality of life, and
daily activities.
B. The treatment plan shall include further diagnostic
evaluations and other treatment modalities or rehabilitation that may be
necessary depending on the etiology of the pain and the extent to which the
pain is associated with physical and psychosocial impairment.
C. The prescriber shall document in the medical record
the presence or absence of any indicators for medication misuse or diversion
and shall take appropriate action.
18VAC85-21-90. Informed consent and agreement for treatment
for chronic pain.
A. The practitioner shall document in the medical record
informed consent, to include risks, benefits, and alternative approaches, prior
to the initiation of opioids for chronic pain.
B. There shall be a written treatment agreement signed by
the patient in the medical record that addresses the parameters of treatment,
including those behaviors that will result in referral to a higher level of
care, cessation of treatment, or dismissal from care.
C. The treatment agreement shall include notice that the
practitioner will query and receive reports from the Prescription Monitoring
Program and permission for the practitioner to:
1. Obtain urine drug screens or serum medication levels
when requested; and
2. Consult with other prescribers or dispensing pharmacists
for the patient.
D. Expected outcomes shall be documented in the medical
record including improvement in pain relief and function or simply in pain
relief. Limitations and side effects of chronic opioid therapy shall be
documented in the medical record.
18VAC85-21-100. Opioid therapy for chronic pain.
A. The practitioner shall review the course of pain
treatment and any new information about the etiology of the pain and the
patient's state of health at least every three months.
B. Continuation of treatment with opioids shall be
supported by documentation of continued benefit from such prescribing. If the
patient's progress is unsatisfactory, the practitioner shall assess the
appropriateness of continued use of the current treatment plan and consider the
use of other therapeutic modalities.
C. The practitioner shall check the Prescription
Monitoring Program at least every three months after the initiation of
treatment.
D. The practitioner shall order and review a urine drug
screen or serum medication levels at the initiation of chronic pain management
and [ at least every three months for the first year of
treatment and thereafter randomly at the discretion of the
practitioner but ] at least [ every six months
thereafter once a year ].
E. The practitioner (i) shall regularly evaluate the
patient for opioid use disorder and (ii) shall initiate specific treatment for
opioid use disorder, consult with an appropriate health care provider, or refer
the patient for evaluation for treatment if indicated.
18VAC85-21-110. Additional consultations.
A. When necessary to achieve treatment goals, the
prescriber shall refer the patient for additional evaluation and treatment.
B. When a prescriber makes the diagnosis of opioid use
disorder, treatment for opioid use disorder shall be initiated or the patient
shall be referred for evaluation and treatment.
18VAC85-21-120. Medical records for chronic pain.
The prescriber shall keep current, accurate, and complete
records in an accessible manner readily available for review to include:
1. The medical history and physical examination;
2. Past medical history;
3. Applicable records from prior treatment providers or any
documentation of attempts to obtain those records;
4. Diagnostic, therapeutic, and laboratory results;
5. Evaluations and consultations;
6. Treatment goals;
7. Discussion of risks and benefits;
8. Informed consent and agreement for treatment;
9. Treatments;
10. Medications (including date, type, dosage, and quantity
prescribed and refills);
11. Patient instructions; and
12. Periodic reviews.
Part IV
Prescribing of Buprenorphine for Addiction Treatment
18VAC85-21-130. General provisions pertaining to prescribing
of buprenorphine for addiction treatment.
A. Practitioners engaged in office-based opioid addiction
treatment with buprenorphine shall have obtained a SAMHSA waiver and the
appropriate U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration registration.
B. Practitioners shall abide by all federal and state laws
and regulations governing the prescribing of buprenorphine for the treatment of
opioid use disorder.
C. Physician assistants and nurse practitioners who have
obtained a SAMHSA waiver shall only prescribe buprenorphine for opioid
addiction pursuant to a practice agreement with a waivered doctor of medicine
or doctor of osteopathic medicine.
D. Practitioners engaged in medication-assisted treatment
shall either provide counseling in their practice or refer the patient to a
mental health service provider, as defined in § 54.1-2400.1 of the Code of
Virginia, who has the education and experience to provide substance misuse
counseling. The practitioner shall document provision of counseling or referral
in the medical record.
18VAC85-21-140. Patient assessment and treatment planning
for addiction treatment.
A. A practitioner shall perform and document an assessment
that includes a comprehensive medical and psychiatric history, substance misuse
history, family history and psychosocial supports, appropriate physical
examination, urine drug screen, pregnancy test for women of childbearing age
and ability, a check of the Prescription Monitoring Program, and, when
clinically indicated, infectious disease testing for human immunodeficiency
virus, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and tuberculosis.
B. The treatment plan shall include the practitioner's
rationale for selecting medication-assisted treatment, patient education,
written informed consent, how counseling will be accomplished, and a signed
treatment agreement that outlines the responsibilities of the patient and the
prescriber.
18VAC85-21-150. Treatment with buprenorphine for addiction.
A. Buprenorphine without naloxone (buprenorphine mono-product)
shall not be prescribed except:
1. When a patient is pregnant;
2. When converting a patient from methadone or
buprenorphine mono-product to buprenorphine containing naloxone for a period
not to exceed seven days;
3. In formulations other than tablet form for indications
approved by the FDA; or
4. For patients who have a demonstrated intolerance to
naloxone; such prescriptions for the mono-product shall not exceed 3.0% of the
total prescriptions for buprenorphine written by the prescriber, and the
exception shall be clearly documented in the patient's medical record.
B. Buprenorphine mono-product tablets may be administered
directly to patients in federally licensed opioid treatment programs. With the
exception of those conditions listed in subsection A of this section, only the
buprenorphine product containing naloxone shall be prescribed or
dispensed for use off site from the program.
C. The evidence for the decision to use buprenorphine
mono-product shall be fully documented in the medical record.
D. Due to a higher risk of fatal overdose when
buprenorphine is prescribed with other opioids, benzodiazepines, sedative
hypnotics, carisoprodol, and tramadol [ (an atypical opioid) ],
the prescriber shall only co-prescribe these substances when there are
extenuating circumstances and shall document in the medical record a tapering
plan to achieve the lowest possible effective doses if these medications
are prescribed.
E. Prior to starting medication-assisted treatment, the
practitioner shall perform a check of the Prescription Monitoring Program.
F. During the induction phase, except for medically
indicated circumstances as documented in the medical record, patients should be
started on no more than eight milligrams of buprenorphine per day. The patient
shall be seen by the prescriber at least once a week.
G. During the stabilization phase, the prescriber shall
increase the daily dosage of buprenorphine in safe and effective increments to
achieve the lowest dose that avoids intoxication, withdrawal, or significant
drug craving.
H. Practitioners shall take steps to reduce the chances of
buprenorphine diversion by using the lowest effective dose, appropriate
frequency of office visits, pill counts, and checks of the Prescription
Monitoring Program. The practitioner shall also require urine drug screens or
serum medication levels at least every three months for the first year of
treatment and at least every six months thereafter.
I. Documentation of the rationale for prescribed doses
exceeding 16 milligrams of buprenorphine per day shall be placed in the medical
record. Dosages exceeding 24 milligrams of buprenorphine per day shall not be
prescribed.
J. The practitioner shall incorporate relapse prevention
strategies into counseling or assure that they are addressed by a mental health
service provider, as defined in § 54.1-2400.1 of the Code of Virginia, who has
the education and experience to provide substance misuse counseling.
18VAC85-21-160. Special populations in addiction treatment.
A. Pregnant women may be treated with the buprenorphine
mono-product, usually 16 milligrams per day or less.
B. Patients younger than the age of 16 years shall not be
prescribed buprenorphine for addiction treatment unless such treatment is
approved by the FDA.
C. The progress of patients with chronic pain shall be
assessed by reduction of pain and functional objectives that can be identified,
quantified, and independently verified.
D. Practitioners shall (i) evaluate patients with medical
comorbidities by history, physical exam, [ and ] appropriate
laboratory studies and (ii) be aware of interactions of buprenorphine with
other prescribed medications.
E. Practitioners shall not undertake buprenorphine
treatment with a patient who has psychiatric comorbidities and is not stable. A
patient who is determined by the prescriber to be psychiatrically unstable
shall be referred for psychiatric evaluation and treatment prior to initiating
medication-assisted treatment.
18VAC85-21-170. Medical records for opioid addiction treatment.
A. Records shall be timely, accurate, legible, complete,
and readily accessible for review.
B. The treatment agreement and informed consent shall be
maintained in the medical record.
C. Confidentiality requirements of 42 CFR Part 2 shall be
followed.
D. Compliance with 18VAC85-20-27, which prohibits willful
or negligent breach of confidentiality or unauthorized disclosure of
confidential Prescription Monitoring Program information, shall be maintained.
VA.R. Doc. No. R17-5033; Filed June 15, 2018, 12:29 p.m.
TITLE 18. PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING
BOARD OF NURSING
Proposed Regulation
Titles of Regulations: 18VAC90-30. Regulations
Governing the Licensure of Nurse Practitioners (amending 18VAC90-30-220).
18VAC90-40. Regulations for Prescriptive Authority for Nurse
Practitioners (amending 18VAC90-40-10; adding 18VAC90-40-150
through 18VAC90-40-290).
Statutory Authority: §§ 54.1-2400 and 54.1-2957 of the
Code of Virginia.
Public Hearing Information:
July 19, 2018 - 10 am - Department of Health Professions,
Perimeter Center, 9960 Mayland Drive, Suite 201, Board Room 2, Richmond, VA 23233
Public Comment Deadline: September 7, 2018.
Agency Contact: Jay P. Douglas, R.N., Executive
Director, Board of Nursing, 9960 Mayland Drive, Suite 300, Richmond, VA
23233-1463, telephone (804) 367-4520, FAX (804) 527-4455, or email
jay.douglas@dhp.virginia.gov.
Basis: Regulations are promulgated under the general
authority of § 54.1-2400 of the Code of Virginia, which provides the Boards of
Nursing and Medicine the authority to promulgate regulations to administer the
regulatory system.
In addition, Chapters 291 and 682 of the 2017 Acts of Assembly
require adoption of regulations for the prescribing of opioids and products
containing buprenorphine.
Purpose: The purpose of the regulatory action is the
establishment of requirements for prescribing of controlled substances
containing opioids or buprenorphine to address the overdose and addiction
crisis in the Commonwealth. The goal is to provide prescribers with definitive
rules to follow so they may feel more assured of their ability to treat pain in
an appropriate manner to avoid under-prescribing or over-prescribing.
Substance: The regulations establish the practitioners
to whom the rules apply and exceptions or nonapplicability. Provisions for the
management of acute pain include requirements for the evaluation of the
patient, limitations on quantity and dosage, and medical recordkeeping.
Provisions for management of chronic pain include requirements for evaluation
and treatment, including a treatment plan, informed consent and agreement,
consultation with other providers, and medical recordkeeping. Provisions for
prescribing of buprenorphine include requirements for patient assessment and
treatment planning, limitations on prescribing the buprenorphine mono-product
(without naloxone), dosages, co-prescribing of other drugs; consultation; and
medical records for opioid addiction treatment.
Issues: The primary advantage to the public is a
reduction in the amount of opioid medication that is available in our
communities. A limitation on the quantity of opioids that may be prescribed
should result in fewer people becoming addicted to pain medication, which
sometimes leads them to turn to heroin and other illicit drugs. Persons who are
receiving opioids for chronic pain should be more closely monitored to ensure that
the prescribing is appropriate and necessary. A limitation on prescribing the
buprenorphine mono-product should result in a reduction in the number of
tablets that are sold on the street. The primary disadvantage to the public may
be that more explicit rules for prescribing may result in some physicians and
nurse practitioners choosing not to manage chronic pain patients in their
practice. The primary advantage to the Commonwealth is the potential reduction
in the number of persons addicted to opioids and deaths from overdoses. There
are no disadvantages.
The Department of Planning and Budget's Economic Impact
Analysis:
Summary of the Proposed Amendments to Regulation. The Board of
Nursing (Board) proposes amendments to regulations that govern the licensure
and prescriptive authority for nurse practitioners that will set rules for the
prescription of opioids in the management of acute and chronic pain. This
proposed regulation also sets rules for the use of buprenorphine in treating
pain and, separately, as part of addiction treatment.1 These
proposed regulations will replace emergency regulations that became effective
May 8, 2017 and that are currently set to expire on November 7, 2018.
Result of Analysis. There are insufficient data to accurately
compare the magnitude of the benefits versus the costs.
Estimated Economic Impact. The Board reports that this
regulation is being proposed to "address the opioid abuse crisis in
Virginia." Prior to legislation enacted by the 2017 General Assembly which
required the Boards of Medicine and Dentistry to adopt regulations governing
opioid prescription, no regulations existed for opioid treatment of acute or
chronic pain. In March 2017, Chapters 291 and 682 of the Acts of the Assembly
became law. Each Chapter requires the Boards of Medicine and Dentistry to
promulgate regulations for prescription of opioids.
Acute and chronic pain are defined in the proposed regulation
as follows:
• Acute pain, is "pain that occurs within the normal
course of a disease or condition or as the result of surgery for which
controlled substances containing an opioid may be prescribed for no more than
three months."
• Chronic pain, is "nonmalignant pain that goes beyond the
normal course of a disease or condition for which controlled substances
containing an opioid may be prescribed for a period of greater than three
months."
For the treatment of acute pain, these Chapters require that
the Board's regulation include:
"(i) requirements for an appropriate patient history and
evaluation, (ii) limitations on dosages or day supply of drugs prescribed,
(iii) requirements for appropriate documentation in the patient's health
record, and (iv) a requirement that the prescriber request and review
information contained in the Prescription Monitoring Program in accordance with
§ 54.1-2522.1."
For the treatment of chronic pain, the Chapters require the
regulations to include the requirements listed above for acute pain treatment,
as well as requirements for:
"(i) development of a treatment plan for the patient, (ii)
an agreement for treatment signed by the provider and the patient that includes
permission to obtain urine drug screens [UDS], and (iii) periodic review of the
treatment provided at specific intervals to determine the continued
appropriateness of such treatment."
Chapters 291 and 682 also require that the Board's regulations
include rules for:
"the use of buprenorphine in the treatment of addiction,
including a requirement for referral to or consultation with a provider of
substance abuse counseling in conjunction with treatment of opioid dependency
with products containing buprenorphine."
Although the Board of Nursing is not required to promulgate
regulations under these Chapters, the Board of Nursing proposes regulations
that are mostly consistent with those adopted by the Board of Medicine in order
to "address the opioid crisis in Virginia"2 and to make
rules for prescribing consistent across prescribers.
Each proposed regulation includes exemptions to the new
prescribing rules, specifying the circumstances under which they do not apply.3
However, because of drafting differences these exemptions are presented in
different ways. The Board of Medicine's action proposed an entirely new
Chapter, and the exemptions apply to each part therein. In contrast, the Board
of Nursing's action proposes amendments to two existing Chapters, and the
exemptions apply only to certain parts therein. Accordingly, the exemptions do
not apply to Part VII (Prescribing of Buprenorphine). Board staff state that
this has no substantive effect, because buprenorphine can only be used for
office-based opioid addiction treatment.
Requirements in the Proposed Regulation.
Requirements for Acute Pain Treatment: For the treatment of
acute pain, the Board proposes to require that the prescriber: (1) take a
patient history, (2) perform a physical examination appropriate for the
complaint, and (3) assess the patient's history and risk of substance misuse.
The Board also proposes to limit opioid prescriptions for all non-surgical
acute care to a seven-day supply unless extenuating circumstances are clearly
documented. For opioids prescribed as a part of a surgical procedure, the Board
proposes to limit such prescriptions to a 14-day supply within the
perioperative period4 unless extenuating circumstances are
documented. The Board also proposes to set record-keeping requirements for
acute pain to include a description of the pain, a presumptive diagnosis, a
treatment plan, and information on medication prescribed or administered.
Requirements for both Acute and Chronic Pain Treatment: In
treating acute or chronic pain, the Board proposes four requirements. First,
practitioners will be required to consider nonpharmacologic5 and
non-opioid treatments6 "prior to treatment with opioids."
Second, practitioners will be required to query the state's Prescription
Monitoring Program (PMP), as set forth in § 54.1-2522.1, which requires queries
when initiating a new course of treatment in which an opioid prescription is
anticipated to last more than seven consecutive days. That section also
provides that a prescriber may make additional queries "as may be required
by routine prescribing practices." For acute pain treatment, a query will
occur prior to initiating treatment. For chronic pain, this will occur prior to
beginning treatment and at least every three months thereafter. Third, the
Board proposes to require that, "practitioners shall carefully consider
and document in the medical record the reasons to exceed 50 MME/day"7
if they prescribe opioids in excess of that daily dosage, and to require that,
"prior to exceeding 120 MME/day, the practitioner shall document in the
medical record the reasonable justification for such doses or refer to or
consult with a pain management specialist." Fourth, practitioners will be
required to prescribe naloxone8 "when risk factors of prior
overdose, substance misuse, doses in excess of 120 MME/day, or concomitant
benzodiazepine is present." Practitioners also will be required to limit
co-prescribing of drugs that may increase the risk of accidental overdose when
taken with opioids.
Requirements Solely for the Treatment of Chronic Pain: For
treatment of chronic pain, the Board proposes to specify medical record-keeping
requirements. The Board also proposes to require signed patient agreements and
urine or serum drug testing "at the initiation of chronic pain management
and at least every three months for the first year of treatment and at least
every six months thereafter." Practitioners also will be required to
regularly evaluate patients for opioid use disorder and to initiate treatment
for opioid use disorder or to refer the patient for evaluation and treatment if
opioid use disorder is diagnosed.
Requirements for Treatment with Buprenorphine: The Board
proposes four requirements for the prescribing of buprenorphine. First, the
Board proposes to specify that buprenorphine is not to be used to treat acute
pain in an outpatient setting except when a prescriber obtains a Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration waiver and is treating pain in
a patient whose primary diagnosis is the disease of addiction. Second, the
Board proposes to ban the use of buprenorphine mono-product9 in pill
form for treating chronic pain. Third, the Board proposes to ban the use of the
mono-product to treat addiction except: (1) for pregnant women, (2) when
converting a patient from methadone or the mono-product to buprenorphine
containing naloxone (limit of seven days), (3) in formulations other than
tablet form for indications approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
and (4) for up to three percent of any prescribers' addiction patients who have
a demonstrated intolerance to naloxone. Fourth, the proposed regulation would
also limit dosages of buprenorphine and the co-prescribing of certain other
drugs with buprenorphine, as well as require PMP queries for addiction
patients.
Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Regulation.
The requirements in the proposed regulation appear to confer a
mix of benefits and costs, including those resulting from the mandatory use of
drug testing, restrictions on the use of buprenorphine, preferences for
non-opioid treatments, and use of the PMP. Except for the estimated costs
directly resulting from mandatory drug testing, and potential savings from
decreased use of opioids in the state's Medicaid program, there are
insufficient quantitative data to accurately determine, and thus compare, the
magnitude of direct benefits versus direct costs. In part this is because the
scope and range of potential impacts (cost and benefit) cannot be readily
identified.
To the extent that the proposed regulation reduces the rate of
prescription substance misuse, including drug addiction, savings or cost
avoidance could be achieved from reduction in expenditures on the treatment of,
and consequences from, substance misuse.10 However, to the extent
that the regulations create a disincentive to obtaining, or limit access to,
opioid therapy, any savings or cost avoidance may be offset by direct and
indirect costs resulting from untreated pain11 or a shift to illicit
drugs.12
Direct Benefits and Costs of Drug Testing: Drug testing,
typically through a urine drug screen (UDS) appears to confer direct benefits
on practitioners and a subset of patients, if confirmed test results are used
to correctly refer them for substance misuse treatment or identify
non-adherence to their treatment plan. As noted by the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention's (CDC) 2016 Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain
("Guideline"), a UDS can: provide information about drug use that is
not reported by the patient, including controlled substances and illicit drugs
that increase risk for overdose when combined with opioids such as
nonprescribed opioids, benzodiazepines, and heroin; assist clinicians in
identifying when patients are not taking opioids prescribed for them, which
might in some cases indicate diversion or other clinically important issues
such as difficulties with adverse effects; and provide useful information about
patients assumed not to be using unreported drugs.13 As noted in the
literature,
"Pain management is a critical element of patient care.
Over the last 2 decades the emphasis on managing pain has led to a substantial
increase in the prescription of opioids. While opioids can significantly
improve the quality of life for the patients, there are many concerns....
Therefore, monitoring adherence for patients on (or considered candidates for)
opioid treatment is a critical element of pain management…. Of the various
tools, UDS is perhaps the most effective in detecting non-adherence, and is
viewed as the de facto monitoring tool."14
Monitoring urine toxicology also can help practitioners comply
with federal Drug Enforcement Agency requirements, which require practitioners
to minimize abuse and diversion.15
However, quantitative data on the value of these benefits does
not appear to be readily available. Moreover, because false positive and false
negative test results are known to occur (discussed below), full realization of
the benefits of UDS may require utilization of both an initial immunoassay
(dipstick) test in a practitioner's office followed by a confirmatory gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry or high-performance liquid chromatography test (collectively
referred to as GC/MS in this analysis) in a laboratory.
In order to quantify the costs of drug testing, the number of
patients that will likely be affected by urine testing requirements must be
estimated. The Board did not provide estimates of the number of patients
affected, so estimates from relevant literature on the prevalence of chronic
pain were considered. Estimates of the percentage of the population affected by
acute pain do not appear to be readily available.
Using information taken from the 2012 National Health Interview
Survey (NHIS), National Institutes of Health staff estimated that 11.2 percent
of the adult population experiences chronic pain—that is, they had pain every
day for the preceding three months.16 In Virginia, using 2016 Census
Bureau data on population by age, this equates to 732,669 adults. On the high
end, the Institutes of Medicine (IOM) report that common chronic pain
conditions are prevalent among 37 percent of adults, "amounting to
approximately 116 million adults in 2010—a conservative estimate as neither
acute pain nor children are included."17 This equates to
approximately 2.4 million adult Virginians.
Although these two estimates may indicate the extent of chronic
pain among adults, they may not indicate the extent to which persons with
chronic pain seek opioid therapy. A low-end estimate is supported by at least
one study (Boudreau, et al, 2009),18 that indicates that 3 to 4
percent of the adult population were prescribed longer-term opioid therapy.19
(Note: to the extent that opioid prescription rates have increased since this
study was conducted, this estimate would be too low.)
These three estimates will be used to estimate the potential
number of adults in Virginia who could be affected by the proposed regulation
(Table 1). Using these population estimates, and the Board's estimate that the
average cost of an initial "dipstick" UDS is $50, direct costs of the
new requirements for the initial UDS would likely be between $12 million and
$141 million for the initial screen, assuming all persons with chronic pain
seek opioid therapy. Subsequently, the annual cost for four quarters of drug
tests would be between $57 million and $605 million, assuming all persons with
chronic pain seek and continue to receive opioid therapy for a full year. To
the extent these assumptions are not borne out, the cost would decrease. After
the first year, these costs would decrease as patients shift from quarterly to
biannual testing.
