Wachler & Associates Health Law Blog

Published on: October 22, 2014

IMPACT ACT to Standardize Data Collection for Post-Acute Care Facilities

On October 6, 2014, the Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation Act of 2014 (IMPACT Act) was signed into law. The bill moved swiftly through both houses due to its joint development by the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. The Post-Acute Care (PAC) community also voiced strong support for the IMPACT Act.

Currently, PAC payments to Medicare are typically based on the setting of care. This payment system often results in PAC providers supplying comparable services, but receiving dramatically different reimbursement amounts due to their setting of care. Under the IMPACT Act, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is tasked with promulgating a reporting system for PAC providers, which includes long-term care hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, and home health agencies. PAC providers will be required to report standardized data regarding patient care assessment, resource use, and quality measures. This data collection will allow providers and policymakers to analyze and compare the cost, quality, and type of services offered across a range of PAC providers. It is important to note that the IMPACT Act does not apply to critical access hospitals.

Specifically with regards to quality measures, PAC providers will be required to report on the following issues:

Published on: October 13, 2014

OIG Releases Proposed Rule Affecting Anti-Kickback Statute Safe Harbors

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently published a proposed rule that affects providers and suppliers seeking to comply with the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) provisions. The proposed rule alters existing safe harbors, codifies statutory changes, and adds new protections for arrangements that the OIG believes present low risk to federal health care programs.

The AKS provides criminal penalties for individuals or entities that knowingly and willfully offer, pay, solicit, or receive remuneration in order to induce or reward the referral of business reimbursable under Federal health care programs. The law prohibits all types of remuneration, including kickbacks, bribes, and rebates. Due to the extremely broad reach of the statute, Congress authorized the OIG to develop safe harbor regulations that protect industry payment and business practices that, if structured properly, would not be treated as criminal offenses under the AKS even though they may induce referrals of business under the Federal health care programs. In authorizing these safe harbors, Congress intended that the safe harbor regulations be updated periodically to reflect changes in business practices and technology in the health care industry. The proposed rule will also codify statutory changes emanating from the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 and the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

Specifically, the proposed rule applies to safe harbors or exceptions related to 1) referral services, 2) cost-sharing waivers, 3) agreements between Medicare Advantage (MA) plans and Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), 4) the Medicare Coverage Gap Discount Program, and 5) free or discounted local transportation services.

Published on: October 6, 2014

Office for Civil Rights Advisor Warns Providers on HIPAA Audits: “Get Your House In Order”

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

On September 9, Linda Sanches, the Senior Advisor for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) warned that Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) audits are forthcoming. Speaking at the HIMSS Privacy and Security Forum in Boston, Sanches cautioned attendees that the best defense to an audit is conducting periodic and comprehensive risk analyses focused on administrative and technical protections, as well as human error vulnerabilities. “The onus is on you to prove that you had the proper systems in place,” Sanches warned, advising providers to proactively perform risk analyses in advance of a HIPAA audit.

To attendees’ disappointment, Sanches did not unveil a start date for the HIPAA audits. Instead, Sanches explained that the OCR has postponed initiating HIPAA auditing to implement new technology with increased auditing capacities. Originally, the OCR intended to conduct a total of 400 desk audits. However, Sanches confirmed that now the OCR will likely perform fewer than 200 targeted desk audits and an unconfirmed number of on-site audits. A variety of providers across practice area, size, and geographic location should expect to be audited. Audited entities will be responsible for compliance with both the HIPAA Privacy Rule and the HIPAA Security Rule. In addition, providers should have available an updated list of business associates with contact information and services provided. Sanches warned that the OCR will use a provider’s business associate list to select business associates for HIPAA auditing.

Providers with patterns in reported breaches are more likely to face HIPAA auditing. Sanches emphasized that providers who fail to demonstrate compliance with the HIPAA privacy rule and HIPAA security rule may face hefty settlement fines based on the amount of harm and provisions violated. When discussing fines, Sanches stated, “It’s basic math. How many people were affected?”

Published on: October 2, 2014

CMS Open Door Forum Clarifies Key Points of 68% Settlement Offer to Hospitals

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

On September 30, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) held a Hospital & Hospital Quality Open Door Forum on a variety of topics pertinent to hospitals. CMS opened the forum with an unexpected update on CMS’ recently announced 68% settlement offer for patient status claim denials. As many providers are already aware, CMS has offered to pay 68% of the net payable value of eligible patient status claim denials in exchange for hospitals’ withdrawal of all pending eligible appeals.

While the September 30 Open Door Forum covered a variety of topics unrelated to the settlement offer, CMS clarified key points regarding the settlement offer and providers should take note.

First and foremost, CMS clarified that Part A patient status denials submitted for re-billing under Part B are eligible for inclusion in the settlement so long as the hospital has not received payment on the rebilled claim. In response to a question, CMS specified that as long as the hospital has not received Part B payment on a rebilled claim on the date that the settlement request is submitted, the claim is eligible for inclusion in the settlement process. CMS indicated that this issue will be discussed in greater detail during the October 9 Open Door Forum. Additionally, CMS indicated that it is not contemplating an extension to the October 31, 2014 filing deadline.

Published on: October 1, 2014

OCR Offers Guidance on HIPAA Privacy Rule and Same-sex Marriage

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

In September 2014, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) released guidance to assist covered entities in understanding their obligations under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule in light of the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor. In Windsor, the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which restricted interpretations of “spouse” and “marriage” in federal law to opposite-sex marriages, as a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. As a result, OCR opined that covered entities and applicable business associates must take into account lawfully married same-sex couples when applying federal law.

