Medicare

Published on: October 19, 2023

Employee Safe Harbor Protections Affirmed in Recent OIG Advisory Opinion

On October 10, 2023, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued an advisory opinion reinforcing the broad protection of physician employees under the safe harbor provision of the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS). The AKS is a federal criminal law which prohibits payment for the inducement or reward of patient referrals or generation of business where any item or service payable by a federal healthcare program is involved. Remuneration under the law has been interpreted to mean “the transfer of anything of value, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind.” Violation of the AKS can result in severe penalties, including imprisonment of up to 10 years, a maximum fine of $100,000, and exclusions from Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement.

There are several statutory and regulatory exceptions to the AKS, which allow for specific remuneration arrangements when certain criteria are met. One statutory exception protects payments made by employers to employees who are in bona fide employment relationships for providing covered items and services under the employment agreement. Similarly, safe harbor regulations have been promulgated by HHS which clarify that “remuneration” under the AKS does not include payments under the bona fide employer-employee relationship described above.

In the recent advisory opinion, the OIG considered whether employer payment of bonuses based on net profits to employed physicians in a multi-specialty ambulatory surgery center (ASC) would constitute a violation of the AKS. The employer practice operated two separate ASCs – noted to be divisions and not subsidiaries – and planned to compensate physician employees via a bonus structure where employed physicians who performed procedures at the ASCs would receive 30% of the practice’s net profits in addition to base employment compensation. The OIG concluded that this type of arrangement would not violate the terms set forth in the AKS.

Published on: October 2, 2023

OIG Announces Plan to Investigate Managed Care Contracts

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

In August 2023, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) announced its strategic plan to investigate the life cycle of Medicare and Medicaid managed care contracts. OIG’s plan will scrutinize these contracts from inception through enrollment, reimbursement, services, and renewal. In order to address fraud, waste, and abuse risks, the goal of OIG’s plan is to hold accountable Medicare Advantage organizations (MAOs) and Medicaid managed care organizations (MCOs).

Currently, more than half of Medicare enrollees and more than 80% of Medicaid enrollees are covered by managed care programs. In order to oversee the approximate $700 billion that the federal government spent on managed care programs in 2022, OIG has set out four phases of managed care that it intends to investigate: (1) plan establishment and contracting, (2) enrollment, (3) payment, and (4) provision of services.

In the first phase, OIG intends to review activities that occur when the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) or states initially establish or renew managed care contracts. In this contract review phase, OIG will evaluate whether MAOs and MCOs are providing the government with accurate information, including in their bids, and abiding by the contract terms for their plan design, service offerings, and coverage area. In the second phase, OIG will review enrollment processes. Specifically, OIG will focus on potentially aggressive marketing campaigns and inaccurate information collection.

Published on: September 22, 2023

CMS Proposes Rule Establishing New Nursing Home Accountability and Staffing Standards

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

As part of the Biden Administration’s initiative to improve quality and safety in nursing home care, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on September 1, 2023, entitled “Minimum Staffing Standards for Long-Term Care Facilities and Medicaid Institutional Payment Transparency Reporting.” This initiative resulted in part from a 2022 Nursing Home Staffing Study, which sought to establish “the level and type of staffing needed to promote acceptable quality and safety.” Notably, the study projected that the cost of implementing such new minimum staffing requirements could range from $1.5-6.8 billion, increasing the burden on an industry already struggling with personnel shortages and demanding regulatory requirements.

The proposed rule is comprised of three core staffing proposals, including establishing new minimum staffing standards for RNs and NAs, requiring an RN to always be onsite, and enhancing facility assessment requirements. There are staggered implementation protocols and possible hardship exemptions for qualifying facilities included in the proposed rule. CMS also announced a collaboration with the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to assist in training and growing the nursing workforce, by investing over $75 million in scholarships and tuition reimbursement.

The first core staffing proposal establishes a minimum staffing standard of 0.55 hours per resident day (HPRD) for RNs and 2.45 HPRD for NAs. Practically speaking, this translates to a facility with 100 residents having two RNs for each 8-hour shift and a third RN for one shift during the day, as well as ten NAs per 8-hour shift. As these are minimums, CMS noted that they expect facilities to increase staffing above this baseline pursuant to the individual facility assessment and acuity levels.

Published on: September 8, 2023

CMS Increases Scrutiny on Hospice Providers

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently announced that it intends to increase scrutiny on hospice providers as a result of increased reports and CMS findings suggesting potential hospice services fraud. CMS stated that it is strengthening its hospice program integrity strategy through actions such as site visits and proposed regulations to minimize impacts to Medicare beneficiaries.

As part of this revitalized focus on hospice integrity, CMS has highlighted several observed situations that it views with heightened scrutiny. Certain reports cited by CMS have supposedly identified instances of hospices certifying patients for hospice care when they were not terminally ill and providing little to no services to patients. CMS has also indicated that the listed address for some hospices appears to be non-operational. One particular alleged trend CMS has focused on is known as “churn and burn,” where a new hospice opens and starts billing, but once that hospice is audited or reaches its statutory yearly payment limit, it shuts down, keeps the money, buys a new Medicare billing number, transfers its patients over to the new Medicare billing number, and starts billing again.