Table 1
|
Potential Ranges of Persons
with Chronic Pain
|
Estimated Number of Adult
Virginians with Chronic Pain
|
Cost of Initial Test*
|
Additional Cost of All First
Year
Quarterly Tests*
|
Boudreau et al (3.5%)
|
228,959
|
$12 million
|
$57 million
|
NHIS estimate (11.2%)
|
732,669
|
$37 million
|
$183 million
|
IOM estimate (37%)
|
2,420,423
|
$121 million
|
$605 million
|
*Assumes 100 percent of all
persons with chronic pain within each of the three estimates are treated with
opioids.
|
These estimated costs may potentially increase to the extent
that testing is repeated because practitioners account for the possibility of
unexpected drug screen results, such as false positive and false negative
results in the immunoassay or "dipstick" test typically used in a
practitioner's office.20 A false positive result occurs when the
test result is "positive" but the indicated substance is not actually
present. A false negative occurs when the test fails to indicate the presence
of substances that are actually present. These and other unexpected results
that could prompt re-testing could occur for a variety of reasons, including
failure to take the prescribed medication, testing error, metabolic
differences, and drug interactions. Brahm et al. notes that false positive test
results have been reported for certain antibiotics (quinolones and ofloxacin),
certain antidepressants and antipsychotics, the hypertension medication
Verapamil, as well as over-the-counter medications containing dextromethorphan,
ibuprofen and naproxen.21
Although re-testing is recommended by the CDC's Guideline,
testing without confirmatory GC/MS testing may have unintended adverse
consequences:
"the use of medications with the potential for
false-positive UDS results may present a significant liability for individuals
required to undergo random or periodic UDSs as a component of a recovery or
court-ordered monitoring program or as a condition of employment. In addition,
false-positive UDS results may affect the clinician–patient relationship by
raising issues of trust."22
Of note, the CDC Guideline also only recommends initial drug
testing before treatment, and states that clinicians should
"consider" drug testing on an annual basis thereafter:
"While experts agreed that clinicians should use urine
drug testing before initiating opioid therapy for chronic pain, they disagreed
on how frequently urine drug testing should be conducted during long-term
opioid therapy. Most experts agreed that urine drug testing at least annually
for all patients was reasonable."
For both the initial UDS and subsequent testing, however, it
appears that the CDC concludes that practitioners should retain the discretion
to determine whether to administer a test. The CDC notes that the
recommendation to use drug testing is a Category B recommendation, which is one
where "different choices will be appropriate for different patients, so
clinicians must help patients arrive at a decision consistent with patient
values and preferences, and specific clinical situations."23
As noted in the literature, "the interpretation of opioid
testing results is far less straightforward than many health care providers who
utilize this testing appreciate."24 There are two main types of
urine drug screening: immunoassay testing and chromatography (i.e., gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry [GC/MS] or high-performance liquid
chromatography). Immunoassay tests use antibodies to detect the presence of
drugs. These tests can be processed rapidly, are inexpensive, and are the
preferred initial test for screening.25 When urine tests have
unexpected results, the CDC Guideline recommends that a, "confirmatory
test using a method selective enough to differentiate specific opioids and
metabolites (e.g. gas or liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry) might be
warranted."26 Although these tests can cost several hundred
dollars or more, they are the forensic criterion standard means of confirming
initial screening tests because they have a low incidence of false positive
results and are very sensitive and specific.27
Board staff referred to the CDC Guideline, and also stated that
the treatment agreement signed by the patient would indicate the actions to be
taken if unexpected results (positive or negative) cannot be explained. Board
staff report that these actions could include referral for substance abuse
counseling or release from care (with the patient being given a reasonable
amount of time to find a new health care practitioner).28 Although
board staff noted that the retesting could be accomplished by administering
another dipstick test, repeated dipstick tests may not yield different results.
For instance, unexpected positive test results can be caused by various classes
of non-narcotic prescription and over-the-counter medications, and unexpected
negative results can result from individual rapid metabolism rates. In
instances where unexpected results are caused by confounding factors (rather
than random test error), repeated dipstick test would be unlikely to yield
different results. Additionally, the CDC Guideline calls for use of GC/MS
testing to confirm dipstick test results.
Indirect Benefits and Costs of Drug Testing: The use of drug
screens appears to have a mix of benefits and costs. As noted by the CDC
Guideline, practitioners should use unexpected results to improve patient
safety. This could include several strategies that, if properly designed and
applied, would appear to confer this benefit. Examples of responses to an
unexpected drug screen result include a change in pain management strategy,
tapering or discontinuing opioids, more frequent re-evaluation, offering
naloxone, or referring for treatment for substance use disorder. The CDC notes
that practitioners:
"should not dismiss patients from care based on a urine
drug test result because this could constitute patient abandonment and could
have adverse consequences for patient safety, potentially including the patient
obtaining opioids from alternative sources and the clinician missing
opportunities to facilitate treatment for substance use disorder."
Board staff appear to agree with this guidance, adding that a
patient could also be released from care if they do not comply with the
treatment plan.29 However, the Board has stated that patients should
not be abandoned. As noted in a letter from the Board to practitioners:
"As you consider these regulations, make sure that the
needs of patients currently receiving opioids for chronic pain are taken into
account. It is critically important that no patients in Virginia find
themselves looking for narcotics outside of the medical system – i.e., on the
street."30
However, as documented in some of the available literature, the
use of drug screens may create a disincentive for certain patients to continue
seeking treatment. Thus certain patients may stop pursuing opioid therapy,
including those who test positive for unexpected substances and those who do
not.31 Moreover, Board staff also acknowledge that the drug testing
and other requirements in the proposed regulation will create disincentives for
primary care physicians to treat pain using opioid therapy. And given that the
Board has stated that the regulation is, in part, designed to "provide the
board with a tool to discipline physicians whose practices do not meet the
standard of care,"32 the regulation may cause some primary care
physicians to no longer treat chronic pain patients with opioids.
In addition, examples of some
recent literature notes that, "individuals who lost access [to
prescription opioids] have turned to cheaper, more accessible, and more potent
black market opioid alternatives—including heroin—in unprecedented
numbers."33 Thus an additional unintended consequence of the
regulations may be a shift in demand from legal prescriptions to illegal street
drugs, including heroin and illicitly-produced fentanyl (in combination or
separately). As noted in a recent issue of the International Journal of Drug
Policy, "prescribing restrictions forced a minority of dependent users to
more potent and available street heroin."34 The federal Drug
Enforcement Administration notes that "fentanyl can serve as substitute
for heroin in opioid dependent individuals."35
As noted by the Board, "the purpose of the regulations is,
in part, to assist physicians in treating opioid dependent patients."36
However, to the extent that some patients, particularly those with substance
use disorder, no longer obtain treatment, they may seek illicit substances. It
is not clear if this is occurring in Virginia, but data released by the Office
of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) indicate that "there has not been a
significant increase or decrease in fatal prescription opioid overdoses"
from 2007 to 2016, but "fatal fentanyl overdoses increased by 176.4% from
2015 to 2016."37 (This trend is illustrated in the figure
below.) Notwithstanding the increase in deaths from fentanyl, on average more
than 400 fatalities still result in part from prescription opioids each year.38
Although it does not appear that the OCME can determine whether
the fentanyl was illicit or pharmaceutically-produced, staff at the Department
of Forensic Science (DFS) reports that over the last 12 years, submissions of
prescription fentanyl have averaged between 25 and 27 samples per year. In
contrast, data reported by DFS indicate that the number of submissions of
illicit fentanyl increased by 1,656 percent from 2013 to 2016.39
Indirect Benefits and Costs of Restrictions on Use of
Buprenorphine: The Board's proposed restrictions on the use of buprenorphine
are aimed at decreasing the abuse of the mono-product of this drug
("Subutex") because it has become a popular drug of abuse. To the
extent the proposed regulation decreases abuse, then a benefit will be
conferred. However, any decrease in the abuse of this drug attributable to these
proposed restrictions would need to be weighed against the costs that may
accrue for chronic pain patients and individuals in addiction treatment.
Board staff reports that the cost of Suboxone (which contains
buprenorphine plus naloxone) is higher than the cost of Subutex. To the extent,
therefore, that certain patients are no longer able to obtain prescriptions for
Subutex, then they will likely incur increased costs. As noted by Board staff,
demand for opiates is highest in the places where health insurance coverage is
lowest. Therefore, these cost increases may disproportionally fall upon
patients who pay for prescriptions (and drug screens) out of pocket.
Additionally, it is reported that some portion of the general population has an
allergy or sensitivity to naloxone and would not be able to take Suboxone.
In response to concerns raised about restrictions on
prescription of the mono-product that did not account for individuals who had
an allergy or sensitivity, as well as the ability to pay, the Board voted to
allow treatment with the mono-product for up to three percent of any
prescribers' addiction patients who have a demonstrated intolerance to
naloxone. This allowance was made for individuals in addiction treatment but
not for chronic pain patients (who presumably would have the same incidence of
Naloxone allergies). The Board believes that this three percent allowance will
be sufficient to cover the portion of addiction patients who have a true
allergy/insensitivity. These individuals are not likely, however, to be evenly
spread among all doctors. This means that some doctors may have more than three
percent of their patients for whom the mono-product would be the preferred
treatment and some may have less. Because of this, some patients and
practitioners may see disruptions in treatment.
Indirect Benefits and Costs of Preferences for Alternative
Treatments: The proposed regulation's requirements that alternative treatments
(both nonpharmacologic and non-opioid) be given consideration prior to
prescription of opioids for both acute pain and chronic pain is being proposed
to reduce the number of such prescriptions. Board staff state that
nonpharmacologic treatments may include physical therapy, chiropractic, and
acupuncture.
In addition, non-opioid treatments can include treatment with
acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as well as
selected antidepressants and anticonvulsants. Although these drugs do not have
the addiction risks of opioids, they may pose other health risks for certain
patients. As noted by the CDC Guideline, although NSAIDs are recommended as
first-line treatment for osteoarthritis or low back pain, they do have risks,
including gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation as well as renal and
cardiovascular risks. Increasing use of non-opioid treatments like NSAIDs will
therefore need to balance the benefits of non-opioid therapy with these and
other risks.
Indirect Benefits and Costs of Prescription Monitoring Program
(PMP) Queries: Virginia statute presently requires PMP checks for any
prescriptions anticipated to be used for more than seven consecutive days.
Board staff reports that some hospitals already require PMP queries for
prescriptions issued in the emergency rooms (ER). Other hospitals that do not
currently have this policy will likely accrue staff time costs. To the extent
that the regulation is also interpreted to require PMP checks for all
prescriptions, as a "routine prescribing practice" (rather than just
prescriptions anticipated to last more than seven continuous days), practitioners
may incur additional time costs for running those queries.
To the extent that use of the PMP lowers the volume of drugs
diverted from licit to illicit uses, the new requirement will provide the
benefit of reductions in the costs of illicit drug use in the state.
Additionally, to the extent that use of the PMP lowers the number of doses of
opioids, the new requirement will provide the benefit of reducing the risk from
use of opioids. The Department of Health Professions (DHP), citing the CDC,
indicates that individuals taking greater than 90 MME/day are at a higher risk
of overdose and death. DHP adds that since the adoption of emergency
regulation, PMP data indicate that "the total number of patients
prescribed high dosages declined from 169,145 individuals in the fourth quarter
of 2016 to 137,618 individuals in the third quarter of 2017, or an 18.6%
decline in individuals receiving greater than 100 MME/day."40
Indirect Benefits and Costs of Record-Keeping Requirements: The
Board's proposed record-keeping requirements for acute pain are likely already
common medical practice; thus licensees are unlikely to incur any costs from
that portion of the proposed regulation that covers the treatment of acute
pain. Likewise, most of the proposed requirements for taking a patient history
and assessing a patient's complaint are likely common practice now and should
not cause any additional costs. The proposed requirement that practitioners in
an acute care setting perform a risk assessment for substance misuse41
on all patients who may be prescribed opioids may not presently be a part of
standard patient care. To the extent that practitioners treating acute pain do
not currently assess risk of substance misuse, costs would be incurred for
their time to perform such assessments.
Businesses and Entities Affected. These proposed regulatory
changes will affect all 6,547 nurse practitioners licensed in the Commonwealth
as well as their employers. Board staff reports that many nurse practitioners
are employed by large entities that would not qualify as small businesses. Some
nurse practitioners are employed by small medical practices that would qualify
as small businesses. These proposed regulations also will affect all patients
(both acute care and chronic care) who have been treated with opioids since the
emergency regulation went into effect, and all patients who may be treated with
opioids in the future. Additionally, individuals in treatment for addiction who
are prescribed buprenorphine will be affected. Health insurance providers also
will be affected. The Board has no estimates of the number of chronic pain
patients that might be affected by this proposed regulation. Based on estimates
of the number of the American adults who suffer from common chronic pain
conditions, the changes contained in this proposed regulation will likely
affect at least hundreds of thousands of chronic care patients in Virginia, and
may affect as many as several million, depending upon the extent to which they
seek opioid therapy.
Localities Particularly Affected. No locality likely will be
affected by these proposed regulatory changes.
Projected Impact on Employment. To the extent that these
proposed regulatory changes lead to fewer individuals being effectively treated
for chronic pain, employee absenteeism may increase, which would tend to
depress total productivity. To the extent that this regulation reduces rates of
addiction, which may allow former addicts to hold employment, productivity
would increase.
Effects on the Use and Value of Private Property. There is no
apparent impact on the use and value of private property.
Real Estate Development Costs. These proposed regulatory
changes are unlikely to affect real estate development costs in the
Commonwealth.
Small Businesses:
Definition. Pursuant to § 2.2-4007.04 of the Code of Virginia,
small business is defined as "a business entity, including its affiliates,
that (i) is independently owned and operated and (ii) employs fewer than 500
full-time employees or has gross annual sales of less than $6 million."
Costs and Other Effects. Based on Virginia Employment
Commission data, there are 4,757 offices of physicians with fewer than 500
employees in the Commonwealth, thus likely qualifying as small businesses. To
the extent that these firms include nurse practitioners who would be affected
by these proposed regulation, they will likely incur increased costs associated
with bookkeeping, staff wages, increased documentation requirements, and new
drug testing requirements for chronic pain patients in the proposed regulation.
Alternatively, adherence to the practices required by the regulation may have
an unknown impact on liability insurance and associated costs that may result
in savings.
Alternative Method that Minimizes Adverse Impact. Allowing
doctors, and the nurse practitioners who work with them, the discretion as to
whether and how often to use drug testing would likely decrease the costs
listed above. As noted above, the CDC only recommends that practitioners
"consider" drug testing on an annual basis after the initial screen.
Adverse Impacts:
Businesses. Doctors who employ nurse practitioners may incur
increased costs and changes to current business practices related to increased
bookkeeping, staff impacts associated with increased documentation requirements,
and implementation of new drug testing requirements for chronic pain patients
in the proposed regulation.
Localities. Localities in the Commonwealth are unlikely to see
any adverse impacts from these proposed regulatory changes.
Other Entities. Chronic pain patients, or their insurance
providers, will likely incur annual costs on account of drug testing
requirements and on account of restrictions on the prescription of
buprenorphine mono-product that are in the proposed regulation.
The Department of Human Resource Management reports that the
Commonwealth of Virginia will likely incur increased employee health benefits
costs because of these proposed regulatory changes, including additional costs
for drug testing. The Department of Medical Assistance Services (DMAS) may
incur increased costs for Medicaid patients who are in treatment for chronic
pain or who are undergoing addiction treatment with buprenorphine. These latter
costs may be offset to some degree by reductions in expenditures on prescription
opioids, according to DHP, which reports that DMAS has experienced "an
annual reduction in drug spending on opioids of approximately $466,000."42
The Department of Corrections may incur increased costs for drug testing and
limitations on prescribing of buprenorphine for prisoners housed in prisons
statewide.
References:
Brahm, Nancy C., Lynn L. Yeager, Mark D. Fox, Kevin C. Farmer,
Tony A. Palmer. 2010. "Commonly prescribed medications and potential
false-positive urine drug screens"; American Journal of Health-System
Pharmacy. 67 (16). 1344-1350.
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Advancing Pain
Research, Care, and Education. Relieving Pain in America: A Blueprint for
Transforming Prevention, Care, Education, and Research. Washington (DC):
National Academies Press (US); 2011. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK91497/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK91497.pdf.
Krishnamurthy, Partha, Govindaraj Ranganathan, Courtney
Williams, Gulshan Doulatram. 2016. "Impact of Urine Drug Screening on No
Shows and Dropouts among Chronic Pain Patients: A Propensity-Matched Cohort
Study." Pain Physician. 19. 89-100. http://www.painphysicianjournal.com/current/pdf?article=MjUyNA%3D%3D&journal=94.
Nahin, Richard L. "Estimates of Pain Prevalence and Severity
in Adults: United States, 2012." The journal of Pain?: official
Journal of the American Pain Society 16.8 (2015): 769–780. PMC. Web. 19 Sept.
2017.
Pollack, Harold, Sheldon Danzinger, Rukmalie Jayakody, Kristen
Seefeldt. 2001. Drug Testing Welfare Recipients — False Positives, False
Negatives, Unanticipated Opportunities.
Virginia Departments of Forensic Science and Criminal Justice
Services. 2016. Drug Cases Submitted to the Virginia Department of Forensic
Science Calendar Year 2016. http://www.dfs.virginia.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/07
/CY16DfsDataReport_Final.pdf.
Virginia Department of Health Office of the Chief Medical
Examiner. 2017. Fatal Drug Overdose Quarterly Report First Quarter 2017.
Edition 2017.1. http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/content/uploads/sites/18/2016/04/Fatal-Drug-Overdoses-Quarterly-Report-Q1-2017_Updated.pdf.
Dowell Deborah, Tamara M Haegerich, Roger Chou. CDC Guideline
for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain — United States. 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep
2016; 65 (No. RR-1):1–49. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr6501e1.
___________________________________________
1This regulation was developed by a regulatory advisory
panel (RAP) chaired by the president of the Board of Medicine and including two
addiction specialists, a pain management specialist, and the Chief Medical
Officer for the Department of Medical Assistance Services. The RAP met in
January 2017 to draft regulations, which were then recommended by the
Legislative Committee of the Board of Medicine in late January. The Committee
of the Joint Boards of Nursing and Medicine reviewed the draft regulations at
its meeting in February 2017, prior to their adoption by the Board of Medicine
and the Board of Nursing.
2http://townhall.virginia.gov/l/GetFile.cfm?File=C:\TownHall\docroot\27\4797\8063\AgencyStatement_DHP_8063_v1.pdf.
3The exemptions are (1) the treatment of acute and
chronic pain related to cancer or to such pain treatment for patients in
hospice care or palliative care, (2) the treatment of acute and chronic pain
during a hospital admission, or in nursing homes or assisted living facilities
that use a sole source pharmacy and (3) a patient enrolled in a clinical trial
authorized by state or federal law.
4Perioperative is defined by the Oxford English
Dictionary as "a process or treatment occurring or performed at or around
the time of an operation."
5These treatments can include such things as physical
therapy, chiropractic care and acupuncture.
6The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2016
Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain indicates that
nonpharmacologic and non-opioid treatments include cognitive behavioral
therapy, exercise therapy, interventional treatments, multimodal pain
treatment, acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs,
antidepressants, and anticonvulsants.
7MME is an abbreviation for morphine milligram equivalent,
which provides a standard value for equating the potency of different opioids.
8Naloxone, sold under the brand name Narcan among
others, is a medication used to block the effects of opioids, especially in
overdose.
9Buprenorphine comes in two forms: the mono-product form
of buprenorphine only contains buprenorphine and is sold under the name
Subutex. The other form of buprenorphine also contains naloxone, and is sold
under the brand name Suboxone. The mono-product is more subject to abuse, but a
certain unknown portion of the population has an allergy/sensitivity to
naloxone and therefore would not tolerate Suboxone.
10Florence, Curtis S, Chao Zhou, Feijun Luo, Likang Xu.
The Economic Burden of Prescription Opioid Overdose, Abuse, and Dependence in
the United States, 2013. Medical Care, 2016; 54 (10): 901.
11Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Advancing Pain
Research, Care, and Education. Relieving Pain in America: A Blueprint for
Transforming Prevention, Care, Education, and Research. Washington (DC):
National Academies Press (US); 2011. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK91497/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK91497.pdf.
12Today's fentanyl crisis: Prohibition's Iron Law, revisited,
International Journal of Drug Policy 46 (2017) 156–159.
13CDC Guideline, pages 30-31; https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/prescribing/guideline.html.
14Krishnamurthy et al., Impact of Urine Drug Screening on
No Shows and Dropouts among Chronic Pain Patients: A Propensity-Matched Cohort
Study. Pain Physician. 2016 Feb; 19(2):89-100.
15Vadivelu, et al.; The Implications of Urine Drug
Testing in Pain Management, Current Drug Safety 2010, 5 (267-270).
16Nahin, Richard; "Estimates of Pain Prevalence and
Severity in Adults: United States, 2012." The Journal of Pain: official
Journal of the American Pain Society 16.8 (2015): 769–780. Studies using
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey consistently estimated chronic
pain (pain =3 months) prevalence at 13 to 15%. (Nahin 2012).
17Institutes of Medicine 2011 (p. 62).
18Boudreau, et al., Trends in De-facto Long-term Opioid
Therapy for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain, Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safety. 2009
December; 18 (12): 1166–1175. Note: the authors state that "Our results
may not be generalizable to care delivered and/or financed in other types of
health care systems and other regions of the US."
19Defined as episodes lasting longer than 90 days that
had 120+ total days supply of dispensed medication or 10+ opioid prescriptions
dispensed within a given year were classified as long-term opioid episodes.
Boudreau et al., cited in Volkow and McLellan, Opioid Abuse in Chronic Pain — Misconceptions
and Mitigation Strategies, N Engl J Med 2016; 374:1253-63.
20A review of the diagnostic accuracy of urine drug
testing found that, in a worst case scenario, 32.9% of patients' specimens to
the lab because of abnormal results. (Christo, et al., Urine Drug Testing in
Chronic Pain, Pain Physician 2011; 14:123-143). Pollack, et al, (2001) reported
a false positive rate of 7% for simple urine tests. Vadivelu, et al. reports
that 11-21% of initial immunoassay tests are disproven by a followup GC/MS.
21Brahm, et al.; Commonly prescribed medications and
potential false-positive urine drug screens; Am J Health-Syst Pharm—Vol 67 Aug
15, 2010, 1344-1350.
22Brahm, et al.
23CDC Guideline, page 4.
24Milone, Michael; Laboratory Testing for Prescription
Opioids, J Med Toxicol. 2012 Dec; 8(4): 408–416.
25Standridge et al., Urine Drug Screening: A Valuable
Office Procedure, Am Fam Physician. 2010 Mar 1;81(5):635-640.
26Unexpected results would include tests that are
positive for non-prescribed or illicit drugs, and tests that are negative for
expected prescription drugs.
27Addiction Doctor Mary McMasters estimates that GC/MS
testing costs between $200 and $300. See also Vadivelu, et al.
28Board staff reports that the "reasonable
time" would vary according to the availability of other health care
options but would be at least 30 days.
29In order to not abandon patients, doctors would likely
provide referrals to other pain doctors and would give patients a
"reasonable" amount of time to find another doctor. The doctors to
whom such patients would be referred are under no obligation to treat them
however.
30https://www.dhp.virginia.gov/medicine/newsletters/OpioidPrescribingBuprenorphine03142017.pdf.
31Krishnamurthy et al found that administration of urine
drug screens at a first doctor visit was associated with an increased rate of
no-shows (23.75%) when compared to patients who did not undergo urine drug
screens at a first doctor visit (10.24%). Krishnamurthy et al., Impact of Urine
Drug Screening on No Shows and Dropouts among Chronic Pain Patients: A
Propensity-Matched Cohort Study. Pain Physician. 2016 Feb; 19(2):89-100.
32http://townhall.virginia.gov/L/GetFile.cfm?File=C:\TownHall\docroot\\meeting\26\25243\Minutes_DHP_25243_v2.pdf.
33Today's fentanyl crisis: Prohibition's Iron Law,
revisited, International Journal of Drug Policy 46 (2017) 156–159.
34Fentanyl in the US heroin supply: A rapidly changing
risk environment, International Journal of Drug Policy 46 (2017) 107–111.
35https://departments.arlingtonva.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2017/06/heroin_fentanyl_brochure.pdf.
