Battle over Sepsis-2 vs. Sepsis-3 Heating Up

By Brian Murphy

The battle over Sepsis-2 vs. Sepsis-3 continues.

Advocates of Sepsis-3 state that it offers a more clinically accurate and rigorous definition, and that sepsis-2 is too vague to be truly useful.

Advocates of Sepsis-2 believe that it’s more sensitive and superior for early detection, and sepsis-3 too high a bar to capture the wide spectrum of the condition.

Could both be true? I think so.

The real problem may be that we aren’t adequately reimbursing hospitals for aggressive early interventions.

Today both definitions remain in play, and auditors are using various mix-and-match criteria from both (including SOFA) to deny sepsis claims, adding further chaos to the landscape.

View the clip below featuring Trey LaCharite weighing in on the issue (his organization remains a steadfast advocate of sepsis-2). If you haven’t yet listened to the full episode featuring 50 minutes with Trey are you waiting for? He rocks, and holds back few punches in the episode. I’m including a link below.

This issue isn’t going away any time soon, especially with the OIG adding sepsis claims to its Work Plan last month (see below).

I wanted to dig further into the realities and so the next episode of Off the Record featured a guest working on the front lines of sepsis care, as a clinician.

It was a great conversation and you can find the complete episode here.

For further reading

• Off the Record with Trey LaCharite (full episode): https://podcasts.apple.com/ph/podcast/clinical-clarity-navigating-problem-lists-and/id1641739619?i=1000652741822

• OIG Work Plan, “Medicare Inpatient Hospital Billing for Sepsis”: https://oig.hhs.gov/reports-and-publications/workplan/summary/wp-summary-0000841.asp

• Norwood, “Sepsis-2, Sepsis-3, or Sepsis 2.5?” https://www.norwood.com/sepsis-2-sepsis-3-or-sepsis-2-5-varying-definitions-lead-to-denials/