In response to these purported findings, CMS embarked on a nationwide hospice site visit program, making unannounced site visits to every Medicare-enrolled hospice. As of mid-August 2023, CMS has visited over 7,000 hospices, and indicated that nearly 400 hospices are being considered for potential administrative action as a result. While many of these hospices may very well be able to demonstrate compliance with Medicare requirements, if CMS finds grounds to conclude that a hospice is allegedly non-compliant, this may result in significant consequences such as suspension or revocation. Further, CMS has noted that rapid hospice growth trends in four states – Arizona, California, Nevada, and Texas – has led the Centers to implement a provisional period of enhanced oversight in these states. During this provisional period, CMS plans to conduct medical reviews before making payments on claims submitted by newly enrolling hospices.

Published on: September 1, 2023

CMS Announces New Voluntary Primary Care Model in Eight States

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently announced the Making Care Primary (MCP) Model, a new voluntary primary care model that will be tested in eight states. The new model aims to improve care management and care coordination, equip primary care clinicians with tools to form partnerships with healthcare specialists, and leverage community-based connections to address patients’ health needs as well as their health-related social needs, such as housing and nutrition. CMS plans to work with eight state Medicaid agencies to engage in full care transformation across payers, with plans to engage private payers in the future. The MCP Model is slated to launch July 1, 2024 in eight participating states – Colorado, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Washington.

The MCP Model is a 10.5-year multi-payer model with three participation tracks that build upon previous primary care models. MCP’s overarching goal is to improve care for beneficiaries by supporting the delivery of advanced primary care services, which are foundation for a high-performing health system. To achieve this goal, the Model will provide a pathway for primary care clinicians with varying levels of experience in value-based care to gradually adopt prospective, population-based payments while building infrastructure to improve behavioral health and specialty integration and drive equitable access to care. The Model also attempts to strengthen coordination between patients’ primary clinicians, specialists, social service providers, and behavioral health clinicians, ultimately leading to chronic disease prevention, fewer emergency room visits, and better health outcomes.

Three domains define the MCP Model’s care delivery approach:

Published on: August 21, 2023

HHS, DOL, and Treasury Issue Long-Awaited Mental Health Parity Proposed Regulations

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

On August 3, 2023, the US Departments of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services (Departments) issued proposed rules under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) to reduce barriers to access to mental health and substance use disorder treatment. The proposed rules emphasize the Departments’ focus on mental health parity and aligns with their overarching goal to better ensure that health plans afford access to mental health or substance use disorder benefits as easily as medical or surgical benefits.

By way of background, in 1996, the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 was enacted by Congress, requiring parity in aggregate dollar and annual dollar limits for mental health benefits. In 2008, the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA) added additional requirements, expanding the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996. The MHPAEA requires group health plans and insurance issuers to ensure that financial requirements and treatment limitations are not more restrictive for mental health or substance use disorder benefits than medical or surgical benefits. The Consolidated Appropriations Act in 2021 further expanded the MHPAEA by requiring health plans that cover both medical or surgical benefits and mental health or substance use disorder benefits to conduct and document comparative analyses of non-quantitative treatment limitations (NQTL) for both types of benefits.

Although the Departments have issued a fair amount of sub-regulatory guidance regarding the NQTL comparative analysis requirement, the proposed regulations are the first formal regulatory guidance they have issued in about ten years. Recently, audits by the Departments of health plans have directed their focus to MHPAEA compliance. Plan sponsors have expressed frustration with the lack of guidance and varying applications of the existing guidance, complaining that the Departments’ requests are not supported by law, not practical in application, and contradictory.

Published on: August 14, 2023

CMS Announces GUIDE: A Medicare Dementia Care Model

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

On July 21, 2023, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a new payment model for providers furnishing dementia care, called Guiding an Improved Dementia Experience (GUIDE). A wide range of Medicare Part-B providers and suppliers are eligible to participate, with the exception of durable medical equipment and laboratory suppliers. The model is a comprehensive package of person-centered assessments, care plans, and care coordination. Additionally, this new payment model aims to further enhance the quality of life for people living with dementia by improving dementia care, reducing strain on unpaid caregivers, and helping people with dementia remain in their homes and communities.

GUIDE’s approach to dementia care takes into account staffing considerations, quality standards, and services for beneficiaries and unpaid caregivers. Under the GUIDE model, beneficiaries are required to be screened for psychological and health-related social needs. As a GUIDE participant, providers are required to establish and maintain an interdisciplinary team consisting of a care navigator and a clinician, with the option of including additional members. The care navigator must have training in care planning and dementia assessment while the clinician is required to have dementia proficiency through experience caring for patients 65 years or older and for adults with cognitive impairment. GUIDE participants are required to provide support services alongside caregiver training.