36http://townhall.virginia.gov/L/GetFile.cfm?File=C:\TownHall\docroot\\meeting\26\25243\Minutes_DHP_25243_v2.pdf.
37http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/content/uploads/sites/18/2016/04/Fatal-Drug-Overdoses-Quarterly-Report-Q1-2017_Updated.pdf.
38The OCME notes that drug-related deaths often have more
than one drug causing or contributing to death. Therefore, some of the deaths
attributed to prescription opioids and fentanyl may have multiple drugs on
board.
39http://www.dfs.virginia.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CY16DfsDataReport_Final.pdf Slide 27.
40http://townhall.virginia.gov/L/GetFile.cfm?File=C:\TownHall\docroot\26\4760\7981\EIARes_DHP_7981_v1.pdf.
41The term "substance misuse" is not defined in
the proposed regulation.
42http://townhall.virginia.gov/L/GetFile.cfm?File=C:\TownHall\docroot\26\4760\7981\EIARes_DHP_7981_v1.pdf.
Agency's Response to Economic Impact Analysis: The
Boards of Nursing and Medicine and the Department of Health Professions do not
concur with the result of the analysis that "there is insufficient data to
accurately compare the magnitude of the benefits versus the costs." The
focus of the analysis was on the cost of one requirement of regulation, urine
drug screens. We believe it failed to fully analyze the personal and societal
costs of opioid addiction. It is the position of the agency that reducing the
quantity of opioids in our homes and communities has already been shown to have
a cost benefit and will ultimately have a direct benefit in a reduction in
opioid misuse and opioid overdose deaths.
1. The agency believes the analysis does not include sufficient
data about the current crisis in opioid overdose deaths.
In 2015, there were 811 opioid deaths, and in 2016, there were
1,133 – a 40% increase. In a preliminary report from the Department of Criminal
Justice Services (DCJS), the number for 2017 is expected to be 1,181. The
result of the 2017 National Drug Threat Assessment notes that controlled
prescription drugs (CPDs) have been linked to the largest number of overdose
deaths of any illicit drug class since 2001. For each of these deaths, there
are immeasurable costs. For the purpose of an economic analysis, medical
malpractice carriers and civil litigants can attribute costs in dollars and
cents for each year of life lost.
Yearly direct and indirect costs related to prescription
opioids have been estimated (based on studies published since 2010) to be $53.4
billion for nonmedical use of prescription opioids; $55.7 billion for abuse,
dependence (i.e., opioid use disorder), and misuse of prescription opioids; and
$20.4 billion for direct and indirect costs related to opioid-related overdose
alone. While we acknowledge that these are national figures, the economic
impact analysis (EIA) has used national data to extrapolate the costs of urine
drug screens for Virginians. Copious amounts of data exist in national and
state reports on the opioid crisis for which these regulations offer a partial
solution.
2. The agency believes the analysis does not make the
connection between the opioid crisis of fentanyl and heroin to the prescribing
of opioid pain medication.
One of the primary purposes of these regulations is to reduce
the number of persons who enter the pipeline of addiction through a
legitimately prescribed opioid. The National Institute on Drug Abuse reports
that a study of young, urban injection drug users interviewed in 2008 and 2009
found that 86% had used opioid pain relievers nonmedically prior to using
heroin, and their initiation into nonmedical use was characterized by three
main sources of opioids: family, friends, or personal prescriptions. Examining
national-level general population heroin data (including those in and not in
treatment), nearly 80% of heroin users reported using prescription opioids
prior to heroin.
The report from DCJS noted that "data from Department of
Forensic Sciences (DFS) and Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME)
demonstrate that there are still a large number of individuals using
prescription opioids non-medically. These individuals are at risk of overdose
death through the prescription drugs they are currently using, but they are
also at a higher risk of using heroin in the future. Although only a small
percentage of individuals who abuse prescription opioids move on to heroin, a
high percentage of heroin users report that their first opioid was a
prescription drug (https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research
reports/relationship-between-prescription-drug-abuse-heroin-use/).
Additionally, non-medical users of prescription opioids may seek to acquire
those drugs illegally, putting themselves at risk of purchasing and using
counterfeit pills made with fentanyl and fentanyl analogs."
Data from OCME indicates that between 2013 and 2016, the number
of prescription opioid fatalities involving fentanyl and/or heroin increased
69%. In 2016, 37% of prescription opioid fatalities also involved fentanyl
and/or heroin. Although illicit fentanyl cases increased 207% between 2015 and
2016, there were almost four times as many heroin cases and four times as many
prescription opioid cases that year.
Data from the Virginia Prescription Monitoring Program shows
that since the adoption of emergency regulation there has been a drop in
morphine milligram equivalents (MME). MME per day is the amount of morphine an
opioid dose is equal to, often used to gauge the abuse and overdose potential
of the amount of opioid being prescribed at a particular time. The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that individuals taking greater
than 90 MME per day are at a higher risk of overdose and death. The total
number of patients prescribed high dosages declined from 169,145 individuals in
the fourth quarter of 2016 to 137,618 individuals in the third quarter of 2017,
or an 18.6% decline in individuals receiving greater than 100 MME per day. The
data is an indicator of the effectiveness of the emergency regulation being
replaced with the proposed regulations for which the EIA was prepared.
Numerous reports in the press have made the connection between
the overdose death of a person who was prescribed an opioid following an
accident or medical procedure. The intent of this regulation is to require
prescribers to prescribe fewer quantities for shorter periods of time and to
consider nonpharmacological alternatives or non-opioid medications that have
the effect of addressing a patient's pain without the potential for addiction
and long-term, costly consequences.
3. The agency believes the analysis has not included sufficient
data on cost savings relating to a reduction on opioid prescribing.
For example, this agency provided information from the
Department of Medical Assistanc Services which experienced a 44% decrease in
opioid days-supply and 27% decrease in opioid prescription spending when that
agency implemented the CDC guidelines on which these regulations were based,
for an annual reduction in drug spending on opioids of approximately $466,000.
It is that agency's belief that costs related to an increase in urine drug
screens, which have been routinely required by pain management physicians prior
to adoption of these regulations, would be more than offset by the decrease in
spending on opioid prescriptions, so it would be budget neutral or result in a
net cost savings.
Data from the Prescription Monitoring Program show that from
the fourth quarter of 2016 to the third quarter of 2017 pain reliever doses
declined from 129,797,789 to 77,729,833, which represents a 40.15% decline. It
is apparent that the emergency regulations are having a positive effect on the costs
of prescription opioids – a cost benefit to consumers and insurers that could
be reflected in the EIA.
Summary:
The proposed amendments establish the practitioners to whom
the regulations apply and exceptions or nonapplicability. Provisions for the management
of acute pain include requirements for the evaluation of the patient,
limitations on quantity and dosage, and recordkeeping. Provisions for
management of chronic pain include requirements for evaluation and treatment,
including a treatment plan, informed consent and agreement, consultation with
other providers, and medical recordkeeping. Provisions for prescribing of
buprenorphine include requirements for patient assessment and treatment
planning, limitations on prescribing the buprenorphine mono-product (without
naloxone), dosages, co-prescribing of other drugs, consultation, and medical
records for opioid addiction treatment. The proposed amendments replace
emergency regulations currently in effect.
Part IV
Disciplinary Provisions
18VAC90-30-220. Grounds for disciplinary action against the
license of a licensed nurse practitioner.
The boards may deny licensure or relicensure, revoke or
suspend the license, or take other disciplinary action upon proof that the
nurse practitioner:
1. Has had a license or multistate privilege to practice
nursing in this Commonwealth or in another jurisdiction revoked or suspended or
otherwise disciplined;
2. Has directly or indirectly represented to the public that
the nurse practitioner is a physician, or is able to, or will practice
independently of a physician;
3. Has exceeded the authority as a licensed nurse
practitioner;
4. Has violated or cooperated in the violation of the laws or
regulations governing the practice of medicine, nursing or nurse practitioners;
5. Has become unable to practice with reasonable skill and
safety to patients as the result of a physical or mental illness or the
excessive use of alcohol, drugs, narcotics, chemicals or any other type of
material;
6. Has violated or cooperated with others in violating or
attempting to violate any law or regulation, state or federal, relating to the
possession, use, dispensing, administration or distribution of drugs; or
7. Has failed to comply with continuing competency
requirements as set forth in 18VAC90-30-105;
8. Has willfully or negligently breached the
confidentiality between a practitioner and a patient. A breach of
confidentiality that is required or permitted by applicable law or beyond the
control of the practitioner shall not be considered negligent or willful; or
9. Has engaged in unauthorized use or disclosure of
confidential information received from the Prescription Monitoring Program, the
electronic system within the Department of Health Professions that monitors the
dispensing of certain controlled substances.
Part I
General Provisions
18VAC90-40-10. Definitions.
The following words and terms when used in this chapter shall
have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
"Acute pain" means pain that occurs within the
normal course of a disease or condition or as the result of surgery for which
controlled substances containing an opioid may be prescribed for no more than
three months.
"Boards" means the Virginia Board of Medicine and
the Virginia Board of Nursing.
"Certified nurse midwife" means an advanced
practice registered nurse who is certified in the specialty of nurse midwifery
and who is jointly licensed by the Boards of Medicine and Nursing as a nurse
practitioner pursuant to § 54.1-2957 of the Code of Virginia.
"Chronic pain" means nonmalignant pain that goes
beyond the normal course of a disease or condition for which controlled
substances containing an opioid may be prescribed for a period greater than
three months.
"Committee" means the Committee of the Joint Boards
of Nursing and Medicine.
"FDA" means the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration.
"MME" means morphine milligram equivalent.
"Nonprofit health care clinics or programs" means a
clinic organized in whole or in part for the delivery of health care services
without charge or when a reasonable minimum fee is charged only to cover
administrative costs.
"Nurse practitioner" means an advanced practice
registered nurse who has met the requirements for licensure as a nurse practitioner
as stated in 18VAC90-30.
"Practice agreement" means a written or electronic
agreement jointly developed by the patient care team physician and the nurse
practitioner for the practice of the nurse practitioner that also describes the
prescriptive authority of the nurse practitioner, if applicable. For a nurse
practitioner licensed in the category of certified nurse midwife, the practice
agreement is a statement jointly developed with the consulting physician.
"Prescription Monitoring Program" means the
electronic system within the Department of Health Professions that monitors the
dispensing of certain controlled substances.
"SAMHSA" means the federal Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration.
Part V
Management of Acute Pain
18VAC90-40-150. Evaluation of the patient for acute pain.
A. The requirements of this part shall not apply to:
1. The treatment of acute pain related to (i) cancer, (ii)
a patient in hospice care, or (iii) a patient in palliative care;
2. The treatment of acute pain during an inpatient hospital
admission or in a nursing home or an assisted living facility that uses a sole
source pharmacy; or
3. A patient enrolled in a clinical trial as authorized by
state or federal law.
B. Nonpharmacologic and non-opioid treatment for pain
shall be given consideration prior to treatment with opioids. If an opioid is
considered necessary for the treatment of acute pain, the practitioner shall
give a short-acting opioid in the lowest effective dose for the fewest possible
days.
C. Prior to initiating treatment with a controlled
substance containing an opioid for a complaint of acute pain, the prescriber
shall perform a history and physical examination appropriate to the complaint,
query the Prescription Monitoring Program as set forth in § 54.1-2522.1 of
the Code of Virginia, and conduct an assessment of the patient's history and
risk of substance misuse as a part of the initial evaluation.
18VAC90-40-160. Treatment of acute pain with opioids.
A. Initiation of opioid treatment for patients with acute
pain shall be with short-acting opioids.
1. A prescriber providing treatment for a patient with
acute pain shall not prescribe a controlled substance containing an opioid in a
quantity that exceeds a seven-day supply as determined by the manufacturer's
directions for use, unless extenuating circumstances are clearly documented in
the medical record. This shall also apply to prescriptions of a controlled
substance containing an opioid upon discharge from an emergency department.
2. An opioid prescribed as part of treatment for a surgical
procedure shall be for no more than 14 consecutive days in accordance with
manufacturer's direction and within the immediate perioperative period, unless
extenuating circumstances are clearly documented in the medical record.
B. Initiation of opioid treatment for all patients shall
include the following:
1. The practitioner shall carefully consider and document
in the medical record the reasons to exceed 50 MME per day.
2. Prior to exceeding 120 MME per day, the practitioner
shall document in the medical record the reasonable justification for such
doses or refer to or consult with a pain management specialist.
3. Naloxone shall be prescribed for any patient when risk
factors of prior overdose, substance misuse, doses in excess of 120 MME per
day, or concomitant benzodiazepine are present.
C. Due to a higher risk of fatal overdose when opioids are
used with benzodiazepines, sedative hypnotics, carisoprodol, and tramadol, the
prescriber shall only co-prescribe these substances when there are extenuating
circumstances and shall document in the medical record a tapering plan to
achieve the lowest possible effective doses if these medications are
prescribed.
D. Buprenorphine is not indicated for acute pain in the
outpatient setting, except when a prescriber who has obtained a SAMHSA
waiver is treating pain in a patient whose primary diagnosis is the
disease of addiction.
18VAC90-40-170. Medical records for acute pain.
The medical record shall include a description of the
pain, a presumptive diagnosis for the origin of the pain, an examination
appropriate to the complaint, a treatment plan, and the medication prescribed
or administered to include the date, type, dosage, and quantity prescribed or
administered.
Part VI
Management of Chronic Pain
18VAC90-40-180. Evaluation of the chronic pain patient.
A. The requirements of this part shall not apply to:
1. The treatment of chronic pain related to (i) cancer,
(ii) a patient in hospice care, or (iii) a patient in palliative care;
2. The treatment of chronic pain during an inpatient
hospital admission or in a nursing home or an assisted living facility that
uses a sole source pharmacy; or
3. A patient enrolled in a clinical trial as authorized by
state or federal law.
B. Prior to initiating management of chronic pain with a
controlled substance containing an opioid, a medical history and physical
examination, to include a mental status examination, shall be performed and
documented in the medical record, including:
1. The nature and intensity of the pain;
2. Current and past treatments for pain;
3. Underlying or coexisting diseases or conditions;
4. The effect of the pain on physical and psychological
function, quality of life, and activities of daily living;
5. Psychiatric, addiction, and substance
misuse histories of the patient and any family history of addiction or
substance misuse;
6. A urine drug screen or serum medication level;
7. A query of the Prescription Monitoring Program as set
forth in § 54.1-2522.1 of the Code of Virginia;
8. An assessment of the patient's history and risk of
substance misuse; and
9. A request for prior applicable records.
C. Prior to initiating opioid analgesia for chronic pain,
the practitioner shall discuss with the patient the known risks and benefits of
opioid therapy and the responsibilities of the patient during treatment to
include securely storing the drug and properly disposing of any unwanted or
unused drugs. The practitioner shall also discuss with the patient an exit
strategy for the discontinuation of opioids in the event they are not
effective.
18VAC90-40-190. Treatment of chronic pain with opioids.
A. Nonpharmacologic and non-opioid treatment for pain
shall be given consideration prior to treatment with opioids.
B. In initiating opioid treatment for all patients, the
practitioner shall:
1. Carefully consider and document in the medical record
the reasons to exceed 50 MME per day;
2. Prior to exceeding 120 MME per day, the practitioner
shall document in the medical record the reasonable justification for such
doses or refer to or consult with a pain management specialist;
3. Prescribe naloxone for any patient when risk factors of
prior overdose, substance misuse, doses in excess of 120 MME per day, or
concomitant benzodiazepine are present; and
4. Document the rationale to continue opioid therapy every
three months.
C. Buprenorphine mono-product in tablet form shall
not be prescribed for chronic pain.
D. Due to a higher risk of fatal overdose when opioids,
including buprenorphine, are given with other opioids, benzodiazepines,
sedative hypnotics, carisoprodol, and tramadol, the prescriber shall only
co-prescribe these substances when there are extenuating circumstances and
shall document in the medical record a tapering plan to achieve the lowest
possible effective doses if these medications are prescribed.
E. The practitioner shall regularly evaluate for opioid
use disorder and shall initiate specific treatment for opioid use disorder,
consult with an appropriate health care provider, or refer the patient for
evaluation for treatment if indicated.
18VAC90-40-200. Treatment plan for chronic pain.
A. The medical record shall include a treatment plan that
states measures to be used to determine progress in treatment, including pain
relief and improved physical and psychosocial function, quality of life, and
daily activities.
B. The treatment plan shall include further diagnostic
evaluations and other treatment modalities or rehabilitation that may be
necessary depending on the etiology of the pain and the extent to which the
pain is associated with physical and psychosocial impairment.
C. The prescriber shall record in the medical records the
presence or absence of any indicators for medication misuse or diversion and
take appropriate action.
18VAC90-40-210. Informed consent and agreement for treatment
of chronic pain.
A. The practitioner shall document in the medical record
informed consent, to include risks, benefits, and alternative approaches, prior
to the initiation of opioids for chronic pain.
B. There shall be a written treatment agreement, signed by
the patient, in the medical record that addresses the parameters of treatment,
including those behaviors that will result in referral to a higher level of
care, cessation of treatment, or dismissal from care.
C. The treatment agreement shall include notice that the
practitioner will query and receive reports from the Prescription Monitoring
Program and permission for the practitioner to:
1. Obtain urine drug screen or serum medication levels,
when requested; and
2. Consult with other prescribers or dispensing pharmacists
for the patient.
D. Expected outcomes shall be documented in the medical
record including improvement in pain relief and function or simply in pain
relief. Limitations and side effects of chronic opioid therapy shall be
documented in the medical record.
18VAC90-40-220. Opioid therapy for chronic pain.
A. The practitioner shall review the course of pain
treatment and any new information about the etiology of the pain or the
patient's state of health at least every three months.
B. Continuation of treatment with opioids shall be
supported by documentation of continued benefit from the prescribing. If the
patient's progress is unsatisfactory, the practitioner shall assess the
appropriateness of continued use of the current treatment plan and consider the
use of other therapeutic modalities.
C. Practitioners shall check the Prescription Monitoring
Program at least every three months after the initiation of treatment.
D. The practitioner shall order and review a urine drug
screen or serum medication levels at the initiation of chronic pain management
and at least every three months for the first year of treatment and at least
every six months thereafter.
E. The practitioner shall regularly evaluate for opioid
use disorder and shall initiate specific treatment for opioid use disorder,
consult with an appropriate health care provider, or refer the patient for
evaluation for treatment if indicated.
18VAC90-40-230. Additional consultation.
A. When necessary to achieve treatment goals, the
prescriber shall refer the patient for additional evaluation and treatment.
B. When a practitioner makes the diagnosis of opioid use
disorder, treatment for opioid use disorder shall be initiated or the patient
shall be referred for evaluation and treatment.
18VAC90-40-240. Medical records.
The prescriber shall keep current, accurate, and complete
records in an accessible manner and readily available for review to include:
1. The medical history and physical examination;
2. Past medical history;
3. Applicable records from prior treatment providers or any
documentation of attempts to obtain those records;
4. Diagnostic, therapeutic, and laboratory results;
5. Evaluations and consultations;
6. Treatment goals;
7. Discussion of risks and benefits;
8. Informed consent and agreement for treatment;
9. Treatments;
10. Medications, including date, type, dosage and quantity
prescribed, and refills;
11. Patient instructions; and
12. Periodic reviews.
Part VII
Prescribing of Buprenorphine
18VAC90-40-250. General provisions.
A. Practitioners engaged in office-based opioid addiction
treatment with buprenorphine shall have obtained a waiver from SAMHSA and the
appropriate U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration registration.
B. Practitioners shall abide by all federal and state laws
and regulations governing the prescribing of buprenorphine for the treatment of
opioid use disorder.
C. Nurse practitioners who have obtained a SAMHSA waiver
shall only prescribe buprenorphine for opioid addiction pursuant to a practice
agreement with a SAMHSA-waivered doctor of medicine or doctor of osteopathic
medicine.
D. Practitioners engaged in medication-assisted treatment
shall either provide counseling in their practice or refer the patient to a
mental health service provider, as defined in § 54.1-2400.1 of the Code of
Virginia, who has the education and experience to provide substance
misuse counseling. The practitioner shall document provision of counseling
or referral in the medical record.
18VAC90-40-260. Patient assessment and treatment planning.
A. A practitioner shall perform and document an assessment
that includes a comprehensive medical and psychiatric history, substance misuse
history, family history and psychosocial supports, appropriate physical
examination, urine drug screen, pregnancy test for women of childbearing age
and ability, a check of the Prescription Monitoring Program, and, when
clinically indicated, infectious disease testing for human immunodeficiency
virus, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and tuberculosis.
B. The treatment plan shall include the practitioner's
rationale for selecting medication assisted treatment, patient education,
written informed consent, how counseling will be accomplished, and a signed
treatment agreement that outlines the responsibilities of the patient and the
practitioner.
18VAC90-40-270. Treatment with buprenorphine.
A. Buprenorphine without naloxone (buprenorphine
mono-product) shall not be prescribed except:
1. When a patient is pregnant;
2. When converting a patient from methadone or
buprenorphine mono-product to buprenorphine containing naloxone for a period
not to exceed seven days;
3. In formulations other than tablet form for indications
approved by the FDA; or
4. For patients who have a demonstrated intolerance to
naloxone; such prescriptions for the mono-product shall not exceed 3.0% of the
total prescriptions for buprenorphine written by the prescriber, and the
exception shall be clearly documented in the patient's medical record.
B. Buprenorphine mono-product tablets may be administered
directly to patients in federally licensed opiate treatment programs. With the
exception of those conditions listed in subsection A of this section, only the
buprenorphine product containing naloxone shall be prescribed or
dispensed for use off site from the program.
C. The evidence for the decision to use buprenorphine
mono-product shall be fully documented in the medical record.
D. Due to a higher risk of fatal overdose when
buprenorphine is prescribed with other opioids, benzodiazepines, sedative
hypnotics, carisoprodol, and tramadol, the prescriber shall only co-prescribe
these substances when there are extenuating circumstances and shall document in
the medical record a tapering plan to achieve the lowest possible effective
doses if these medications are prescribed.
E. Prior to starting medication-assisted treatment, the
practitioner shall perform a check of the Prescription Monitoring Program.
F. During the induction phase, except for medically
indicated circumstances as documented in the medical record, patients should be
started on no more than eight milligrams of buprenorphine per day. The patient
shall be seen by the prescriber at least once a week.
G. During the stabilization phase, the prescriber shall
increase the daily dosage of buprenorphine in safe and effective increments to
achieve the lowest dose that avoids intoxication, withdrawal, or significant
drug craving.
H. Practitioners shall take steps to reduce the chances of
buprenorphine diversion by using the lowest effective dose, appropriate
frequency of office visits, pill counts, and checks of the Prescription
Monitoring Program. The practitioner shall also require urine drug screens or
serum medication levels at least every three months for the first year of
treatment and at least every six months thereafter.
I. Documentation of the rationale for prescribed doses
exceeding 16 milligrams of buprenorphine per day shall be placed in the medical
record. Dosages exceeding 24 milligrams of buprenorphine per day shall not
be prescribed.
J. The practitioner shall incorporate relapse prevention
strategies into counseling or assure that they are addressed by a mental health
service provider, as defined in § 54.1-2400.1 of the Code of Virginia, who
has the education and experience to provide substance abuse counseling.
18VAC90-40-280. Special populations.
A. Pregnant women may be treated with the
buprenorphine mono-product, usually 16 milligrams per day or less.
B. Patients younger than the age of 16 years shall not be
prescribed buprenorphine for addiction treatment unless such treatment is
approved by the FDA.
C. The progress of patients with chronic pain shall be
assessed by reduction of pain and functional objectives that can be identified,
quantified, and independently verified.
D. Practitioners shall (i) evaluate patients with medical
comorbidities by history, physical exam, and appropriate laboratory studies and
(ii) be aware of interactions of buprenorphine with other prescribed
medications.
E. Practitioners shall not undertake buprenorphine
treatment with a patient who has psychiatric comorbidities and is not stable. A
patient who is determined by the practitioner to be psychiatrically unstable
shall be referred for psychiatric evaluation and treatment prior to initiating
medication-assisted treatment.
18VAC90-40-290. Medical records for opioid addiction
treatment.
A. Records shall be timely, accurate, legible, complete,
and readily accessible for review.
B. The treatment agreement and informed consent shall be
maintained in the medical record.
C. Confidentiality requirements of 42 CFR Part 2 shall be
followed.
VA.R. Doc. No. R17-5096; Filed June 15, 2018, 12:47 p.m.
TITLE 18. PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING
BOARD OF NURSING
Proposed Regulation
Titles of Regulations: 18VAC90-30. Regulations
Governing the Licensure of Nurse Practitioners (amending 18VAC90-30-220).
18VAC90-40. Regulations for Prescriptive Authority for Nurse
Practitioners (amending 18VAC90-40-10; adding 18VAC90-40-150
through 18VAC90-40-290).
Statutory Authority: §§ 54.1-2400 and 54.1-2957 of the
Code of Virginia.
Public Hearing Information:
July 19, 2018 - 10 am - Department of Health Professions,
Perimeter Center, 9960 Mayland Drive, Suite 201, Board Room 2, Richmond, VA 23233
Public Comment Deadline: September 7, 2018.
Agency Contact: Jay P. Douglas, R.N., Executive
Director, Board of Nursing, 9960 Mayland Drive, Suite 300, Richmond, VA
23233-1463, telephone (804) 367-4520, FAX (804) 527-4455, or email
jay.douglas@dhp.virginia.gov.
Basis: Regulations are promulgated under the general
authority of § 54.1-2400 of the Code of Virginia, which provides the Boards of
Nursing and Medicine the authority to promulgate regulations to administer the
regulatory system.
In addition, Chapters 291 and 682 of the 2017 Acts of Assembly
require adoption of regulations for the prescribing of opioids and products
containing buprenorphine.
Purpose: The purpose of the regulatory action is the
establishment of requirements for prescribing of controlled substances
containing opioids or buprenorphine to address the overdose and addiction
crisis in the Commonwealth. The goal is to provide prescribers with definitive
rules to follow so they may feel more assured of their ability to treat pain in
an appropriate manner to avoid under-prescribing or over-prescribing.
Substance: The regulations establish the practitioners
to whom the rules apply and exceptions or nonapplicability. Provisions for the
management of acute pain include requirements for the evaluation of the
patient, limitations on quantity and dosage, and medical recordkeeping.
Provisions for management of chronic pain include requirements for evaluation
and treatment, including a treatment plan, informed consent and agreement,
consultation with other providers, and medical recordkeeping. Provisions for
prescribing of buprenorphine include requirements for patient assessment and
treatment planning, limitations on prescribing the buprenorphine mono-product
(without naloxone), dosages, co-prescribing of other drugs; consultation; and
medical records for opioid addiction treatment.
Issues: The primary advantage to the public is a
reduction in the amount of opioid medication that is available in our
communities. A limitation on the quantity of opioids that may be prescribed
should result in fewer people becoming addicted to pain medication, which
sometimes leads them to turn to heroin and other illicit drugs. Persons who are
receiving opioids for chronic pain should be more closely monitored to ensure that
the prescribing is appropriate and necessary. A limitation on prescribing the
buprenorphine mono-product should result in a reduction in the number of
tablets that are sold on the street. The primary disadvantage to the public may
be that more explicit rules for prescribing may result in some physicians and
nurse practitioners choosing not to manage chronic pain patients in their
practice. The primary advantage to the Commonwealth is the potential reduction
in the number of persons addicted to opioids and deaths from overdoses. There
are no disadvantages.
The Department of Planning and Budget's Economic Impact
Analysis:
Summary of the Proposed Amendments to Regulation. The Board of
Nursing (Board) proposes amendments to regulations that govern the licensure
and prescriptive authority for nurse practitioners that will set rules for the
prescription of opioids in the management of acute and chronic pain. This
proposed regulation also sets rules for the use of buprenorphine in treating
pain and, separately, as part of addiction treatment.1 These
proposed regulations will replace emergency regulations that became effective
May 8, 2017 and that are currently set to expire on November 7, 2018.
Result of Analysis. There are insufficient data to accurately
compare the magnitude of the benefits versus the costs.
Estimated Economic Impact. The Board reports that this
regulation is being proposed to "address the opioid abuse crisis in
Virginia." Prior to legislation enacted by the 2017 General Assembly which
required the Boards of Medicine and Dentistry to adopt regulations governing
opioid prescription, no regulations existed for opioid treatment of acute or
chronic pain. In March 2017, Chapters 291 and 682 of the Acts of the Assembly
became law. Each Chapter requires the Boards of Medicine and Dentistry to
promulgate regulations for prescription of opioids.
Acute and chronic pain are defined in the proposed regulation
as follows:
• Acute pain, is "pain that occurs within the normal
course of a disease or condition or as the result of surgery for which
controlled substances containing an opioid may be prescribed for no more than
three months."
• Chronic pain, is "nonmalignant pain that goes beyond the
normal course of a disease or condition for which controlled substances
containing an opioid may be prescribed for a period of greater than three
months."
For the treatment of acute pain, these Chapters require that
the Board's regulation include:
"(i) requirements for an appropriate patient history and
evaluation, (ii) limitations on dosages or day supply of drugs prescribed,
(iii) requirements for appropriate documentation in the patient's health
record, and (iv) a requirement that the prescriber request and review
information contained in the Prescription Monitoring Program in accordance with
§ 54.1-2522.1."
For the treatment of chronic pain, the Chapters require the
regulations to include the requirements listed above for acute pain treatment,
as well as requirements for:
"(i) development of a treatment plan for the patient, (ii)
an agreement for treatment signed by the provider and the patient that includes
permission to obtain urine drug screens [UDS], and (iii) periodic review of the
treatment provided at specific intervals to determine the continued
appropriateness of such treatment."
Chapters 291 and 682 also require that the Board's regulations
include rules for:
"the use of buprenorphine in the treatment of addiction,
including a requirement for referral to or consultation with a provider of
substance abuse counseling in conjunction with treatment of opioid dependency
with products containing buprenorphine."
Although the Board of Nursing is not required to promulgate
regulations under these Chapters, the Board of Nursing proposes regulations
that are mostly consistent with those adopted by the Board of Medicine in order
to "address the opioid crisis in Virginia"2 and to make
rules for prescribing consistent across prescribers.
Each proposed regulation includes exemptions to the new
prescribing rules, specifying the circumstances under which they do not apply.3
However, because of drafting differences these exemptions are presented in
different ways. The Board of Medicine's action proposed an entirely new
Chapter, and the exemptions apply to each part therein. In contrast, the Board
of Nursing's action proposes amendments to two existing Chapters, and the
exemptions apply only to certain parts therein. Accordingly, the exemptions do
not apply to Part VII (Prescribing of Buprenorphine). Board staff state that
this has no substantive effect, because buprenorphine can only be used for
office-based opioid addiction treatment.
Requirements in the Proposed Regulation.
Requirements for Acute Pain Treatment: For the treatment of
acute pain, the Board proposes to require that the prescriber: (1) take a
patient history, (2) perform a physical examination appropriate for the
complaint, and (3) assess the patient's history and risk of substance misuse.
The Board also proposes to limit opioid prescriptions for all non-surgical
acute care to a seven-day supply unless extenuating circumstances are clearly
documented. For opioids prescribed as a part of a surgical procedure, the Board
proposes to limit such prescriptions to a 14-day supply within the
perioperative period4 unless extenuating circumstances are
documented. The Board also proposes to set record-keeping requirements for
acute pain to include a description of the pain, a presumptive diagnosis, a
treatment plan, and information on medication prescribed or administered.
Requirements for both Acute and Chronic Pain Treatment: In
treating acute or chronic pain, the Board proposes four requirements. First,
practitioners will be required to consider nonpharmacologic5 and
non-opioid treatments6 "prior to treatment with opioids."
Second, practitioners will be required to query the state's Prescription
Monitoring Program (PMP), as set forth in § 54.1-2522.1, which requires queries
when initiating a new course of treatment in which an opioid prescription is
anticipated to last more than seven consecutive days. That section also
provides that a prescriber may make additional queries "as may be required
by routine prescribing practices." For acute pain treatment, a query will
occur prior to initiating treatment. For chronic pain, this will occur prior to
beginning treatment and at least every three months thereafter. Third, the
Board proposes to require that, "practitioners shall carefully consider
and document in the medical record the reasons to exceed 50 MME/day"7
if they prescribe opioids in excess of that daily dosage, and to require that,
"prior to exceeding 120 MME/day, the practitioner shall document in the
medical record the reasonable justification for such doses or refer to or
consult with a pain management specialist." Fourth, practitioners will be
required to prescribe naloxone8 "when risk factors of prior
overdose, substance misuse, doses in excess of 120 MME/day, or concomitant
benzodiazepine is present." Practitioners also will be required to limit
co-prescribing of drugs that may increase the risk of accidental overdose when
taken with opioids.
Requirements Solely for the Treatment of Chronic Pain: For
treatment of chronic pain, the Board proposes to specify medical record-keeping
requirements. The Board also proposes to require signed patient agreements and
urine or serum drug testing "at the initiation of chronic pain management
and at least every three months for the first year of treatment and at least
every six months thereafter." Practitioners also will be required to
regularly evaluate patients for opioid use disorder and to initiate treatment
for opioid use disorder or to refer the patient for evaluation and treatment if
opioid use disorder is diagnosed.
Requirements for Treatment with Buprenorphine: The Board
proposes four requirements for the prescribing of buprenorphine. First, the
Board proposes to specify that buprenorphine is not to be used to treat acute
pain in an outpatient setting except when a prescriber obtains a Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration waiver and is treating pain in
a patient whose primary diagnosis is the disease of addiction. Second, the
Board proposes to ban the use of buprenorphine mono-product9 in pill
form for treating chronic pain. Third, the Board proposes to ban the use of the
mono-product to treat addiction except: (1) for pregnant women, (2) when
converting a patient from methadone or the mono-product to buprenorphine
containing naloxone (limit of seven days), (3) in formulations other than
tablet form for indications approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
and (4) for up to three percent of any prescribers' addiction patients who have
a demonstrated intolerance to naloxone. Fourth, the proposed regulation would
also limit dosages of buprenorphine and the co-prescribing of certain other
drugs with buprenorphine, as well as require PMP queries for addiction
patients.
Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Regulation.
The requirements in the proposed regulation appear to confer a
mix of benefits and costs, including those resulting from the mandatory use of
drug testing, restrictions on the use of buprenorphine, preferences for
non-opioid treatments, and use of the PMP. Except for the estimated costs
directly resulting from mandatory drug testing, and potential savings from
decreased use of opioids in the state's Medicaid program, there are
insufficient quantitative data to accurately determine, and thus compare, the
magnitude of direct benefits versus direct costs. In part this is because the
scope and range of potential impacts (cost and benefit) cannot be readily
identified.
To the extent that the proposed regulation reduces the rate of
prescription substance misuse, including drug addiction, savings or cost
avoidance could be achieved from reduction in expenditures on the treatment of,
and consequences from, substance misuse.10 However, to the extent
that the regulations create a disincentive to obtaining, or limit access to,
opioid therapy, any savings or cost avoidance may be offset by direct and
indirect costs resulting from untreated pain11 or a shift to illicit
drugs.12
Direct Benefits and Costs of Drug Testing: Drug testing,
typically through a urine drug screen (UDS) appears to confer direct benefits
on practitioners and a subset of patients, if confirmed test results are used
to correctly refer them for substance misuse treatment or identify
non-adherence to their treatment plan. As noted by the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention's (CDC) 2016 Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain
("Guideline"), a UDS can: provide information about drug use that is
not reported by the patient, including controlled substances and illicit drugs
that increase risk for overdose when combined with opioids such as
nonprescribed opioids, benzodiazepines, and heroin; assist clinicians in
identifying when patients are not taking opioids prescribed for them, which
might in some cases indicate diversion or other clinically important issues
such as difficulties with adverse effects; and provide useful information about
patients assumed not to be using unreported drugs.13 As noted in the
literature,
"Pain management is a critical element of patient care.
Over the last 2 decades the emphasis on managing pain has led to a substantial
increase in the prescription of opioids. While opioids can significantly
improve the quality of life for the patients, there are many concerns....
Therefore, monitoring adherence for patients on (or considered candidates for)
opioid treatment is a critical element of pain management…. Of the various
tools, UDS is perhaps the most effective in detecting non-adherence, and is
viewed as the de facto monitoring tool."14
Monitoring urine toxicology also can help practitioners comply
with federal Drug Enforcement Agency requirements, which require practitioners
to minimize abuse and diversion.15
However, quantitative data on the value of these benefits does
not appear to be readily available. Moreover, because false positive and false
negative test results are known to occur (discussed below), full realization of
the benefits of UDS may require utilization of both an initial immunoassay
(dipstick) test in a practitioner's office followed by a confirmatory gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry or high-performance liquid chromatography test (collectively
referred to as GC/MS in this analysis) in a laboratory.
In order to quantify the costs of drug testing, the number of
patients that will likely be affected by urine testing requirements must be
estimated. The Board did not provide estimates of the number of patients
affected, so estimates from relevant literature on the prevalence of chronic
pain were considered. Estimates of the percentage of the population affected by
acute pain do not appear to be readily available.
Using information taken from the 2012 National Health Interview
Survey (NHIS), National Institutes of Health staff estimated that 11.2 percent
of the adult population experiences chronic pain—that is, they had pain every
day for the preceding three months.16 In Virginia, using 2016 Census
Bureau data on population by age, this equates to 732,669 adults. On the high
end, the Institutes of Medicine (IOM) report that common chronic pain
conditions are prevalent among 37 percent of adults, "amounting to
approximately 116 million adults in 2010—a conservative estimate as neither
acute pain nor children are included."17 This equates to
approximately 2.4 million adult Virginians.
Although these two estimates may indicate the extent of chronic
pain among adults, they may not indicate the extent to which persons with
chronic pain seek opioid therapy. A low-end estimate is supported by at least
one study (Boudreau, et al, 2009),18 that indicates that 3 to 4
percent of the adult population were prescribed longer-term opioid therapy.19
(Note: to the extent that opioid prescription rates have increased since this
study was conducted, this estimate would be too low.)
These three estimates will be used to estimate the potential
number of adults in Virginia who could be affected by the proposed regulation
(Table 1). Using these population estimates, and the Board's estimate that the
average cost of an initial "dipstick" UDS is $50, direct costs of the
new requirements for the initial UDS would likely be between $12 million and
$141 million for the initial screen, assuming all persons with chronic pain
seek opioid therapy. Subsequently, the annual cost for four quarters of drug
tests would be between $57 million and $605 million, assuming all persons with
chronic pain seek and continue to receive opioid therapy for a full year. To
the extent these assumptions are not borne out, the cost would decrease. After
the first year, these costs would decrease as patients shift from quarterly to
biannual testing.
Table 1
|
Potential Ranges of Persons
with Chronic Pain
|
Estimated Number of Adult
Virginians with Chronic Pain
|
Cost of Initial Test*
|
Additional Cost of All First
Year
Quarterly Tests*
|
Boudreau et al (3.5%)
|
228,959
|
$12 million
|
$57 million
|
NHIS estimate (11.2%)
|
732,669
|
$37 million
|
$183 million
|
IOM estimate (37%)
|
2,420,423
|
$121 million
|
$605 million
|
*Assumes 100 percent of all
persons with chronic pain within each of the three estimates are treated with
opioids.
|
These estimated costs may potentially increase to the extent
that testing is repeated because practitioners account for the possibility of
unexpected drug screen results, such as false positive and false negative
results in the immunoassay or "dipstick" test typically used in a
practitioner's office.20 A false positive result occurs when the
test result is "positive" but the indicated substance is not actually
present. A false negative occurs when the test fails to indicate the presence
of substances that are actually present. These and other unexpected results
that could prompt re-testing could occur for a variety of reasons, including
failure to take the prescribed medication, testing error, metabolic
differences, and drug interactions. Brahm et al. notes that false positive test
results have been reported for certain antibiotics (quinolones and ofloxacin),
certain antidepressants and antipsychotics, the hypertension medication
Verapamil, as well as over-the-counter medications containing dextromethorphan,
ibuprofen and naproxen.21
Although re-testing is recommended by the CDC's Guideline,
testing without confirmatory GC/MS testing may have unintended adverse
consequences:
"the use of medications with the potential for
false-positive UDS results may present a significant liability for individuals
required to undergo random or periodic UDSs as a component of a recovery or
court-ordered monitoring program or as a condition of employment. In addition,
false-positive UDS results may affect the clinician–patient relationship by
raising issues of trust."22
Of note, the CDC Guideline also only recommends initial drug
testing before treatment, and states that clinicians should
"consider" drug testing on an annual basis thereafter:
"While experts agreed that clinicians should use urine
drug testing before initiating opioid therapy for chronic pain, they disagreed
on how frequently urine drug testing should be conducted during long-term
opioid therapy. Most experts agreed that urine drug testing at least annually
for all patients was reasonable."
For both the initial UDS and subsequent testing, however, it
appears that the CDC concludes that practitioners should retain the discretion
to determine whether to administer a test. The CDC notes that the
recommendation to use drug testing is a Category B recommendation, which is one
where "different choices will be appropriate for different patients, so
clinicians must help patients arrive at a decision consistent with patient
values and preferences, and specific clinical situations."23
As noted in the literature, "the interpretation of opioid
testing results is far less straightforward than many health care providers who
utilize this testing appreciate."24 There are two main types of
urine drug screening: immunoassay testing and chromatography (i.e., gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry [GC/MS] or high-performance liquid
chromatography). Immunoassay tests use antibodies to detect the presence of
drugs. These tests can be processed rapidly, are inexpensive, and are the
preferred initial test for screening.25 When urine tests have
unexpected results, the CDC Guideline recommends that a, "confirmatory
test using a method selective enough to differentiate specific opioids and
metabolites (e.g. gas or liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry) might be
warranted."26 Although these tests can cost several hundred
dollars or more, they are the forensic criterion standard means of confirming
initial screening tests because they have a low incidence of false positive
results and are very sensitive and specific.27
Board staff referred to the CDC Guideline, and also stated that
the treatment agreement signed by the patient would indicate the actions to be
taken if unexpected results (positive or negative) cannot be explained. Board
staff report that these actions could include referral for substance abuse
counseling or release from care (with the patient being given a reasonable
amount of time to find a new health care practitioner).28 Although
board staff noted that the retesting could be accomplished by administering
another dipstick test, repeated dipstick tests may not yield different results.
For instance, unexpected positive test results can be caused by various classes
of non-narcotic prescription and over-the-counter medications, and unexpected
negative results can result from individual rapid metabolism rates. In
instances where unexpected results are caused by confounding factors (rather
than random test error), repeated dipstick test would be unlikely to yield
different results. Additionally, the CDC Guideline calls for use of GC/MS
testing to confirm dipstick test results.
Indirect Benefits and Costs of Drug Testing: The use of drug
screens appears to have a mix of benefits and costs. As noted by the CDC
Guideline, practitioners should use unexpected results to improve patient
safety. This could include several strategies that, if properly designed and
applied, would appear to confer this benefit. Examples of responses to an
unexpected drug screen result include a change in pain management strategy,
tapering or discontinuing opioids, more frequent re-evaluation, offering
naloxone, or referring for treatment for substance use disorder. The CDC notes
that practitioners:
"should not dismiss patients from care based on a urine
drug test result because this could constitute patient abandonment and could
have adverse consequences for patient safety, potentially including the patient
obtaining opioids from alternative sources and the clinician missing
opportunities to facilitate treatment for substance use disorder."
Board staff appear to agree with this guidance, adding that a
patient could also be released from care if they do not comply with the
treatment plan.29 However, the Board has stated that patients should
not be abandoned. As noted in a letter from the Board to practitioners:
"As you consider these regulations, make sure that the
needs of patients currently receiving opioids for chronic pain are taken into
account. It is critically important that no patients in Virginia find
themselves looking for narcotics outside of the medical system – i.e., on the
street."30
However, as documented in some of the available literature, the
use of drug screens may create a disincentive for certain patients to continue
seeking treatment. Thus certain patients may stop pursuing opioid therapy,
including those who test positive for unexpected substances and those who do
not.31 Moreover, Board staff also acknowledge that the drug testing
and other requirements in the proposed regulation will create disincentives for
primary care physicians to treat pain using opioid therapy. And given that the
Board has stated that the regulation is, in part, designed to "provide the
board with a tool to discipline physicians whose practices do not meet the
standard of care,"32 the regulation may cause some primary care
physicians to no longer treat chronic pain patients with opioids.
In addition, examples of some
recent literature notes that, "individuals who lost access [to
prescription opioids] have turned to cheaper, more accessible, and more potent
black market opioid alternatives—including heroin—in unprecedented
numbers."33 Thus an additional unintended consequence of the
regulations may be a shift in demand from legal prescriptions to illegal street
drugs, including heroin and illicitly-produced fentanyl (in combination or
separately). As noted in a recent issue of the International Journal of Drug
Policy, "prescribing restrictions forced a minority of dependent users to
more potent and available street heroin."34 The federal Drug
Enforcement Administration notes that "fentanyl can serve as substitute
for heroin in opioid dependent individuals."35
As noted by the Board, "the purpose of the regulations is,
in part, to assist physicians in treating opioid dependent patients."36
However, to the extent that some patients, particularly those with substance
use disorder, no longer obtain treatment, they may seek illicit substances. It
is not clear if this is occurring in Virginia, but data released by the Office
of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) indicate that "there has not been a
significant increase or decrease in fatal prescription opioid overdoses"
from 2007 to 2016, but "fatal fentanyl overdoses increased by 176.4% from
2015 to 2016."37 (This trend is illustrated in the figure
below.) Notwithstanding the increase in deaths from fentanyl, on average more
than 400 fatalities still result in part from prescription opioids each year.38
Although it does not appear that the OCME can determine whether
the fentanyl was illicit or pharmaceutically-produced, staff at the Department
of Forensic Science (DFS) reports that over the last 12 years, submissions of
prescription fentanyl have averaged between 25 and 27 samples per year. In
contrast, data reported by DFS indicate that the number of submissions of
illicit fentanyl increased by 1,656 percent from 2013 to 2016.39
Indirect Benefits and Costs of Restrictions on Use of
Buprenorphine: The Board's proposed restrictions on the use of buprenorphine
are aimed at decreasing the abuse of the mono-product of this drug
("Subutex") because it has become a popular drug of abuse. To the
extent the proposed regulation decreases abuse, then a benefit will be
conferred. However, any decrease in the abuse of this drug attributable to these
proposed restrictions would need to be weighed against the costs that may
accrue for chronic pain patients and individuals in addiction treatment.
Board staff reports that the cost of Suboxone (which contains
buprenorphine plus naloxone) is higher than the cost of Subutex. To the extent,
therefore, that certain patients are no longer able to obtain prescriptions for
Subutex, then they will likely incur increased costs. As noted by Board staff,
demand for opiates is highest in the places where health insurance coverage is
lowest. Therefore, these cost increases may disproportionally fall upon
patients who pay for prescriptions (and drug screens) out of pocket.
Additionally, it is reported that some portion of the general population has an
allergy or sensitivity to naloxone and would not be able to take Suboxone.