There are two options for providers considering implementing GUIDE:

Published on: August 7, 2023

CMS Proposes Extension of Virtual Direct Supervision

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

On July 13, 2023, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service (CMS) released the Calendar Year 2024 Physician Fee Schedule Proposed Rule, proposing to extend remote supervision. The proposed rule continues to define “direct supervision” by allowing supervising physicians and practitioners the ability to continue “direct supervision” through real-time audio and visual interactive telecommunications through December 21, 2024.

Typically, to be payable under Medicare Part B, specific types of services must be provided under certain levels of “direct supervision” by a practitioner or physician. These services often include many diagnostic tests and other services furnished by auxiliary personnel incident to the services of the billing physician. “Direct supervision” usually requires the “immediate availability” of a supervising professional — both in-person and physical availability. However, during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE), CMS allowed flexibility in what constituted “direct supervision” by allowing “immediate availability” to include virtual presence using two-way, real-time audio or video technology, instead of requiring physical presence. This policy allowing remote direct supervision was originally set to expire at the end of 2023.

However, due to the increased reliance on virtual direct supervision by physicians and beneficiaries alike, CMS expressed several concerns regarding the expiration of the policy. In its proposed rule, CMS noted that, despite the new patterns of virtual direct supervision that were established and often maintained during the PHE, evidence showing that patient safety is compromised by virtual direct representation is entirely absent. Moreover, telehealth services have overall allowed individuals in rural and undeserved areas to have improved access to care. Expiration of this policy could create substantial barriers to access of many healthcare services, including those furnished incident-to a physician’s service.

Published on: July 5, 2023

CMS To Audit Every Medicare-Enrolled SNF

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently announced the start of a new skilled nursing facility (SNF) 5 Claim Probe & Educate Review Program (SNF P&E Program). In an effort to reduce the SNF improper payment rate, Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) will review a small sample of claims from every Medicare-enrolled SNF in the country that submitted claims for services furnished after October 1, 2019. CMS has stated that each SNF will then be offered education to address any errors identified, with the purpose of helping them avoid future claim denials and adjustments. Claims containing a COVID-19 diagnosis will be excluded from the Program’s review.

The SNF P&E Program is being implemented primarily because, according to the Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) program, SNF service errors have roughly doubled from 2021 to 2022 and were determined to be the top driver of the overall Medicare Fee-for-Service improper payment rate. CMS maintains that part of the reason for the significant improper payment rate may be misunderstanding by SNFs regarding appropriate billing methods given the shift from the Resource Utilization Group (RUG) IV to the patient driven payment model (PDPM) for claims with dates of service on or after October 1, 2019. The stated goal of the SNF P&E Program, according to CMS, is to assist SNFs in understanding how to bill appropriately under this new payment model and decrease the improper payment rate.

Under the SNF P&E Program, similar to the current Targeted Probe and Educate (TPE) medical review program, SNFs will receive one on one provider education at the completion of a small sample of claim reviews. However, instead of the 1-3 rounds of review a provider receives through TPE, each SNF will undergo only 1 round of review. Under this single round, MACs will review 5 claims from each SNF, and then education will be individually provided based on any claim review errors identified in the probe. Review results letters will detail the denial rationales for each claim, as appropriate.

Published on: June 26, 2023

Medicare Revocation vs Suspension vs Voluntary Disenrollment

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

The many ways in which a provider might be removed from the Medicare program are often a source of confusion and consternation for Medicare-enrolled healthcare providers and suppliers. Sometimes a Medicare revocation or suspension may occur unexpectedly and devastate a provider’s business. Sometimes a provider will voluntarily leave the Medicare program in an attempt to avoid inevitable sanctions. Each of these is a distinct mechanism and should be considered separately.

A revocation of Medicare billing privileges, commonly called a “Medicare revocation,” is a forced removal of a provider’s participation in and ability to bill the Medicare program. There are approximately two dozen grounds on which a provider’s billing privileges may be revoked, from noncompliance with Medicare program requirements (as simple as a missed signature on an insurance policy) up to abuse of billing privileges and patient harm. A revocation may be retroactive and take effect sometime in the past, before the provider is notified, or it may take effect sometime in the future, such as 30 days after the provider is notified. A Medicare revocation will be accompanied by a reenrollment bar of one to twenty years and often placement on the CMS Preclusion List. A Medicare revocation is subject to an appeals process, but most of the process is stacked heavily against the provider and it is important for the provider to be active in their response as early in the process as possible.

A suspension of Medicare billing privileges, commonly called a “Medicare suspension,” is a temporary suspension of a provider’s ability to bill the Medicare program. They are often imposed pursuant to a review or an audit where a Medicare contractor has alleged that the provider has committed some form of fraud. Suspensions are often imposed with immediate effect and sometimes without prior notice to the provider. Although suspensions are meant to be temporary, they are of undefined duration and often last for months without a specific end date, suffocating a provider’s business as effectively as a revocation. Medicare suspensions are technically subject to a truncated appeals process, but, although the suspension appeal process should still be pursued, the process is effectively meaningless and suspensions are generally best addressed through contesting the audit that supposedly identified fraudulent claims. However, it is worth noting that Medicare will often suspend a provider long before giving the provider the results of the underlying audit or the opportunity to appeal those results.