In response to concerns raised about restrictions on
prescription of the mono-product that did not account for individuals who had
an allergy or sensitivity, as well as the ability to pay, the Board voted to
allow treatment with the mono-product for up to three percent of any
prescribers' addiction patients who have a demonstrated intolerance to
naloxone. This allowance was made for individuals in addiction treatment but
not for chronic pain patients (who presumably would have the same incidence of
Naloxone allergies). The Board believes that this three percent allowance will
be sufficient to cover the portion of addiction patients who have a true
allergy/insensitivity. These individuals are not likely, however, to be evenly
spread among all doctors. This means that some doctors may have more than three
percent of their patients for whom the mono-product would be the preferred
treatment and some may have less. Because of this, some patients and
practitioners may see disruptions in treatment.
Indirect Benefits and Costs of Preferences for Alternative
Treatments: The proposed regulation's requirements that alternative treatments
(both nonpharmacologic and non-opioid) be given consideration prior to
prescription of opioids for both acute pain and chronic pain is being proposed
to reduce the number of such prescriptions. Board staff state that
nonpharmacologic treatments may include physical therapy, chiropractic, and
acupuncture.
In addition, non-opioid treatments can include treatment with
acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as well as
selected antidepressants and anticonvulsants. Although these drugs do not have
the addiction risks of opioids, they may pose other health risks for certain
patients. As noted by the CDC Guideline, although NSAIDs are recommended as
first-line treatment for osteoarthritis or low back pain, they do have risks,
including gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation as well as renal and
cardiovascular risks. Increasing use of non-opioid treatments like NSAIDs will
therefore need to balance the benefits of non-opioid therapy with these and
other risks.
Indirect Benefits and Costs of Prescription Monitoring Program
(PMP) Queries: Virginia statute presently requires PMP checks for any
prescriptions anticipated to be used for more than seven consecutive days.
Board staff reports that some hospitals already require PMP queries for
prescriptions issued in the emergency rooms (ER). Other hospitals that do not
currently have this policy will likely accrue staff time costs. To the extent
that the regulation is also interpreted to require PMP checks for all
prescriptions, as a "routine prescribing practice" (rather than just
prescriptions anticipated to last more than seven continuous days), practitioners
may incur additional time costs for running those queries.
To the extent that use of the PMP lowers the volume of drugs
diverted from licit to illicit uses, the new requirement will provide the
benefit of reductions in the costs of illicit drug use in the state.
Additionally, to the extent that use of the PMP lowers the number of doses of
opioids, the new requirement will provide the benefit of reducing the risk from
use of opioids. The Department of Health Professions (DHP), citing the CDC,
indicates that individuals taking greater than 90 MME/day are at a higher risk
of overdose and death. DHP adds that since the adoption of emergency
regulation, PMP data indicate that "the total number of patients
prescribed high dosages declined from 169,145 individuals in the fourth quarter
of 2016 to 137,618 individuals in the third quarter of 2017, or an 18.6%
decline in individuals receiving greater than 100 MME/day."40
Indirect Benefits and Costs of Record-Keeping Requirements: The
Board's proposed record-keeping requirements for acute pain are likely already
common medical practice; thus licensees are unlikely to incur any costs from
that portion of the proposed regulation that covers the treatment of acute
pain. Likewise, most of the proposed requirements for taking a patient history
and assessing a patient's complaint are likely common practice now and should
not cause any additional costs. The proposed requirement that practitioners in
an acute care setting perform a risk assessment for substance misuse41
on all patients who may be prescribed opioids may not presently be a part of
standard patient care. To the extent that practitioners treating acute pain do
not currently assess risk of substance misuse, costs would be incurred for
their time to perform such assessments.
Businesses and Entities Affected. These proposed regulatory
changes will affect all 6,547 nurse practitioners licensed in the Commonwealth
as well as their employers. Board staff reports that many nurse practitioners
are employed by large entities that would not qualify as small businesses. Some
nurse practitioners are employed by small medical practices that would qualify
as small businesses. These proposed regulations also will affect all patients
(both acute care and chronic care) who have been treated with opioids since the
emergency regulation went into effect, and all patients who may be treated with
opioids in the future. Additionally, individuals in treatment for addiction who
are prescribed buprenorphine will be affected. Health insurance providers also
will be affected. The Board has no estimates of the number of chronic pain
patients that might be affected by this proposed regulation. Based on estimates
of the number of the American adults who suffer from common chronic pain
conditions, the changes contained in this proposed regulation will likely
affect at least hundreds of thousands of chronic care patients in Virginia, and
may affect as many as several million, depending upon the extent to which they
seek opioid therapy.
Localities Particularly Affected. No locality likely will be
affected by these proposed regulatory changes.
Projected Impact on Employment. To the extent that these
proposed regulatory changes lead to fewer individuals being effectively treated
for chronic pain, employee absenteeism may increase, which would tend to
depress total productivity. To the extent that this regulation reduces rates of
addiction, which may allow former addicts to hold employment, productivity
would increase.
Effects on the Use and Value of Private Property. There is no
apparent impact on the use and value of private property.
Real Estate Development Costs. These proposed regulatory
changes are unlikely to affect real estate development costs in the
Commonwealth.
Small Businesses:
Definition. Pursuant to § 2.2-4007.04 of the Code of Virginia,
small business is defined as "a business entity, including its affiliates,
that (i) is independently owned and operated and (ii) employs fewer than 500
full-time employees or has gross annual sales of less than $6 million."
Costs and Other Effects. Based on Virginia Employment
Commission data, there are 4,757 offices of physicians with fewer than 500
employees in the Commonwealth, thus likely qualifying as small businesses. To
the extent that these firms include nurse practitioners who would be affected
by these proposed regulation, they will likely incur increased costs associated
with bookkeeping, staff wages, increased documentation requirements, and new
drug testing requirements for chronic pain patients in the proposed regulation.
Alternatively, adherence to the practices required by the regulation may have
an unknown impact on liability insurance and associated costs that may result
in savings.
Alternative Method that Minimizes Adverse Impact. Allowing
doctors, and the nurse practitioners who work with them, the discretion as to
whether and how often to use drug testing would likely decrease the costs
listed above. As noted above, the CDC only recommends that practitioners
"consider" drug testing on an annual basis after the initial screen.
Adverse Impacts:
Businesses. Doctors who employ nurse practitioners may incur
increased costs and changes to current business practices related to increased
bookkeeping, staff impacts associated with increased documentation requirements,
and implementation of new drug testing requirements for chronic pain patients
in the proposed regulation.
Localities. Localities in the Commonwealth are unlikely to see
any adverse impacts from these proposed regulatory changes.
Other Entities. Chronic pain patients, or their insurance
providers, will likely incur annual costs on account of drug testing
requirements and on account of restrictions on the prescription of
buprenorphine mono-product that are in the proposed regulation.
The Department of Human Resource Management reports that the
Commonwealth of Virginia will likely incur increased employee health benefits
costs because of these proposed regulatory changes, including additional costs
for drug testing. The Department of Medical Assistance Services (DMAS) may
incur increased costs for Medicaid patients who are in treatment for chronic
pain or who are undergoing addiction treatment with buprenorphine. These latter
costs may be offset to some degree by reductions in expenditures on prescription
opioids, according to DHP, which reports that DMAS has experienced "an
annual reduction in drug spending on opioids of approximately $466,000."42
The Department of Corrections may incur increased costs for drug testing and
limitations on prescribing of buprenorphine for prisoners housed in prisons
statewide.
References:
Brahm, Nancy C., Lynn L. Yeager, Mark D. Fox, Kevin C. Farmer,
Tony A. Palmer. 2010. "Commonly prescribed medications and potential
false-positive urine drug screens"; American Journal of Health-System
Pharmacy. 67 (16). 1344-1350.
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Advancing Pain
Research, Care, and Education. Relieving Pain in America: A Blueprint for
Transforming Prevention, Care, Education, and Research. Washington (DC):
National Academies Press (US); 2011. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK91497/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK91497.pdf.
Krishnamurthy, Partha, Govindaraj Ranganathan, Courtney
Williams, Gulshan Doulatram. 2016. "Impact of Urine Drug Screening on No
Shows and Dropouts among Chronic Pain Patients: A Propensity-Matched Cohort
Study." Pain Physician. 19. 89-100. http://www.painphysicianjournal.com/current/pdf?article=MjUyNA%3D%3D&journal=94.
Nahin, Richard L. "Estimates of Pain Prevalence and Severity
in Adults: United States, 2012." The journal of Pain?: official
Journal of the American Pain Society 16.8 (2015): 769–780. PMC. Web. 19 Sept.
2017.
Pollack, Harold, Sheldon Danzinger, Rukmalie Jayakody, Kristen
Seefeldt. 2001. Drug Testing Welfare Recipients — False Positives, False
Negatives, Unanticipated Opportunities.
Virginia Departments of Forensic Science and Criminal Justice
Services. 2016. Drug Cases Submitted to the Virginia Department of Forensic
Science Calendar Year 2016. http://www.dfs.virginia.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/07
/CY16DfsDataReport_Final.pdf.
Virginia Department of Health Office of the Chief Medical
Examiner. 2017. Fatal Drug Overdose Quarterly Report First Quarter 2017.
Edition 2017.1. http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/content/uploads/sites/18/2016/04/Fatal-Drug-Overdoses-Quarterly-Report-Q1-2017_Updated.pdf.
Dowell Deborah, Tamara M Haegerich, Roger Chou. CDC Guideline
for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain — United States. 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep
2016; 65 (No. RR-1):1–49. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr6501e1.
___________________________________________
1This regulation was developed by a regulatory advisory
panel (RAP) chaired by the president of the Board of Medicine and including two
addiction specialists, a pain management specialist, and the Chief Medical
Officer for the Department of Medical Assistance Services. The RAP met in
January 2017 to draft regulations, which were then recommended by the
Legislative Committee of the Board of Medicine in late January. The Committee
of the Joint Boards of Nursing and Medicine reviewed the draft regulations at
its meeting in February 2017, prior to their adoption by the Board of Medicine
and the Board of Nursing.
2http://townhall.virginia.gov/l/GetFile.cfm?File=C:\TownHall\docroot\27\4797\8063\AgencyStatement_DHP_8063_v1.pdf.
3The exemptions are (1) the treatment of acute and
chronic pain related to cancer or to such pain treatment for patients in
hospice care or palliative care, (2) the treatment of acute and chronic pain
during a hospital admission, or in nursing homes or assisted living facilities
that use a sole source pharmacy and (3) a patient enrolled in a clinical trial
authorized by state or federal law.
4Perioperative is defined by the Oxford English
Dictionary as "a process or treatment occurring or performed at or around
the time of an operation."
5These treatments can include such things as physical
therapy, chiropractic care and acupuncture.
6The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2016
Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain indicates that
nonpharmacologic and non-opioid treatments include cognitive behavioral
therapy, exercise therapy, interventional treatments, multimodal pain
treatment, acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs,
antidepressants, and anticonvulsants.
7MME is an abbreviation for morphine milligram equivalent,
which provides a standard value for equating the potency of different opioids.
8Naloxone, sold under the brand name Narcan among
others, is a medication used to block the effects of opioids, especially in
overdose.
9Buprenorphine comes in two forms: the mono-product form
of buprenorphine only contains buprenorphine and is sold under the name
Subutex. The other form of buprenorphine also contains naloxone, and is sold
under the brand name Suboxone. The mono-product is more subject to abuse, but a
certain unknown portion of the population has an allergy/sensitivity to
naloxone and therefore would not tolerate Suboxone.
10Florence, Curtis S, Chao Zhou, Feijun Luo, Likang Xu.
The Economic Burden of Prescription Opioid Overdose, Abuse, and Dependence in
the United States, 2013. Medical Care, 2016; 54 (10): 901.
11Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Advancing Pain
Research, Care, and Education. Relieving Pain in America: A Blueprint for
Transforming Prevention, Care, Education, and Research. Washington (DC):
National Academies Press (US); 2011. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK91497/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK91497.pdf.
12Today's fentanyl crisis: Prohibition's Iron Law, revisited,
International Journal of Drug Policy 46 (2017) 156–159.
13CDC Guideline, pages 30-31; https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/prescribing/guideline.html.
14Krishnamurthy et al., Impact of Urine Drug Screening on
No Shows and Dropouts among Chronic Pain Patients: A Propensity-Matched Cohort
Study. Pain Physician. 2016 Feb; 19(2):89-100.
15Vadivelu, et al.; The Implications of Urine Drug
Testing in Pain Management, Current Drug Safety 2010, 5 (267-270).
16Nahin, Richard; "Estimates of Pain Prevalence and
Severity in Adults: United States, 2012." The Journal of Pain: official
Journal of the American Pain Society 16.8 (2015): 769–780. Studies using
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey consistently estimated chronic
pain (pain =3 months) prevalence at 13 to 15%. (Nahin 2012).
17Institutes of Medicine 2011 (p. 62).
18Boudreau, et al., Trends in De-facto Long-term Opioid
Therapy for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain, Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safety. 2009
December; 18 (12): 1166–1175. Note: the authors state that "Our results
may not be generalizable to care delivered and/or financed in other types of
health care systems and other regions of the US."
19Defined as episodes lasting longer than 90 days that
had 120+ total days supply of dispensed medication or 10+ opioid prescriptions
dispensed within a given year were classified as long-term opioid episodes.
Boudreau et al., cited in Volkow and McLellan, Opioid Abuse in Chronic Pain — Misconceptions
and Mitigation Strategies, N Engl J Med 2016; 374:1253-63.
20A review of the diagnostic accuracy of urine drug
testing found that, in a worst case scenario, 32.9% of patients' specimens to
the lab because of abnormal results. (Christo, et al., Urine Drug Testing in
Chronic Pain, Pain Physician 2011; 14:123-143). Pollack, et al, (2001) reported
a false positive rate of 7% for simple urine tests. Vadivelu, et al. reports
that 11-21% of initial immunoassay tests are disproven by a followup GC/MS.
21Brahm, et al.; Commonly prescribed medications and
potential false-positive urine drug screens; Am J Health-Syst Pharm—Vol 67 Aug
15, 2010, 1344-1350.
22Brahm, et al.
23CDC Guideline, page 4.
24Milone, Michael; Laboratory Testing for Prescription
Opioids, J Med Toxicol. 2012 Dec; 8(4): 408–416.
25Standridge et al., Urine Drug Screening: A Valuable
Office Procedure, Am Fam Physician. 2010 Mar 1;81(5):635-640.
26Unexpected results would include tests that are
positive for non-prescribed or illicit drugs, and tests that are negative for
expected prescription drugs.
27Addiction Doctor Mary McMasters estimates that GC/MS
testing costs between $200 and $300. See also Vadivelu, et al.
28Board staff reports that the "reasonable
time" would vary according to the availability of other health care
options but would be at least 30 days.
29In order to not abandon patients, doctors would likely
provide referrals to other pain doctors and would give patients a
"reasonable" amount of time to find another doctor. The doctors to
whom such patients would be referred are under no obligation to treat them
however.
30https://www.dhp.virginia.gov/medicine/newsletters/OpioidPrescribingBuprenorphine03142017.pdf.
31Krishnamurthy et al found that administration of urine
drug screens at a first doctor visit was associated with an increased rate of
no-shows (23.75%) when compared to patients who did not undergo urine drug
screens at a first doctor visit (10.24%). Krishnamurthy et al., Impact of Urine
Drug Screening on No Shows and Dropouts among Chronic Pain Patients: A
Propensity-Matched Cohort Study. Pain Physician. 2016 Feb; 19(2):89-100.
32http://townhall.virginia.gov/L/GetFile.cfm?File=C:\TownHall\docroot\\meeting\26\25243\Minutes_DHP_25243_v2.pdf.
33Today's fentanyl crisis: Prohibition's Iron Law,
revisited, International Journal of Drug Policy 46 (2017) 156–159.
34Fentanyl in the US heroin supply: A rapidly changing
risk environment, International Journal of Drug Policy 46 (2017) 107–111.
35https://departments.arlingtonva.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2017/06/heroin_fentanyl_brochure.pdf.
36http://townhall.virginia.gov/L/GetFile.cfm?File=C:\TownHall\docroot\\meeting\26\25243\Minutes_DHP_25243_v2.pdf.
37http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/content/uploads/sites/18/2016/04/Fatal-Drug-Overdoses-Quarterly-Report-Q1-2017_Updated.pdf.
38The OCME notes that drug-related deaths often have more
than one drug causing or contributing to death. Therefore, some of the deaths
attributed to prescription opioids and fentanyl may have multiple drugs on
board.
39http://www.dfs.virginia.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CY16DfsDataReport_Final.pdf Slide 27.
40http://townhall.virginia.gov/L/GetFile.cfm?File=C:\TownHall\docroot\26\4760\7981\EIARes_DHP_7981_v1.pdf.
41The term "substance misuse" is not defined in
the proposed regulation.
42http://townhall.virginia.gov/L/GetFile.cfm?File=C:\TownHall\docroot\26\4760\7981\EIARes_DHP_7981_v1.pdf.
Agency's Response to Economic Impact Analysis: The
Boards of Nursing and Medicine and the Department of Health Professions do not
concur with the result of the analysis that "there is insufficient data to
accurately compare the magnitude of the benefits versus the costs." The
focus of the analysis was on the cost of one requirement of regulation, urine
drug screens. We believe it failed to fully analyze the personal and societal
costs of opioid addiction. It is the position of the agency that reducing the
quantity of opioids in our homes and communities has already been shown to have
a cost benefit and will ultimately have a direct benefit in a reduction in
opioid misuse and opioid overdose deaths.
1. The agency believes the analysis does not include sufficient
data about the current crisis in opioid overdose deaths.
In 2015, there were 811 opioid deaths, and in 2016, there were
1,133 – a 40% increase. In a preliminary report from the Department of Criminal
Justice Services (DCJS), the number for 2017 is expected to be 1,181. The
result of the 2017 National Drug Threat Assessment notes that controlled
prescription drugs (CPDs) have been linked to the largest number of overdose
deaths of any illicit drug class since 2001. For each of these deaths, there
are immeasurable costs. For the purpose of an economic analysis, medical
malpractice carriers and civil litigants can attribute costs in dollars and
cents for each year of life lost.
Yearly direct and indirect costs related to prescription
opioids have been estimated (based on studies published since 2010) to be $53.4
billion for nonmedical use of prescription opioids; $55.7 billion for abuse,
dependence (i.e., opioid use disorder), and misuse of prescription opioids; and
$20.4 billion for direct and indirect costs related to opioid-related overdose
alone. While we acknowledge that these are national figures, the economic
impact analysis (EIA) has used national data to extrapolate the costs of urine
drug screens for Virginians. Copious amounts of data exist in national and
state reports on the opioid crisis for which these regulations offer a partial
solution.
2. The agency believes the analysis does not make the
connection between the opioid crisis of fentanyl and heroin to the prescribing
of opioid pain medication.
One of the primary purposes of these regulations is to reduce
the number of persons who enter the pipeline of addiction through a
legitimately prescribed opioid. The National Institute on Drug Abuse reports
that a study of young, urban injection drug users interviewed in 2008 and 2009
found that 86% had used opioid pain relievers nonmedically prior to using
heroin, and their initiation into nonmedical use was characterized by three
main sources of opioids: family, friends, or personal prescriptions. Examining
national-level general population heroin data (including those in and not in
treatment), nearly 80% of heroin users reported using prescription opioids
prior to heroin.
The report from DCJS noted that "data from Department of
Forensic Sciences (DFS) and Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME)
demonstrate that there are still a large number of individuals using
prescription opioids non-medically. These individuals are at risk of overdose
death through the prescription drugs they are currently using, but they are
also at a higher risk of using heroin in the future. Although only a small
percentage of individuals who abuse prescription opioids move on to heroin, a
high percentage of heroin users report that their first opioid was a
prescription drug (https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research
reports/relationship-between-prescription-drug-abuse-heroin-use/).
Additionally, non-medical users of prescription opioids may seek to acquire
those drugs illegally, putting themselves at risk of purchasing and using
counterfeit pills made with fentanyl and fentanyl analogs."
Data from OCME indicates that between 2013 and 2016, the number
of prescription opioid fatalities involving fentanyl and/or heroin increased
69%. In 2016, 37% of prescription opioid fatalities also involved fentanyl
and/or heroin. Although illicit fentanyl cases increased 207% between 2015 and
2016, there were almost four times as many heroin cases and four times as many
prescription opioid cases that year.
Data from the Virginia Prescription Monitoring Program shows
that since the adoption of emergency regulation there has been a drop in
morphine milligram equivalents (MME). MME per day is the amount of morphine an
opioid dose is equal to, often used to gauge the abuse and overdose potential
of the amount of opioid being prescribed at a particular time. The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that individuals taking greater
than 90 MME per day are at a higher risk of overdose and death. The total
number of patients prescribed high dosages declined from 169,145 individuals in
the fourth quarter of 2016 to 137,618 individuals in the third quarter of 2017,
or an 18.6% decline in individuals receiving greater than 100 MME per day. The
data is an indicator of the effectiveness of the emergency regulation being
replaced with the proposed regulations for which the EIA was prepared.
Numerous reports in the press have made the connection between
the overdose death of a person who was prescribed an opioid following an
accident or medical procedure. The intent of this regulation is to require
prescribers to prescribe fewer quantities for shorter periods of time and to
consider nonpharmacological alternatives or non-opioid medications that have
the effect of addressing a patient's pain without the potential for addiction
and long-term, costly consequences.
3. The agency believes the analysis has not included sufficient
data on cost savings relating to a reduction on opioid prescribing.
For example, this agency provided information from the
Department of Medical Assistanc Services which experienced a 44% decrease in
opioid days-supply and 27% decrease in opioid prescription spending when that
agency implemented the CDC guidelines on which these regulations were based,
for an annual reduction in drug spending on opioids of approximately $466,000.
It is that agency's belief that costs related to an increase in urine drug
screens, which have been routinely required by pain management physicians prior
to adoption of these regulations, would be more than offset by the decrease in
spending on opioid prescriptions, so it would be budget neutral or result in a
net cost savings.
Data from the Prescription Monitoring Program show that from
the fourth quarter of 2016 to the third quarter of 2017 pain reliever doses
declined from 129,797,789 to 77,729,833, which represents a 40.15% decline. It
is apparent that the emergency regulations are having a positive effect on the costs
of prescription opioids – a cost benefit to consumers and insurers that could
be reflected in the EIA.
Summary:
The proposed amendments establish the practitioners to whom
the regulations apply and exceptions or nonapplicability. Provisions for the management
of acute pain include requirements for the evaluation of the patient,
limitations on quantity and dosage, and recordkeeping. Provisions for
management of chronic pain include requirements for evaluation and treatment,
including a treatment plan, informed consent and agreement, consultation with
other providers, and medical recordkeeping. Provisions for prescribing of
buprenorphine include requirements for patient assessment and treatment
planning, limitations on prescribing the buprenorphine mono-product (without
naloxone), dosages, co-prescribing of other drugs, consultation, and medical
records for opioid addiction treatment. The proposed amendments replace
emergency regulations currently in effect.
Part IV
Disciplinary Provisions
18VAC90-30-220. Grounds for disciplinary action against the
license of a licensed nurse practitioner.
The boards may deny licensure or relicensure, revoke or
suspend the license, or take other disciplinary action upon proof that the
nurse practitioner:
1. Has had a license or multistate privilege to practice
nursing in this Commonwealth or in another jurisdiction revoked or suspended or
otherwise disciplined;
2. Has directly or indirectly represented to the public that
the nurse practitioner is a physician, or is able to, or will practice
independently of a physician;
3. Has exceeded the authority as a licensed nurse
practitioner;
4. Has violated or cooperated in the violation of the laws or
regulations governing the practice of medicine, nursing or nurse practitioners;
5. Has become unable to practice with reasonable skill and
safety to patients as the result of a physical or mental illness or the
excessive use of alcohol, drugs, narcotics, chemicals or any other type of
material;
6. Has violated or cooperated with others in violating or
attempting to violate any law or regulation, state or federal, relating to the
possession, use, dispensing, administration or distribution of drugs; or
7. Has failed to comply with continuing competency
requirements as set forth in 18VAC90-30-105;
8. Has willfully or negligently breached the
confidentiality between a practitioner and a patient. A breach of
confidentiality that is required or permitted by applicable law or beyond the
control of the practitioner shall not be considered negligent or willful; or
9. Has engaged in unauthorized use or disclosure of
confidential information received from the Prescription Monitoring Program, the
electronic system within the Department of Health Professions that monitors the
dispensing of certain controlled substances.
Part I
General Provisions
18VAC90-40-10. Definitions.
The following words and terms when used in this chapter shall
have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
"Acute pain" means pain that occurs within the
normal course of a disease or condition or as the result of surgery for which
controlled substances containing an opioid may be prescribed for no more than
three months.
"Boards" means the Virginia Board of Medicine and
the Virginia Board of Nursing.
"Certified nurse midwife" means an advanced
practice registered nurse who is certified in the specialty of nurse midwifery
and who is jointly licensed by the Boards of Medicine and Nursing as a nurse
practitioner pursuant to § 54.1-2957 of the Code of Virginia.
"Chronic pain" means nonmalignant pain that goes
beyond the normal course of a disease or condition for which controlled
substances containing an opioid may be prescribed for a period greater than
three months.
"Committee" means the Committee of the Joint Boards
of Nursing and Medicine.
"FDA" means the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration.
"MME" means morphine milligram equivalent.
"Nonprofit health care clinics or programs" means a
clinic organized in whole or in part for the delivery of health care services
without charge or when a reasonable minimum fee is charged only to cover
administrative costs.
"Nurse practitioner" means an advanced practice
registered nurse who has met the requirements for licensure as a nurse practitioner
as stated in 18VAC90-30.
"Practice agreement" means a written or electronic
agreement jointly developed by the patient care team physician and the nurse
practitioner for the practice of the nurse practitioner that also describes the
prescriptive authority of the nurse practitioner, if applicable. For a nurse
practitioner licensed in the category of certified nurse midwife, the practice
agreement is a statement jointly developed with the consulting physician.
"Prescription Monitoring Program" means the
electronic system within the Department of Health Professions that monitors the
dispensing of certain controlled substances.
"SAMHSA" means the federal Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration.
Part V
Management of Acute Pain
18VAC90-40-150. Evaluation of the patient for acute pain.
A. The requirements of this part shall not apply to:
1. The treatment of acute pain related to (i) cancer, (ii)
a patient in hospice care, or (iii) a patient in palliative care;
2. The treatment of acute pain during an inpatient hospital
admission or in a nursing home or an assisted living facility that uses a sole
source pharmacy; or
3. A patient enrolled in a clinical trial as authorized by
state or federal law.
B. Nonpharmacologic and non-opioid treatment for pain
shall be given consideration prior to treatment with opioids. If an opioid is
considered necessary for the treatment of acute pain, the practitioner shall
give a short-acting opioid in the lowest effective dose for the fewest possible
days.
C. Prior to initiating treatment with a controlled
substance containing an opioid for a complaint of acute pain, the prescriber
shall perform a history and physical examination appropriate to the complaint,
query the Prescription Monitoring Program as set forth in § 54.1-2522.1 of
the Code of Virginia, and conduct an assessment of the patient's history and
risk of substance misuse as a part of the initial evaluation.
18VAC90-40-160. Treatment of acute pain with opioids.
A. Initiation of opioid treatment for patients with acute
pain shall be with short-acting opioids.
1. A prescriber providing treatment for a patient with
acute pain shall not prescribe a controlled substance containing an opioid in a
quantity that exceeds a seven-day supply as determined by the manufacturer's
directions for use, unless extenuating circumstances are clearly documented in
the medical record. This shall also apply to prescriptions of a controlled
substance containing an opioid upon discharge from an emergency department.
2. An opioid prescribed as part of treatment for a surgical
procedure shall be for no more than 14 consecutive days in accordance with
manufacturer's direction and within the immediate perioperative period, unless
extenuating circumstances are clearly documented in the medical record.
B. Initiation of opioid treatment for all patients shall
include the following:
1. The practitioner shall carefully consider and document
in the medical record the reasons to exceed 50 MME per day.
2. Prior to exceeding 120 MME per day, the practitioner
shall document in the medical record the reasonable justification for such
doses or refer to or consult with a pain management specialist.
3. Naloxone shall be prescribed for any patient when risk
factors of prior overdose, substance misuse, doses in excess of 120 MME per
day, or concomitant benzodiazepine are present.
C. Due to a higher risk of fatal overdose when opioids are
used with benzodiazepines, sedative hypnotics, carisoprodol, and tramadol, the
prescriber shall only co-prescribe these substances when there are extenuating
circumstances and shall document in the medical record a tapering plan to
achieve the lowest possible effective doses if these medications are
prescribed.
D. Buprenorphine is not indicated for acute pain in the
outpatient setting, except when a prescriber who has obtained a SAMHSA
waiver is treating pain in a patient whose primary diagnosis is the
disease of addiction.
18VAC90-40-170. Medical records for acute pain.
The medical record shall include a description of the
pain, a presumptive diagnosis for the origin of the pain, an examination
appropriate to the complaint, a treatment plan, and the medication prescribed
or administered to include the date, type, dosage, and quantity prescribed or
administered.
Part VI
Management of Chronic Pain
18VAC90-40-180. Evaluation of the chronic pain patient.
A. The requirements of this part shall not apply to:
1. The treatment of chronic pain related to (i) cancer,
(ii) a patient in hospice care, or (iii) a patient in palliative care;
2. The treatment of chronic pain during an inpatient
hospital admission or in a nursing home or an assisted living facility that
uses a sole source pharmacy; or
3. A patient enrolled in a clinical trial as authorized by
state or federal law.
B. Prior to initiating management of chronic pain with a
controlled substance containing an opioid, a medical history and physical
examination, to include a mental status examination, shall be performed and
documented in the medical record, including:
1. The nature and intensity of the pain;
2. Current and past treatments for pain;
3. Underlying or coexisting diseases or conditions;
4. The effect of the pain on physical and psychological
function, quality of life, and activities of daily living;
5. Psychiatric, addiction, and substance
misuse histories of the patient and any family history of addiction or
substance misuse;
6. A urine drug screen or serum medication level;
7. A query of the Prescription Monitoring Program as set
forth in § 54.1-2522.1 of the Code of Virginia;
8. An assessment of the patient's history and risk of
substance misuse; and
9. A request for prior applicable records.
C. Prior to initiating opioid analgesia for chronic pain,
the practitioner shall discuss with the patient the known risks and benefits of
opioid therapy and the responsibilities of the patient during treatment to
include securely storing the drug and properly disposing of any unwanted or
unused drugs. The practitioner shall also discuss with the patient an exit
strategy for the discontinuation of opioids in the event they are not
effective.
18VAC90-40-190. Treatment of chronic pain with opioids.
A. Nonpharmacologic and non-opioid treatment for pain
shall be given consideration prior to treatment with opioids.
B. In initiating opioid treatment for all patients, the
practitioner shall:
1. Carefully consider and document in the medical record
the reasons to exceed 50 MME per day;
2. Prior to exceeding 120 MME per day, the practitioner
shall document in the medical record the reasonable justification for such
doses or refer to or consult with a pain management specialist;
3. Prescribe naloxone for any patient when risk factors of
prior overdose, substance misuse, doses in excess of 120 MME per day, or
concomitant benzodiazepine are present; and
4. Document the rationale to continue opioid therapy every
three months.
C. Buprenorphine mono-product in tablet form shall
not be prescribed for chronic pain.
D. Due to a higher risk of fatal overdose when opioids,
including buprenorphine, are given with other opioids, benzodiazepines,
sedative hypnotics, carisoprodol, and tramadol, the prescriber shall only
co-prescribe these substances when there are extenuating circumstances and
shall document in the medical record a tapering plan to achieve the lowest
possible effective doses if these medications are prescribed.
E. The practitioner shall regularly evaluate for opioid
use disorder and shall initiate specific treatment for opioid use disorder,
consult with an appropriate health care provider, or refer the patient for
evaluation for treatment if indicated.
18VAC90-40-200. Treatment plan for chronic pain.
A. The medical record shall include a treatment plan that
states measures to be used to determine progress in treatment, including pain
relief and improved physical and psychosocial function, quality of life, and
daily activities.
B. The treatment plan shall include further diagnostic
evaluations and other treatment modalities or rehabilitation that may be
necessary depending on the etiology of the pain and the extent to which the
pain is associated with physical and psychosocial impairment.
C. The prescriber shall record in the medical records the
presence or absence of any indicators for medication misuse or diversion and
take appropriate action.
18VAC90-40-210. Informed consent and agreement for treatment
of chronic pain.
A. The practitioner shall document in the medical record
informed consent, to include risks, benefits, and alternative approaches, prior
to the initiation of opioids for chronic pain.
B. There shall be a written treatment agreement, signed by
the patient, in the medical record that addresses the parameters of treatment,
including those behaviors that will result in referral to a higher level of
care, cessation of treatment, or dismissal from care.
C. The treatment agreement shall include notice that the
practitioner will query and receive reports from the Prescription Monitoring
Program and permission for the practitioner to:
1. Obtain urine drug screen or serum medication levels,
when requested; and
2. Consult with other prescribers or dispensing pharmacists
for the patient.
D. Expected outcomes shall be documented in the medical
record including improvement in pain relief and function or simply in pain
relief. Limitations and side effects of chronic opioid therapy shall be
documented in the medical record.
18VAC90-40-220. Opioid therapy for chronic pain.
A. The practitioner shall review the course of pain
treatment and any new information about the etiology of the pain or the
patient's state of health at least every three months.
B. Continuation of treatment with opioids shall be
supported by documentation of continued benefit from the prescribing. If the
patient's progress is unsatisfactory, the practitioner shall assess the
appropriateness of continued use of the current treatment plan and consider the
use of other therapeutic modalities.
C. Practitioners shall check the Prescription Monitoring
Program at least every three months after the initiation of treatment.
D. The practitioner shall order and review a urine drug
screen or serum medication levels at the initiation of chronic pain management
and at least every three months for the first year of treatment and at least
every six months thereafter.
E. The practitioner shall regularly evaluate for opioid
use disorder and shall initiate specific treatment for opioid use disorder,
consult with an appropriate health care provider, or refer the patient for
evaluation for treatment if indicated.
18VAC90-40-230. Additional consultation.
A. When necessary to achieve treatment goals, the
prescriber shall refer the patient for additional evaluation and treatment.
B. When a practitioner makes the diagnosis of opioid use
disorder, treatment for opioid use disorder shall be initiated or the patient
shall be referred for evaluation and treatment.
18VAC90-40-240. Medical records.
The prescriber shall keep current, accurate, and complete
records in an accessible manner and readily available for review to include:
1. The medical history and physical examination;
2. Past medical history;
3. Applicable records from prior treatment providers or any
documentation of attempts to obtain those records;
4. Diagnostic, therapeutic, and laboratory results;
5. Evaluations and consultations;
6. Treatment goals;
7. Discussion of risks and benefits;
8. Informed consent and agreement for treatment;
9. Treatments;
10. Medications, including date, type, dosage and quantity
prescribed, and refills;
11. Patient instructions; and
12. Periodic reviews.
Part VII
Prescribing of Buprenorphine
18VAC90-40-250. General provisions.
A. Practitioners engaged in office-based opioid addiction
treatment with buprenorphine shall have obtained a waiver from SAMHSA and the
appropriate U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration registration.
B. Practitioners shall abide by all federal and state laws
and regulations governing the prescribing of buprenorphine for the treatment of
opioid use disorder.
C. Nurse practitioners who have obtained a SAMHSA waiver
shall only prescribe buprenorphine for opioid addiction pursuant to a practice
agreement with a SAMHSA-waivered doctor of medicine or doctor of osteopathic
medicine.
D. Practitioners engaged in medication-assisted treatment
shall either provide counseling in their practice or refer the patient to a
mental health service provider, as defined in § 54.1-2400.1 of the Code of
Virginia, who has the education and experience to provide substance
misuse counseling. The practitioner shall document provision of counseling
or referral in the medical record.
18VAC90-40-260. Patient assessment and treatment planning.
A. A practitioner shall perform and document an assessment
that includes a comprehensive medical and psychiatric history, substance misuse
history, family history and psychosocial supports, appropriate physical
examination, urine drug screen, pregnancy test for women of childbearing age
and ability, a check of the Prescription Monitoring Program, and, when
clinically indicated, infectious disease testing for human immunodeficiency
virus, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and tuberculosis.
B. The treatment plan shall include the practitioner's
rationale for selecting medication assisted treatment, patient education,
written informed consent, how counseling will be accomplished, and a signed
treatment agreement that outlines the responsibilities of the patient and the
practitioner.
18VAC90-40-270. Treatment with buprenorphine.
A. Buprenorphine without naloxone (buprenorphine
mono-product) shall not be prescribed except:
1. When a patient is pregnant;
2. When converting a patient from methadone or
buprenorphine mono-product to buprenorphine containing naloxone for a period
not to exceed seven days;
3. In formulations other than tablet form for indications
approved by the FDA; or
4. For patients who have a demonstrated intolerance to
naloxone; such prescriptions for the mono-product shall not exceed 3.0% of the
total prescriptions for buprenorphine written by the prescriber, and the
exception shall be clearly documented in the patient's medical record.
B. Buprenorphine mono-product tablets may be administered
directly to patients in federally licensed opiate treatment programs. With the
exception of those conditions listed in subsection A of this section, only the
buprenorphine product containing naloxone shall be prescribed or
dispensed for use off site from the program.
C. The evidence for the decision to use buprenorphine
mono-product shall be fully documented in the medical record.
D. Due to a higher risk of fatal overdose when
buprenorphine is prescribed with other opioids, benzodiazepines, sedative
hypnotics, carisoprodol, and tramadol, the prescriber shall only co-prescribe
these substances when there are extenuating circumstances and shall document in
the medical record a tapering plan to achieve the lowest possible effective
doses if these medications are prescribed.
E. Prior to starting medication-assisted treatment, the
practitioner shall perform a check of the Prescription Monitoring Program.
F. During the induction phase, except for medically
indicated circumstances as documented in the medical record, patients should be
started on no more than eight milligrams of buprenorphine per day. The patient
shall be seen by the prescriber at least once a week.
G. During the stabilization phase, the prescriber shall
increase the daily dosage of buprenorphine in safe and effective increments to
achieve the lowest dose that avoids intoxication, withdrawal, or significant
drug craving.
H. Practitioners shall take steps to reduce the chances of
buprenorphine diversion by using the lowest effective dose, appropriate
frequency of office visits, pill counts, and checks of the Prescription
Monitoring Program. The practitioner shall also require urine drug screens or
serum medication levels at least every three months for the first year of
treatment and at least every six months thereafter.
I. Documentation of the rationale for prescribed doses
exceeding 16 milligrams of buprenorphine per day shall be placed in the medical
record. Dosages exceeding 24 milligrams of buprenorphine per day shall not
be prescribed.
J. The practitioner shall incorporate relapse prevention
strategies into counseling or assure that they are addressed by a mental health
service provider, as defined in § 54.1-2400.1 of the Code of Virginia, who
has the education and experience to provide substance abuse counseling.
18VAC90-40-280. Special populations.
A. Pregnant women may be treated with the
buprenorphine mono-product, usually 16 milligrams per day or less.
B. Patients younger than the age of 16 years shall not be
prescribed buprenorphine for addiction treatment unless such treatment is
approved by the FDA.
C. The progress of patients with chronic pain shall be
assessed by reduction of pain and functional objectives that can be identified,
quantified, and independently verified.
D. Practitioners shall (i) evaluate patients with medical
comorbidities by history, physical exam, and appropriate laboratory studies and
(ii) be aware of interactions of buprenorphine with other prescribed
medications.
E. Practitioners shall not undertake buprenorphine
treatment with a patient who has psychiatric comorbidities and is not stable. A
patient who is determined by the practitioner to be psychiatrically unstable
shall be referred for psychiatric evaluation and treatment prior to initiating
medication-assisted treatment.
18VAC90-40-290. Medical records for opioid addiction
treatment.
A. Records shall be timely, accurate, legible, complete,
and readily accessible for review.
B. The treatment agreement and informed consent shall be
maintained in the medical record.
C. Confidentiality requirements of 42 CFR Part 2 shall be
followed.
VA.R. Doc. No. R17-5096; Filed June 15, 2018, 12:47 p.m.
TITLE 18. PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING
BOARD OF PHARMACY
Proposed Regulation
Title of Regulation: 18VAC110-20. Regulations
Governing the Practice of Pharmacy (amending 18VAC110-20-690, 18VAC110-20-700,
18VAC110-20-710; adding 18VAC110-20-735).
Statutory Authority: § 54.1-2400 of the Code of
Virginia.
Public Hearing Information:
August 23, 2018 - 9:30 a.m. - Department of Health
Professions, Perimeter Center, 9960 Mayland Drive, Suite 201, Richmond, VA
23233
Public Comment Deadline: September 7, 2018.
Agency Contact: Caroline Juran, RPh, Executive Director,
Board of Pharmacy, 9960 Mayland Drive, Suite 300, Richmond, VA 23233-1463,
telephone (804) 367-4456, FAX (804) 527-4472, or email
caroline.juran@dhp.virginia.gov.
Basis: Regulations are promulgated under the general
authority of § 54.1-2400 of the Code of Virginia, which provides the Board
of Pharmacy the authority to promulgate regulations to administer the
regulatory system. The specific authority of the board to issue controlled
substance registrations (CSRs) to the entities specified in the amended
regulations is found in §§ 54.1-3408 and 54.1-3423 of the Code of
Virginia.
Purpose: The primary purpose of the proposed amendments
to regulations for a controlled substances registration is to address the
mental health needs and opioid crisis in the Commonwealth. The goal of the
amendments allowing entities, such as community services boards, to serve as
the point of contact for telemedicine is to increase access to psychiatric
services in more rural parts of the state where those specialty practices are
few and far between. The goal of the amendments allowing community trainers to
obtain a CSR is to increase access to naloxone by allowing people other than
pharmacists to dispense the drug. Some nonprofit organizations that are
authorized by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services to
provide training to persons in the community have been successful in obtaining
resources to purchase naloxone at a reduced rate. However, under current law,
they cannot store it or dispense it. Allowing these community organizations to
dispense the medication will promote access to this lifesaving drug.
In spite of recent efforts to facilitate access to naloxone,
which has proven to save lives, the number of deaths related to opioid overdose
continues to rise. The primary purpose of the proposed amendments is to
increase access to naloxone by allowing people other than pharmacists to
dispense the drug. Likewise, to address a problem with teleprescribing of
psychiatric drugs by a clinic at the University of Virginia Hospital, the
solution for continuation of those services appears to be issuance of a CSR to
a community services board where the examination and treatment can occur in
accordance with state and federal law and regulation, and the
practitioner-patient relationship can be established for the purpose of
prescribing. Both uses of a CSR are intended to address the critical needs for
mental health treatment and dispensing of a medication that saves lives in an
overdose crisis. Regulations are crafted to increase access to psychiatric
medications and naloxone without unnecessarily and unduly compromising the
board's requirements for drug safety and integrity.
Substance: This proposed action replaces emergency
regulations, which were adopted to authorize issuance of a controlled
substances registration to (i) persons who have been trained in the
administration of naloxone in order to possess and dispense the drug to persons
receiving training and (ii) an entity for the purpose of establishing a bona
fide practitioner-patient relationship for prescribing when treatment is
provided by telemedicine in accordance with federal rules. As applicable,
regulations for controlled substances registrants are amended to include
recordkeeping, security, and storage requirements.
Issues: The primary advantage to the public is the
potential for more availability of naloxone for persons who have been trained
in its use or for the possibility of telemedicine and teleprescribing for
patients in underserved areas who may be receiving care via instrumentation and
diagnostic equipment. There are no disadvantages to the public. There are no
advantages or disadvantages to the agency.
The Department of Planning and Budget's Economic Impact
Analysis:
Summary of the Proposed Amendments to Regulation. Pursuant to
Chapters 55 and 58 of the 2017 Acts of the Assembly, the Board of Pharmacy
(Board) proposes to amend their regulation to allow the issuance of controlled
substances registration to: "1) persons who have been trained in the
administration of naloxone in order to possess and dispense the drug to persons
receiving training and 2) an entity for the purpose of establishing a bona fide
practitioner-patient relationship for prescribing when treatment is provided by
telemedicine in accordance with federal rules." These proposed regulatory
amendments will replace emergency amendments that became effective May 8, 2017
and that are currently set to expire on November 7, 2018.
Result of Analysis. Benefits likely outweigh costs for all
proposed changes.
Estimated Economic Impact. In 2017, Chapters 55 and 58 became
law. As reported by the Board of Pharmacy, Chapter 55:1
"Allows a person who is authorized by the Department of
Behavioral Health and Developmental Services to train individuals on the
administration of naloxone for use in opioid overdose reversal and who is
acting on behalf of an organization that provides services to individuals at
risk of experiencing opioid overdose or training in the administration of
naloxone for overdose reversal and that has obtained a controlled substances
registration from the Board of Pharmacy pursuant to § 54.1-3423 to dispense
naloxone to a person who has completed a training program on the administration
of naloxone for opioid overdose reversal, provided that such dispensing is (i)
pursuant to a standing order issued by a prescriber, (ii) in accordance with
protocols developed by the Board of Pharmacy in consultation with the Board of
Medicine and the Department of Health, and (iii) without charge or
compensation. The bill also provides that dispensing may occur at a site other
than that of the controlled substance registration, provided that the entity
possessing the controlled substance registration maintains records in
accordance with regulations of the Board of Pharmacy."
Chapter 58:2
"Provides that a health care practitioner who performs or
has performed an appropriate examination of the patient, either physically or
by the use of instrumentation and diagnostic equipment3, for the
purpose of establishing a bona fide practitioner-patient relationship may
prescribe Schedule II through VI controlled substances to the patient, provided
that the prescribing of such controlled substance is in compliance with federal
requirements for the practice of telemedicine. The bill also authorizes the
Board of Pharmacy to register an entity at which a patient is treated by the
use of instrumentation and diagnostic equipment for the purpose of establishing
a bona fide practitioner-patient relationship and is prescribed Schedule II
through VI controlled substances to possess and administer Schedule II through
VI controlled substances when such prescribing is in compliance with federal
requirements for the practice of telemedicine and the patient is not in the
physical presence of a practitioner registered with the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration."
Both of these Chapters contain language requiring the Board to
promulgate emergency regulations to implement their mandates. The Board
promulgated emergency regulations that became effective May 8, 2017, and that
are currently set to expire on November 7, 2018.
The Board now proposes to promulgate regulatory amendments to
replace the emergency amendments that are currently in place. The proposed
language is identical to the emergency language that is currently effective. In
addition to allowing the issuance of controlled substances registration to
entities listed in Chapters 55 and 58, the Board's proposed regulation sets
rules for recordkeeping as required by Chapter 55. Specifically, "persons
authorized by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services to
train individuals on the administration of naloxone and to dispense naloxone for
opioid overdose reversal…" will have to maintain records that include: 1)
the prescriber's standing order authorizing the trained individual to dispense
naloxone; 2) invoices or other records showing receipt of naloxone;4
3) a manual or electronic log that records the name, strength, lot, expiration
date and quantity of naloxone transferred from the controlled substances
registration location to the off-site training location along with the date of
transfer and the name of the trained individual approved by the Department of
Behavioral Health and Developmental Services; and 4) records for dispensing of
naloxone that when and to whom naloxone was dispensed. Records will have to be
filed chronologically and maintained for at least two years.
Individuals who newly qualify for controlled substances
registration, and who choose to get and maintain that registration, will incur
an initial fee of $90 and a renewal fee of $90 every year thereafter.
Additionally, individuals who are subject to the recordkeeping requirements
proposed by the Board in this action will incur some recordkeeping costs that
include time spent compiling records and, if records are in paper, copying
costs. These costs will likely be outweighed by the benefits that will accrue
to individuals who overdose on opioids and may have their lives saved because
they have easier access to naloxone. Individuals in Southwest Virginia, where
psychiatric and other medical services are less readily available, will likely
benefit disproportionately from this proposed regulation and the statutory
changes that authorize and require it.
Businesses and Entities Affected. This regulatory action will
affect all individuals who will newly qualify for controlled substances
registration as well as the patients they may help. Board staff reports that
there are 1,168 controlled substances registrants in the Commonwealth, but that
it is likely that only a few registrations have been issued under the emergency
regulation that this proposed regulation will replace.
Localities Particularly Affected. Localities in Southwest
Virginia will particularly benefit from this proposed regulation.
Projected Impact on Employment. These proposed regulatory
changes are unlikely to affect employment in the Commonwealth.
Effects on the Use and Value of Private Property. These
proposed regulatory changes are unlikely to affect the use or value of private
property in the Commonwealth.
Real Estate Development Costs. These proposed regulatory
changes are unlikely to affect real estate development costs in the
Commonwealth.
Small Businesses:
Definition. Pursuant to § 2.2-4007.04 of the Code of Virginia,
small business is defined as "a business entity, including its affiliates,
that (i) is independently owned and operated and (ii) employs fewer than 500
full-time employees or has gross annual sales of less than $6 million."
Costs and Other Effects. No small businesses are likely to
incur any additional costs on account of these proposed regulatory changes.
Alternative Method that Minimizes Adverse Impact. No small
businesses are likely to incur any additional costs on account of these
proposed regulatory changes.
Adverse Impacts:
Businesses: No businesses are likely to incur any additional
costs on account of these proposed regulatory changes.
Localities: Localities in the Commonwealth are unlikely to see
any adverse impacts on account of these proposed regulatory changes.
Other Entities: No other entities are likely to be adversely
affected by these proposed changes.
___________________________________________
1http://townhall.virginia.gov/l/viewmandate.cfm?mandateid=818.
2http://townhall.virginia.gov/l/viewmandate.cfm?mandateid=819. http://townhall.virginia.gov/l/viewmandate.cfm?mandateid=839.
3Board staff reports that instrumentation can include
physical medical equipment to do such things as measure blood pressure,
temperature, etc. or may include the ability to connect via Skype so that the
practitioner can meet face to face virtually with patients, depending on the
applicable standard of care.
4These records can be maintained electronically.
Agency's Response to Economic Impact Analysis: The Board
of Pharmacy concurs with the analysis of the Department of Planning and Budget.
Summary:
Pursuant to Chapters 55 and 58 of the 2017 Acts of Assembly,
the proposed amendments authorize issuance of a controlled substances
registration (i) to persons who have been trained in the administration of
naloxone in order to possess and dispense the drug to persons receiving
training and (ii) to an entity for the purpose of establishing a bona fide
practitioner-patient relationship for prescribing when treatment is provided by
telemedicine in accordance with federal rules. The amendments include
applicable recordkeeping, security, and storage requirements. The proposed
amendments replace emergency regulations currently in effect.
18VAC110-20-690. Persons or entities authorized or required to
obtain a controlled substances registration.
A. A person or entity which that maintains or
intends to maintain a supply of Schedule Schedules II through
Schedule VI controlled substances, other than manufacturers' samples, in
accordance with provisions of the Drug Control Act (§ 54.1-3400 et seq. of
the Code of Virginia) may apply for a controlled substances registration on
forms approved by the board.
B. Persons or entities which that may be
registered by the board shall include, but not be limited to, hospitals
without in-house pharmacies, nursing homes without in-house pharmacies that use
automated drug dispensing systems, ambulatory surgery centers, outpatient
clinics, alternate delivery sites, crisis stabilization units, persons
authorized by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services to
train individuals on the administration of naloxone and to dispense naloxone
for opioid overdose reversal, and emergency medical services agencies
provided such persons or entities are otherwise authorized by law and hold
required licenses or appropriate credentials to administer the drugs for which
the registration is being sought.
C. In determining whether to register an applicant, the board
shall consider factors listed in subsections A and D of § 54.1-3423 of the
Code of Virginia and compliance with applicable requirements of this chapter.
1. The proposed location shall be inspected by an authorized
agent of the board prior to issuance of a controlled substances registration.
2. Controlled substances registration applications that
indicate a requested inspection date, or requests that are received
after the application is filed, shall be honored provided a 14-day
notice is allowed prior to the requested inspection date.
3. Requested inspection dates that do not allow a 14-day
notice to the board may be adjusted by the board to provide 14 days for the
scheduling of the inspection.
4. Any person wishing to change an approved location of the
drug stock, make structural changes to an existing approved drug storage
location, or make changes to a previously approved security system shall file
an application with the board and be inspected.
5. Drugs shall not be stocked within the proposed drug storage
location or moved to a new location until approval is granted by the board.
D. The application shall be signed by a person who will act
as a responsible party for the controlled substances. The responsible party may
be a prescriber, nurse, pharmacist, or pharmacy technician for alternate
delivery sites, a person authorized by the Department of Behavioral Health
and Developmental Services to train individuals on the administration of
naloxone and to dispense naloxone for opioid overdose reversal, or other
person approved by the board who is authorized to administer the controlled
substances.
E. The board may require a person or entity to obtain a
controlled substances registration upon a determination that Schedule Schedules
II through VI controlled substances have been obtained and are being used as
common stock by multiple practitioners and that one or more of the following
factors exist:
1. A federal, state, or local government agency has reported
that the person or entity has made large purchases of controlled substances in
comparison with other persons or entities in the same classification or
category.
2. The person or entity has experienced a diversion, theft, or
other unusual loss of controlled substances which requires reporting pursuant
to § 54.1-3404 of the Drug Control Act.
3. The person or entity has failed to comply with
recordkeeping requirements for controlled substances.
4. The person or entity or any other person with access to the
common stock has violated any provision of federal, state, or local law or
regulation relating to controlled substances.
F. The board may issue a controlled substance registration
to an entity at which a patient is being treated by the use of instrumentation
and diagnostic equipment through which images and medical records may be
transmitted electronically for the purpose of establishing a bona fide
practitioner-patient relationship and is being prescribed Schedules II through
VI controlled substances when such prescribing is in compliance with federal
requirements for the practice of telemedicine and the patient is not in the
physical presence of a practitioner registered with the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration provided:
1. There is a documented need for such registration, and
issuance of the registration of the entity is consistent with the public
interest;
2. The entity is under the general supervision of a
licensed pharmacist or a practitioner of medicine, osteopathy, podiatry,
dentistry, or veterinary medicine; and
3. The application is signed by a person who will act as
the responsible party for the entity for the purpose of compliance with
provisions of this subsection. The responsible party shall be a prescriber,
nurse, pharmacist, or other person who is authorized by provisions of § 54.1-3408
of the Code of Virginia to administer controlled substances.
18VAC110-20-700. Requirements for supervision for controlled
substances registrants.
A. A practitioner licensed in Virginia shall provide
supervision for all aspects of practice related to the maintenance and use of
controlled substances as follows:
1. In a hospital or nursing home without an in-house pharmacy,
a pharmacist shall supervise.
2. In an emergency medical services agency, the operational
medical director shall supervise.
3. For any other type of applicant or registrant, a pharmacist
or a prescriber whose scope of practice is consistent with the practice of the
applicant or registrant and who is approved by the board may provide the
required supervision.
B. The supervising practitioner shall approve the list of
drugs which that may be ordered by the holder of the controlled
substances registration; possession of controlled substances by the entity
shall be limited to such approved drugs. The list of drugs approved by the
supervising practitioner shall be maintained at the address listed on the
controlled substances registration.
C. Access to the controlled substances shall be limited to
(i) the supervising practitioner or to those persons who are authorized by the
supervising practitioner and who are authorized by law to administer drugs in
Virginia; (ii) such other persons who have successfully completed a training
program for repackaging of prescription drug orders in a CSB, BHA, or PACE site
as authorized in § 54.1-3420.2 of the Code of Virginia; or (iii)
other such persons as designated by the supervising practitioner or the
responsible party to have access in an emergency situation, or (iv) persons
authorized by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services to
train individuals on the administration of naloxone and to dispense naloxone
for opioid overdose reversal. If approved by the supervising practitioner,
pharmacy technicians may have access for the purpose of delivering controlled
substances to the registrant, stocking controlled substances in automated
dispensing devices, conducting inventories, audits and other recordkeeping
requirements, overseeing delivery of dispensed prescriptions at an alternate
delivery site, and repackaging of prescription drug orders retained by a CSB,
BHA, or PACE site as authorized in § 54.1-3420.2 of the Code of Virginia.
Access to stock drugs in a crisis stabilization unit shall be limited to
prescribers, nurses, or pharmacists.
D. The supervising practitioner shall establish procedures
for and provide training as necessary to ensure compliance with all
requirements of law and regulation, including, but not limited to,
storage, security, and recordkeeping.
E. Within 14 days of a change in the responsible party or
supervising practitioner assigned to the registration, either the responsible
party or outgoing responsible party shall inform the board, and a new
application shall be submitted indicating the name and license number, if
applicable, of the new responsible party or supervising practitioner.
18VAC110-20-710. Requirements for storage and security for
controlled substances registrants.
A. Drugs shall be stored under conditions which that
meet USP-NF specifications or manufacturers' suggested storage for each drug.
B. Any drug which that has exceeded the
expiration date shall not be administered; it shall be separated from the stock
used for administration and maintained in a separate, locked area until
properly disposed.
C. If a controlled substances registrant wishes to dispose of
unwanted or expired Schedule Schedules II through VI drugs, he
shall transfer the drugs to another person or entity authorized to possess and
to provide for proper disposal of such drugs.
D. Drugs shall be maintained in a lockable cabinet, cart,
device, or other area which that shall be locked at all
times when not in use. The keys or access code shall be restricted to the
supervising practitioner and persons designated access in accordance with
18VAC110-20-700 C.
E. In a facility not staffed 24 hours a day, the drugs shall
be stored in a fixed and secured room, cabinet or area which that
has a security device for the detection of breaking which that
meets the following conditions:
1. The device shall be a sound, microwave, photoelectric,
ultrasonic, or any other generally accepted and suitable device.
2. The installation and device shall be based on accepted
alarm industry standards.
3. The device shall be maintained in operating order, have an
auxiliary source of power, be monitored in accordance with accepted industry
standards, be maintained in operating order; and shall be capable of sending an
alarm signal to the monitoring entity if breached and the communication line is
not operational.
4. The device shall fully protect all areas where prescription
drugs are stored and shall be capable of detecting breaking by any means when
activated.
5. Access to the alarm system shall be restricted to only
designated and necessary persons, and the system shall be activated whenever
the drug storage areas are closed for business.
6. An alarm system is not required for researchers, animal
control officers, humane societies, alternate delivery sites as provided in 18VAC110-20-275,
emergency medical services agencies stocking only intravenous fluids with no
added drug, persons authorized by the Department of Behavioral Health and
Developmental Services to train individuals on the administration of naloxone
and to dispense naloxone for opioid overdose reversal, and teaching
institutions possessing only Schedule VI drugs.
18VAC110-20-735. Requirements for dispensing of naloxone by
trained individuals.
A. Persons authorized by the Department of Behavioral
Health and Developmental Services to train individuals on the administration of
naloxone and dispense naloxone for opioid overdose reversal pursuant to
subsection Y of § 54.1-3408 of the Code of Virginia shall maintain the
following records:
1. The prescriber's standing order issued in accordance
with subsection Y of § 54.1-3408 of the Code of Virginia authorizing the
trained individual to dispense naloxone.
2. Invoices or other records showing receipts of naloxone
shall be maintained, but may be stored in an electronic database or record as
an electronic image that provides an exact, clearly legible image of the
document or in secured storage either on site or off site. All records in
off-site storage or database shall be retrieved and made available for
inspection or audit within 48 hours of a request by the board or an authorized
agent.
3. A manual or electronic log indicating the name,
strength, lot, expiration date, and quantity of naloxone transferred to and
from the controlled substances registration location to the off-site training
location, along with date of transfer and the name of the trained individual
approved by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services.
4. Record of dispensing indicating the name of the person
receiving naloxone, address or contact information if available, date of
dispensing, drug name, strength, quantity, lot number, expiration date, and the
name of the trained individual approved by the Department of Behavioral Health
and Developmental Services to dispense naloxone.
B. The naloxone shall be labeled with directions for use
in accordance with the prescriber's standing order, date of dispensing, name of
person receiving the drug, drug name and strength, and the name and the
telephone number for the entity associated with the controlled substances
registration.
C. The naloxone shall be stored and transported under
appropriate storage conditions in accordance with the manufacturer's directions
to protect it from adulteration.
D. In the event of a manufacturer recall, the supervising
practitioner or responsible party associated with the controlled substances
registration certificate shall ensure compliance with recall procedures as
issued by the manufacturer, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or board to
ensure an affected drug is transferred to a person or entity authorized to
possess the drug for return or destruction.
E. Except for a prescriber's standing order, which shall
be maintained on site for a period of not less than two years from the date of
the last dispensing, records shall be filed chronologically and maintained for
a period of not less than two years from the date of transaction.
VA.R. Doc. No. R17-5048; Filed June 15, 2018, 12:56 p.m.
TITLE 18. PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING
BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE
Final Regulation
Title of Regulation: 18VAC150-20. Regulations
Governing the Practice of Veterinary Medicine (adding 18VAC150-20-174).
Statutory Authority: § 54.1-2400 of the Code of
Virginia.
Effective Date: August 8, 2018.
Agency Contact: Leslie L. Knachel, Executive Director,
Board of Veterinary Medicine, 9960 Mayland Drive, Suite 300, Richmond, VA
23233, telephone (804) 367-4468, FAX (804) 527-4471, or email
leslie.knachel@dhp.virginia.gov.
Summary:
The amendments establish requirements for the prescribing
by veterinarians of controlled substances containing opioids, including
tramadol and buprenorphine. The regulation provides for the management of pain,
including requirements (i) for the evaluation of the patient, limitations on
quantity and dosage, and recordkeeping; (ii) for chronic conditions or terminal
illnesses that require prescribing an opioid for more than 14 days, an allowance
for prescribing a dosage, quantity, and formulation appropriate for an animal
according to species and size; and (iii) for continuation of treatment and for
the content of the medical record.
Summary of Public Comments and Agency's Response: A
summary of comments made by the public and the agency's response may be obtained
from the promulgating agency or viewed at the office of the Registrar of
Regulations.
18VAC150-20-174. Prescribing of controlled substances for
pain or chronic conditions.
A. Evaluation of the patient and need for prescribing a
controlled substance for pain.
1. For the purposes of this section, a controlled substance
shall be a Schedules II through V drug, as set forth in the Drug Control Act (§ 54.1-3400
et seq. of the Code of Virginia), which contains an opioid [ , to
include tramadol and buprenorphine ].
2. Nonpharmacologic and non-opioid treatment for pain shall
be given consideration prior to treatment with opioids. Prior to initiating
treatment with a controlled substance, as defined, the prescriber shall perform
a history and physical examination appropriate to the complaint and conduct an
assessment of the patient's history as part of the initial evaluation.
3. If a controlled substance is necessary for treatment of
[ acute ] pain, the veterinarian shall prescribe it
in the lowest effective dose appropriate to the size and species of the animal
for the least amount of time. The [ initial ] dose
shall not exceed a 14-day supply.
B. If the prescribing is within the accepted standard of
care, a veterinarian may prescribe a controlled substance containing an opioid
for management of [ chronic ] pain, terminal
illnesses, or certain chronic conditions, such as chronic heart failure,
chronic bronchitis, osteoarthritis, collapsing trachea, or related conditions.
1. For prescribing a controlled substance for management of
pain after the initial 14-day prescription [ referenced in
subsection A of this section ], the patient shall be seen and
evaluated for the continued need for an opioid. [ For the
prescribing of a controlled substance for terminal illnesses or certain chronic
conditions, it is not required to see and reevaluate the patient for
prescribing beyond 14 days. ]
2. For any prescribing of a controlled substance beyond 14
days, the veterinarian shall develop a treatment plan for the patient, which
shall include measures to be used to determine progress in treatment, further
diagnostic evaluations or modalities that might be necessary, and the extent to
which the pain or condition is associated with [ physical ]
impairment.
3. For continued prescribing of a controlled substance, the
patient shall be seen and reevaluated at least every six months, and the
justification for such prescribing documented in the patient record.
C. Prior to prescribing or dispensing a controlled
substance, the veterinarian shall document a discussion with the owner about
the [ known risks and benefits of opioid therapy, the ]
responsibility for the security of the drug and proper disposal of any
unused drug.
D. Continuation of treatment with controlled substances
shall be supported by documentation of continued benefit from the prescribing.
If the patient's progress is unsatisfactory, the veterinarian shall assess the
appropriateness of continued use of the current treatment plan and consider the
use of other therapeutic modalities.
E. [ Prescribing of buprenorphine for
outpatient administration shall only occur in accordance with the following:
1. The dosage, quantity, and formulation shall be
appropriate for the patient; and
2. The prescription shall not exceed a seven-day supply.
Any prescribing beyond seven days shall be consistent with an appropriate
standard of care and only after a reexamination of the patient as documented in
the patient record.
F. ] The medical record for prescribing
controlled substances shall include signs or presentation of the pain or
condition, a presumptive diagnosis for the origin of the pain or condition, an
examination appropriate to the complaint, a treatment plan, and the medication
prescribed to include the date, type, dosage, and quantity prescribed.
VA.R. Doc. No. R17-5103; Filed June 15, 2018, 12:30 p.m.
TITLE 20. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION
Final Regulation
REGISTRAR'S NOTICE: The
State Corporation Commission is claiming an exemption from the Administrative
Process Act in accordance with § 2.2-4002 A 2 of the Code of Virginia,
which exempts courts, any agency of the Supreme Court, and any agency that by
the Constitution is expressly granted any of the powers of a court of record.
Title of Regulation: 20VAC5-309. Rules for
Enforcement of the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act (amending 20VAC5-309-150).
Statutory Authority: §§ 12.1-13 and 56-265.30 of the
Code of Virginia.
Effective Date: July 1, 2018.
Agency Contact: Aaron Campbell, Associate General
Counsel, State Corporation Commission, P.O. Box 1197, Richmond, VA 23218,
telephone (804) 371-9117, FAX (804) 371-9734, or email
aaron.campbell@scc.virginia.gov.
Summary:
The amendments allow for trenchless excavation across
gravity fed sewer mains and combination storm/sanitary sewer system utility
lines without exposing the facilities if (i) a video camera designed to pass
through the underground facilities is able to communicate the location, depth,
diameter, and condition of those facilities to the excavator and (ii) certain
other safety and notification requirements are met. Other changes (i) clarify
throughout the regulation that "project" means a trenchless
excavation project and (ii) modify the beginning of the required retention
period for video documentation to "from the time of the notice of excavation"
rather than "from the time of the bore."
AT RICHMOND, JUNE 12, 2018
PETITION OF
COLUMBIA GAS OF VIRGINIA, INC.
CASE NO. URS-2018-00005
For rulemaking to revise requirement
for trenchless excavation set forth in
20VAC5-309-150 of the Rules for
Enforcement of the Underground
Utility Damage Prevention Act
ORDER ADOPTING REGULATIONS
On January 23, 2018, Columbia Gas of Virginia
("Petitioner" or "CVA") filed a Petition for Rulemaking
("Petition") with the State Corporation Commission
("Commission").1 The Petitioner requested that the
Commission initiate a rulemaking for the limited purpose of revising
20VAC5-309-150 ("Rule 150") of the Commission's Rules for Enforcement
of the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act, 20VAC5-309-10 et seq., that
prescribes requirements for trenchless excavation. The Petition included
proposed language ("Proposed Rule") to be considered by the
Commission.
The Petitioner stated that the Proposed Rule would (i)
provide for greater flexibility when conducting trenchless excavation that
crosses gravity fed sewer mains and combination storm/sanitary sewer system
utility lines and (ii) enhance the safety and efficiency of conducting such
excavations.2 Specifically, CVA proposed the following
modifications: (1) add a subsection "B" applicable to conducting
trenchless excavations crossing gravity fed sewer mains or combinations of
storm/sanitary sewer system utility lines where the exposing of such lines is
not required, provided the company utilizes camera technology and other
techniques detailed within the new subsection; and (2) add a subsection
"C" that restricts the application of the new subsection
"B" to gravity fed sewer mains or combination storm/sanitary systems
considered "utility lines," as that term is defined in § 56-265.15 of
the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act.3
On March 5, 2018, the Commission entered an Order
Establishing Proceeding ("Procedural Order") which, among other things,
directed that notice of the Proposed Rule be given to interested persons and
that such interested persons and the Commission Staff ("Staff") be
provided an opportunity to file written comments on, propose modifications or
supplements to, or request a hearing on the Proposed Rule. The Procedural Order
directed the Commission's Division of Information Resources to provide a copy
thereof to the Registrar of Regulations for publication in the Virginia
Register of Regulations.4 The Procedural
Order further directed the Petitioner: (i) to serve a copy thereof upon each
member of the Commission's Underground Utility Damage Prevention Advisory
Committee and each entity listed in Attachment B of the Order5 and
(ii) to present the Petition formally at the Virginia Damage Prevention
Conference to be held on April 24-26, 2018.6
On April 5, 2018, Staff filed
comments proposing slightly revised language for consideration by the
Commission that did not materially change the substance of the Proposed Rule.
On May 17, 2018, the Virginia Cable Television Communications Association filed
comments supporting the Petition as well as Staff's slightly revised language.
Also on May 17, 2018, Washington Gas Light Company filed a letter supporting
CVA's proposal. On May 21, 2018, Virginia Natural Gas, Inc., filed
"clarifying comments regarding the proposed revisions to Rule 150,"
wherein it suggested a possible interpretation of the new language in the
Proposed Rule related to documentation an excavator would receive from the
utility line operator notifying of the proposed trenchless excavation.7
On May 31, 2018, the Petitioner filed Reply Comments providing the Commission
with additional background regarding dialogue with industry stakeholders that
took place prior to CVA filing its Petition.8 CVA stated that
the Proposed Rule provides flexibility for an excavator and operator to develop
notification processes tailored to their specific circumstances.9
CVA also clarified that it is agreeable to Staff's suggested modifications to
the Proposed Rule.10
NOW THE COMMISSION, having
considered this matter, is of the opinion and finds that the Proposed Rule,
incorporating the modifications suggested by Staff, should be approved.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
THAT:
(1) The Commission's Rules for
Enforcement of the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act, 20 VAC 5-309-10
et seq., hereby are adopted as shown in Attachment A to this Order and shall
become effective as of July 1, 2018.
(2) A copy of these regulations
as set out in Attachment A of this Order Adopting Regulations shall be
forwarded to the Registrar of Regulations for publication in the Virginia
Register.
(3) This case is dismissed.
AN ATTESTED COPY hereof shall be sent by the Clerk of the
Commission to all persons on the official Service List in this matter. The
Service List is available from the Clerk of the State Corporation Commission,
c/o Document Control Center, 1300 E. Main Street, First Floor, Tyler Building,
Richmond, Virginia 23219. A copy shall also be sent to the Commission's Office
of General Counsel and Division Utility and Railroad Safety.
________________________________________________
1On December 15, 2017, CVA presented draft language for
the proposed rulemaking at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Underground
Damage Prevention Advisory Committee.
2Petition at 1.
3Id. at 4 and Attachment A.
4The Order Establishing Proceeding and the proposed
regulation were published in the April 2, 2018 issue of the Virginia Register
of Regulations.
5On March 30, 2018, the Petitioner filed a Certificate
of Service stating that it had mailed a copy of the Procedural Order to each
member of the Underground Damage Prevention Advisory Committee as well as each
Virginia Local Natural Gas Distribution Company.
6On April 25, 2018, the Petitioner formally presented
the Petition at the Virginia Damage Prevention Conference.
7Comments of Virginia Natural Gas, Inc., at 1-2.
8Comments of CVA at 4.
9Id. at 5.
10Id. at 2.
20VAC5-309-150. Requirement for trenchless excavation.
A. Any person conducting trenchless excavation shall
take all reasonable steps necessary to protect and support underground utility
lines. These Except as provided in subsection B of this section,
these steps shall include [ , but are not limited to ] the
following:
1. The excavator should verify that all utility lines in the
area are marked;
2. The excavator shall ensure that bore equipment stakes are
installed at a safe distance from marked utility lines;
3. When grounding rods are used, the excavator shall ensure
that they are installed at a safe distance (at least 24 inches plus the width
of the utility line, if known) away from the marked or staked location of
utility lines;
4. The excavator shall ensure sufficient clearance is
maintained between the bore path and any underground utility lines during
pullback;
5. The excavator shall give special consideration to water and
sewer systems within the area that cannot be located accurately;
6. Unless prohibited by other laws, ordinances, regulations,
or rules of governmental and regulatory authorities having jurisdiction, the
excavator shall expose all utility lines which that will be in
the bore path by hand digging to establish the underground utility line's
location prior to commencing bore. For a parallel type bore, unless prohibited
by other laws, ordinances, regulations, or rules of governmental and regulatory
authorities having jurisdiction, the excavator shall expose the utility line by
hand digging at reasonable distances along the bore path;
7. The excavator shall ensure the drill head locating device
is functioning properly and within its specification;
8. The excavator shall visually check the drill head as it
passes through potholes, entrances, and exit pits; and
9. If the depth indicated by the locating device is lower than
the bottom of the pothole or pit, the excavator shall cease boring until the hole/pit
hole or pit can be hand excavated further to maintain a visual
inspection of the drill head.
B. Notwithstanding the requirements of subdivision A 6 of this
section, any person conducting trenchless excavation crossing any gravity fed
sewer main or combination storm/sanitary sewer system utility lines need not
expose such utility lines by hand digging if, in addition to meeting the other
applicable requirements set forth in subsection A of this section, the
following steps are taken:
1. Prior to commencing a [ trenchless
excavation ] project, the excavator shall receive documentation
from the utility line operator (such as, but not limited to, documentation
through the permitting process) documenting that the operator has been notified
of the proposed trenchless excavation and that trenchless excavation will be
used to cross its underground utility line. The scope of a [ trenchless
excavation ] project shall not exceed the scope of a single notice
of excavation;
2. Prior to commencing the boring process, the excavator
shall determine (i) the depth of the utility line through appropriate locating
technology and (ii) the diameter and condition of the utility line using a
sewer system camera with video recording capability;
3. The excavator shall ensure that a clearance of at least
three feet is maintained between the bore path and the utility line;
4. Using the same type of video equipment identified in
subdivision B 2 of this section, after the [ bore
trenchless excavation project ] has been completed, the excavator
shall use a sewer system camera to determine the condition of the utility line
and ensure that no cross bore or other damage has occurred;
5. The excavator shall immediately notify the utility line
operator of any damage found; and
6. After the bore has been completed, the excavator shall
make all video documentation available to the utility line operator and the
division upon request. Such video documentation shall be maintained and made
available for 12 months from the time of the [ bore
notice of excavation ].
C. The provisions of subsection B of this section shall
apply only to gravity fed sewer mains or combination storm/sanitary systems
that are considered "utility lines" as that term is defined in §
56-265.15 of the Act.
VA.R. Doc. No. R18-5415; Filed June 13, 2018, 11:50 a.m.
TITLE 22. SOCIAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT FOR AGING AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
Notice of Extension of Emergency Regulation
Title of Regulation: 22VAC30-80. Auxiliary Grants
Program (amending 22VAC30-80-10, 22VAC30-80-20,
22VAC30-80-30, 22VAC30-80-45 through 22VAC30-80-70; adding 22VAC30-80-35).
Statutory Authority: §§ 51.5-131 and 51.5-160 of the
Code of Virginia.
Expiration Date Extended Through: January 7, 2019.
The Governor approved the Department for Aging and
Rehabilitative Services's request to extend this emergency regulation for six
months as provided in § 2.2-4011 D of the Code of Virginia. Therefore, the
emergency action will continue in effect through January 7, 2019. The second
enactment clause of Chapter 567 of the 2016 Acts of Assembly directed the
Commissioner of the Department for Aging and Rehabilitative Services to
promulgate regulations for the provision of supportive housing for individuals
receiving auxiliary grants. The emergency regulations were published in 33:10 VA.R. 1162-1166 January 9, 2017.
After the effective date of the emergency action, certain
sections included in the emergency action were amended by a separate regulatory
action pertaining to the receipt of third-party payments that became effective
October 4, 2017 (34:1 VA.R. 147-151 September 4, 2017).
The extended emergency regulation, incorporating the amendments
from the separate regulatory action, is set forth below.
Agency Contact: Tishaun Harris-Ugworji, Program
Consultant, Department for Aging and Rehabilitative Services, 8004 Franklin Farms
Drive, Richmond, VA 23229, telephone (804) 662-7531, or email
tishaun.harrisugworji@dars.virginia.gov.
22VAC30-80-10. Definitions.
The following words and terms when used in this chapter shall
have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
"Adult foster care" or "AFC" means a
locally optional program that provides room and board, supervision, and special
services to an individual who has a physical or mental health need. Adult
foster care may be provided for up to three individuals by any one provider who
is approved by the local department of social services.
"Assisted living care" means a level of service
provided by an assisted living facility for individuals who may have physical
or mental impairments and require at least moderate assistance with the
activities of daily living. Included in this level of service are individuals
who are dependent in behavior pattern (i.e., abusive, aggressive, disruptive)
as documented on the Uniform Assessment Instrument.
"Assisted living facility" or "ALF"
means, as defined in § 63.2-100 of the Code of Virginia, any congregate
residential setting that provides or coordinates personal and health care
services, 24-hour supervision, and assistance (scheduled and unscheduled) for
the maintenance or care of four or more adults who are aged, infirm or disabled
and who are cared for in a primarily residential setting, except (i) a facility
or portion of a facility licensed by the State Board of Health or the
Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services, but including any
portion of such facility not so licensed; (ii) the home or residence of an
individual who cares for or maintains only persons related to him by blood or
marriage; (iii) a facility or portion of a facility serving infirm or disabled
persons between the ages of 18 and 21, or 22 if enrolled in an educational
program for the handicapped pursuant to § 22.1-214 of the Code of Virginia,
when such facility is licensed by the department as a children's residential
facility under Chapter 17 (§ 63.2-1700 et seq.) of Title 63.2 of the Code of
Virginia, but including any portion of the facility not so licensed; and (iv)
any housing project for persons 62 years of age or older or the disabled that
provides no more than basic coordination of care services and is funded by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, or by the Virginia Housing Development Authority. Included in this
definition are any two or more places, establishments or institutions owned or
operated by a single entity and providing maintenance or care to a combined
total of four or more aged, infirm or disabled adults. Maintenance or care
means the protection, general supervision and oversight of the physical and
mental well-being of an aged, infirm or disabled individual. Assuming
responsibility for the well-being of individuals residing in an ALF, either
directly or through contracted agents, is considered "general supervision
and oversight."
"Authorized payee" means the individual who may be
a court-appointed conservator or guardian, a person with a valid power of
attorney, or an authorized representative with the documented authority to
accept funds on behalf of the individual. An authorized payee for the auxiliary
grant shall not be (i) the licensee or (ii) the owner of, employee of, or an
entity hired by or contracted by the ALF or AFC home.
"Authorized representative" means the person
representing or standing in place of the individual receiving the auxiliary
grant for the conduct of the auxiliary grant recipient's affairs (i.e.,
personal or business interests). "Authorized representative" may
include a guardian, conservator, attorney-in-fact under durable power of
attorney, trustee, or other person expressly named in writing by the individual
as his agent. An authorized representative shall not be (i) the licensee or
(ii) the owner of, employee of, or an entity hired by or contracted by the ALF
or AFC home unless the auxiliary grant recipient designates such a person to
assist with financial management of his personal needs allowance as a choice of
last resort because there is no other authorized representative willing or
available to serve in this capacity.
"Auxiliary Grants Program" or "AG" means
a state and locally funded assistance program to supplement income of an
individual receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or adult who would be
eligible for SSI except for excess income, who resides in an ALF or in,
an AFC home, or a supportive housing setting with an established
rate. The total number of individuals within the Commonwealth of Virginia eligible
to receive AG in a supportive housing setting shall not exceed the number
designated in the signed agreement between the department and the Social
Security Administration.
"Certification" means an official approval as
designated on the form provided by the department and prepared by the an
ALF or a supportive housing provider. Each ALF shall annually certifying
certify that the ALF it has properly managed the personal
funds and personal needs allowances of individuals residing in the ALF and is
in compliance with program regulations and appropriate licensing regulations. Each
supportive housing provider shall annually certify that it is in compliance
with the regulations for the administration of the auxiliary grants programs
(22VAC30-80).
"Department" means the Department for Aging and
Rehabilitative Services.
"DBHDS" means the Department of Behavioral
Health and Developmental Services.
"Established rate" means the rate as set forth in
the appropriation act or as set forth to meet federal maintenance of effort
requirements.
"Licensee" means any person, association,
partnership, corporation, or governmental unit to whom a license to operate an
ALF is issued in accordance with 22VAC40-72.
"Personal funds" means payments the individual
receives, whether earned or unearned, including wages, pensions, Social
Security benefits, and retirement benefits. "Personal funds" does not
include personal needs allowance.
"Personal needs allowance" means a portion of the
AG payment that is reserved for meeting the individual's personal needs. The
amount is established by the Virginia General Assembly.
"Personal toiletries" means hygiene items provided
to the individual by the ALF or AFC home including deodorant, razor, shaving
cream, shampoo, soap, toothbrush, and toothpaste.
"Program" means the Auxiliary Grant Program.
"Provider" means an ALF that is licensed by the
Department of Social Services or an AFC provider that is approved by a local
department of social services or a supportive housing provider as defined in
§ 37.2-421.1 of the Code of Virginia.
"Provider agreement" means a document written
agreement that the ALF ALFs and supportive housing providers
must complete and submit to the department when requesting to be approved
for admitting approval to admit individuals receiving AG.
"Qualified assessor" means an individual who is
authorized by 22VAC30-110 to perform an assessment, reassessment, or change in
level of care for an individual applying for AG or residing in an ALF or a
supportive housing setting. For individuals receiving services from a community
services board or behavioral health authority, a qualified assessor is an
employee or designee of the community services board or behavioral health
authority.
"Rate" means the established rate.
"Residential living care" means a level of service
provided by an ALF for individuals who may have physical or mental impairments
and require only minimal assistance with the activities of daily living.
Included in this level of service are individuals who are dependent in
medication administration as documented on the Uniform Assessment Instrument
(UAI).
"Supportive housing" or "SH" means a
residential setting with access to supportive services for an AG recipient in
which tenancy as described in § 37.2-421.1 of the Code of Virginia is provided
or facilitated by a provider licensed to provide mental health community
support services, intensive community treatment, programs of assertive
community treatment, supportive in-home services, or supervised living
residential services that has entered into an agreement with the DBHDS pursuant
to § 37.2-421.1 of the Code of Virginia.
"Third-party payment" means a payment made by a
third party to an ALF or AFC home on behalf of an AG recipient for goods or
services other than for food, shelter, or specific goods or services required
to be provided by the ALF or AFC home as a condition of participation in the
Auxiliary Grants Program in accordance with 22VAC30-80-45.
"Uniform Assessment Instrument" or "UAI"
means the department-designated assessment form. It is used to record
assessment information for determining the level of service that is needed.
22VAC30-80-20. Assessment.
A. In order to receive payment from the program for care in
an ALF or in AFC home, an individual applying for AG shall have been assessed
by a qualified assessor using the UAI in accordance with 22VAC30-110 and
determined to need residential or assisted living care or AFC.
B. As a condition of eligibility for the program, a UAI shall
be completed on an individual prior to admission, except for an emergency
placement as documented and approved by a Virginia adult protective services
worker; at least once annually; and whenever there is a significant change in
the individual's level of care, and a determination is made that the individual
needs residential or assisted living care in an ALF or AFC home.
C. The ALF or AFC provider is prohibited from charging a
security deposit or any other form of compensation for providing a room and
services to the individual. The collection or receipt of money, gift, donation
or other consideration from or on behalf of an individual for any services
provided is prohibited.
D. In order to receive payment from the AG program for
care in the SH setting, an individual shall be evaluated by a qualified
assessor in accordance with § 51.5-160 E of the Code of Virginia. Eligible
individuals shall be notified of the SH setting option and the availability of
approved SH providers at the time of their annual level of care assessment.
22VAC30-80-30. Basic services in an assisted living facility
or an adult foster care home.
A. The rate established under the program for the
ALF setting shall cover the following services:
1. Room and board.
a. A furnished room in accordance with 22VAC40-72-730;
b. Housekeeping services based on the needs of the individual;
c. Meals and snacks provided in accordance with 22VAC40-72
including, but not limited to food service, nutrition, number and timing of meals,
observance of religious dietary practices, special diets, menus for meals and
snacks, and emergency food and water. A minimum of three well-balanced meals
shall be provided each day. When a diet is prescribed for an individual by his
physician, it shall be prepared and served according to the physician's orders.
Basic and bedtime snacks shall be made available for all individuals desiring
them and shall be listed on the daily menu. Unless otherwise ordered in writing
by the individual's physician, the daily menu, including snacks, for each
individual shall meet the guidelines of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Food Guide Pyramid guidance system or the dietary allowances of the
Food and Nutritional Board of the National Academy of Sciences, taking into
consideration the age, sex, and activity of the resident. Second servings shall
be provided, if requested, at no additional charge. At least one meal each day
shall include a hot main dish; and
d. Clean bed linens and towels as needed by the individual and
at least once a week.
2. Maintenance and care.
a. Minimal assistance as defined in 22VAC40-72-10 with
personal hygiene including bathing, dressing, oral hygiene, hair grooming and
shampooing, care of clothing, shaving, care of toenails and fingernails or
arranging for such assistance if the resident's medical condition precludes
facility from providing the service, arranging for haircuts as needed, and care
of needs associated with menstruation or occasional bladder or bowel
incontinence that occurs less than weekly;
b. Medication administration as required by licensing
regulations including insulin injections;
c. Provision of personal toiletries including toilet paper;
d. Minimal assistance with the following:
(1) Care of personal possessions;
(2) Care of personal needs allowance if requested by the
individual and provider policy allows this practice, and in compliance with
22VAC40-72-140 and 22VAC40-72-150, Standards for Licensed Assisted Living
Facilities;
(3) Use of the telephone;
(4) Arranging nonmedical transportation;
(5) Obtaining necessary personal items and clothing;
(6) Making and keeping appointments; and
(7) Correspondence;
e. Securing health care and transportation when needed for
medical treatment;
f. Providing social and recreational activities in accordance
with 22VAC40-72-520; and
g. General supervision for safety.
B. The AFC provider shall adhere to the standards in
22VAC30-120-40.
22VAC30-80-35. Basic services in supportive housing
settings.
A. The rate established under the program for SH, as
defined in 22VAC30-80-10, shall cover a residential setting with access to SH
services that include:
1. Development of individualized SH service plans;
2. Access to skills training;
3. Assistance with accessing available community-based
services and supports;
4. Initial identification and ongoing review of the level
of care needs; and
5. Ongoing monitoring of services described in the
individual's individualized SH plan.
B. The residential setting covered under the program for
SH, as defined in 22VAC30-80-10, shall be the least restrictive and most
integrated setting practicable for the individual and shall:
1. Comply with federal habitability standards;
2. Provide cooking and bathroom facilities in each unit;
3. Afford dignity and privacy to the individual; and
4. Include rights of tenancy pursuant to the Virginia
Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (§ 55-248.2 et seq. of the Code of
Virginia).
22VAC30-80-45. Conditions of participation in the program.
A. Provider agreement for ALF.
1. As a condition of participation in the program, the ALF
provider is required to complete and submit to the department a signed provider
agreement as stipulated in subdivision 2 of this subsection section.
The agreement is to be submitted prior to the ALF accepting AG payment for
qualified individuals. A copy of the ALF's current license must be submitted
with the provider agreement.
2. The ALF provider shall agree to the following conditions in
the provider agreement to participate in the program:
a. Provide services in accordance with all laws, regulations,
policies, and procedures that govern the provision of services in the facility;
b. Submit an annual certification form by October 1 of each
year;
c. Care for individuals with AG in accordance with the requirements
in this chapter at the current established rate;
d. Refrain from charging the individual, his family, or his
authorized personal representative a security deposit or any other form of
compensation as a condition of admission or continued stay in the facility;
e. Accept the established rate as payment in full for services
rendered;
f. Account for the personal needs allowances in a separate
bank account and apart from other facility funds and issue a statement to each
individual regarding his account balance that includes any payments deposited
or withdrawn during the previous calendar month;
g. Provide a 60-day written notice to the regional licensing
office in the event of the facility's closure or ownership change;
h. Provide written notification of the date and place of an
individual's discharge or the date of an individual's death to the local
department of social services determining the individual's AG eligibility and
to the qualified assessor within 10 days of the individual's discharge or
death; and
i. Return to the local department of social services
determining the individual's AG eligibility, all AG funds received after the
death or discharge date of an individual in the facility.
B. As a condition of participation in the program, the AFC
provider shall be approved by a local department of social services and comply
with the requirements set forth in 22VAC30-120.
C. Provider agreement for SH. As a condition of
participating in the AG program, the SH provider shall enter an agreement with
DBHDS pursuant to § 37.2-421.1 of the Code of Virginia. The SH provider shall
submit a copy of the executed agreement and a copy of its current DBHDS license
prior to the SH provider receiving payments from the AG program on behalf of
qualified individuals. The SH provider shall provide SH services for each
individual in accordance with § 37.2-421.1 of the Code of Virginia and all
other applicable laws, regulations, and policies and procedures.
C. D. ALFs and AFC homes providing services to
AG recipients may accept third-party payments made by persons or entities for
the actual costs of goods or services that have been provided to the AG
recipient. The department shall not include such payments as income for the
purpose of determining eligibility for or calculating the amount of an AG
provided that the payment is made:
1. Directly to the ALF or AFC home by the third party on
behalf of the individual after the goods or services have been provided;
2. Voluntarily by the third party, and not in satisfaction of
a condition of admission, continued stay, or provision of proper care and
services, unless the AG recipient's physical needs exceed the services required
to be provided by the ALF as a condition of participation in the auxiliary
grant program; and
3. For specific goods or services provided to the individual
other than food, shelter, or other specific goods or services required to be
provided by the ALF or AFC home as a condition of participation in the AG
program.
D. E. Third-party payments shall not be used to
pay for a private room in an ALF or AFC home.
E. F. ALFs and AFC homes shall document all
third-party payments received on behalf of an individual, including the source,
amount, and date of the payment, and the goods or services for which such
payments were made. Documentation related to the third-party payments shall be
provided to the department upon request.
F. G. ALFs and AFC homes shall provide each AG
recipient and his authorized representative with a written list of the goods
and services that shall be covered by the AG as defined in this chapter, including
a clear statement that the facility shall not charge an individual or the
individual's family or authorized representative additional amounts for goods
or services included on such list. This statement shall be signed by the AG
recipient or authorized representative as acknowledgment of receipt and shall
be made available to the department upon request.
22VAC30-80-50. Establishment of rate.
The established rate for individuals authorized to reside in
an ALF or in, an AFC, or a supportive housing setting is
the established rate as set forth in the appropriation act or as set forth by
changes in the federal maintenance of effort formula. The AG payment is
determined by adding the rate plus the personal needs allowance minus the
individual's countable income. The effective date is the date of the
individual's approval for AG by the local department of social services.
22VAC30-80-60. Reimbursement.
A. Any payments contributed toward the cost of care basic
services as defined in 22VAC30-80-30 and 22VAC30-80-35 pending AG
eligibility determination shall be reimbursed to the individual or contributing
party by the ALF or, AFC, or SH provider once eligibility
for AG is established and that payment received. The payment shall be made
payable to the individual, who will then reimburse the provider for care
appropriate providers for basic services. If the individual is not
capable of managing his finances, his authorized representative is responsible
for reimbursing the provider.
B. In the event an ALF is closed, the facility shall prorate
the rate up to the date of the individual's discharge and return the balance of
the AG to the local department of social services that determined the
individual's eligibility for the AG. If the facility maintained the individual's
personal needs allowance, the facility shall provide a final accounting of the
individual's personal needs allowance account within 60 days of the
individual's discharge. Verification of the accounting and of the reimbursement
to the individual shall be sent to the case management agency responsible for
the individual's annual reassessment. In the event of the individual's death,
the provider shall give to the individual's personal representative a final
accounting of the individual's funds within 60 calendar days of the event. All
AG funds received after the death or discharge date shall be returned to the
local department of social services responsible for determining the
individual's AG eligibility as soon as practicable.
C. Providers who do not comply with the requirements of this
chapter may be subject to adverse action, which may include suspension of new
AG program admissions or termination of provider agreements.
22VAC30-80-70. ALF certification and record requirements.
A. ALFs ALF and SH providers shall submit to
the department an annual certification form by October 1 of each year for
the preceding state fiscal year. The certification shall include the following:
identifying information about the ALF provider, census
information including a list of individuals who resided in the facility or
SH setting and received AG during the reporting period and personal needs
allowance accounting information if such personal needs accounting
information is required by the setting. If a provider fails to submit an
annual certification form, the provider will not be authorized to accept
additional individuals with AG.
B. All information reported by an ALF or SH provider
on the certification form shall be subject to audit by the department.
Financial information that is not reconcilable to the provider's general ledger
or similar records could result in establishment of a liability to the
provider. Records shall be retained for three years after the end of the
reporting period or until audited by the department, whichever is first.
C. All records maintained by an AFC provider, as required by
22VAC30-120, shall be made available to the department or the approving local
department of social services upon request. All records are subject to audit by
the department. Financial information that is not reconcilable to the
provider's records could result in establishment of a liability to the
provider. Records shall be retained for three years after the end of the
reporting period or until audited by the department, whichever is first.
VA.R. Doc. No. R17-4816; Filed June 15, 2018, 11:51 a.m.
TITLE 22. SOCIAL SERVICES
STATE BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES
Withdrawal of Proposed Regulation
Title of Regulation: 22VAC40-601. Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (adding 22VAC40-601-70).
Statutory Authority: § 63.2-217 of the Code of
Virginia; 7 CFR 271.4.
Notice is hereby given that the State Board of Social Services
has WITHDRAWN the proposed regulatory action for 22VAC40-601, Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program, that was published in 30:6 VA.R. 771-776 November 18, 2013.
Agency Contact: Celestine Jackson, Program Consultant,
Department of Social Services, 801 East Main Street, Richmond, VA 23219,
telephone (804) 726-7376, FAX (804) 726-7357, TTY (800) 828-1120, or email
celestine.jackson@dss.virginia.gov.
VA.R. Doc. No. R11-2893; Filed June 22, 2018, 9:14 a.m.