OCR noted that the Privacy Rule’s definition of “family members” includes the terms “spouse” and “marriage.” Under the Privacy Rule, a spouse is defined as any individual who is in a legally valid marriage sanctioned by a state, territory, or foreign jurisdiction (assuming that the marriage performed in a foreign jurisdiction would be recognized by a U.S. jurisdiction). OCR clarified that “marriage” includes same-sex marriages, a family member includes dependents of that marriage, and that these terms apply to individuals who are legally married, “whether or not they live or receive services in a jurisdiction that recognizes their marriage.”

OCR also provided two examples how this clarified definition of a family member would be applied to specific provisions in the Privacy Rule. Specifically, §164.510(b) Standard: uses and disclosures for involvement in the individual’s care and notification purposes allows protected health information to be shared with a patient’s spouse and family members. OCR opined that in light of Windsor, covered entities must consider legally married same-sex spouses, regardless of where they live, to be family members.

Published on: September 30, 2014

Medicare to Introduce More Star Ratings to Compare Providers

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

CMS recently announced that it will soon be adding additional star ratings to the Medicare.gov website by 2015. CMS has already implemented the star rating system to provide consumers quality and safety information regarding nursing homes and physician groups on a five-star scale. The system is supposed to allow consumers to make informed decisions about their provider, while giving providers something to strive for. CMS Deputy Administer for Innovation and Quality, Dr. Patrick Conway, stated that the star rating system is based on scientific standards of both accuracy and rigor. Because providers differ on the quality of care and services they offer to customers, CMS touts its star rating system as giving consumers a “snap-shot” of the care an individual provider offers. By 2015, CMS plans to add hospital groups and dialysis and homecare providers to the rating system.

While advocates of the consumer-oriented star-rating system are excited about the inclusion of more provider types, many providers are speaking out against the system. According to a recent article on Modern Healthcare, after being notified of dialysis and homecare providers’ inclusion, a spokesman for Kidney Care Partners–a coalition of dialysis providers–claimed that the star rating system compares apples and oranges. The spokesman argued that the inaccurate comparison results in confused patients not really understanding what the amount of stars mean. Proponents of the rating system try to rebut views like those expressed by Kidney Care Partners, by arguing that the health care community should stress transparency, rather than worry about the imperfections in the rating system. Echoing these sentiments, Dr. John Santa, the Medical Director for Consumer Reports, stated that no provider will score well on every rating system, but the abundance of ratings will eventually provide a clearer picture of providers’ quality of care and safety.

Although proponents of the star rating system continue to espouse its positive aspects, many providers remain concerned. Because providers can lose accreditation for scoring poorly on certain measures of safety and quality, and even face fines, these ratings are becoming more important. Several providers urge CMS to delay the inclusion of more provider types to the rating system until it can provide a more complete performance rating. They assert that the measurement differences may result in one provider scoring high in one program and low in another and, although the system does not have to be perfect, it must be reliable. Opponents say that to allow otherwise is to misguide patients and may potentially lead to unfair financial penalties on the entities.

Published on: September 29, 2014

Federation of State Medical Boards Releases Model Legislation to Expedite Physician Licensure in Lieu of Telemedicine Push

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

As the demand for telemedicine increases across the country, states continue to grapple with licensure issues arising from physicians working across state lines. In an effort to resolve the dilemma, the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) published model legislation designed to assist in the implementation of a multistate compact, by which physicians from one state can be expeditiously licensed in another state to practice telemedicine.

FSMB’s model legislation requires a minimum of seven states to participate, with each state providing representatives for a governing commission. When at least seven states have joined, the commission would openly share disciplinary and credentialing information in a joint effort to quickly license physicians that are already licensed in one of the other participating states. This sharing of information would allow the participating states to license physicians without being saddled with the responsibility of independently collecting the large amount of paperwork required to license a physician. The governing commission of the compact would not have any licensing power itself, but rather would serve to facilitate the quick transfer of information between participating states. As an example, if Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana joined the multi-state compact, a physician licensed in Michigan, wishing to practice telemedicine in Illinois and Indiana, would have the compact commissioner obtain the necessary credentialing information and approval from the Michigan medical board, collect the licensing fees mandated in Illinois and Indiana, and then process an expedited license.

Members of the FSMB are hopeful for support of their model legislation because it ensures that licensure remains a state right and avoids federal intervention. A multi-state compact will hopefully solve the licensure dilemma, allowing physicians, for example, to use telemedicine technologies to offer specialized care to rural communities. One such state is Wyoming, which relies on telemedicine to care for its residents. The Executive Director of the Wyoming State Board of Medicine, Kevin Bohnenblust, stated that Wyoming has approximately 3,000 licensed physicians, but only 1,200 physicians that actually live in the state. As a prominent “importer” of telemedicine, Wyoming is hopeful that the FSMB policy takes effect. Bohnenblust also notes that states with renowned hospitals like Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio, could benefit as “exporters” of telemedicine.

Published on: September 25, 2014

CMS Final Rule Provides Greater Flexibility for Meeting EHR Meaningful Use Requirements

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

On August 29, 2014, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) final rule allowing providers more flexibility in meeting the meaningful-use requirements for the electronic health records (EHR) incentive program. The final rule, which was an adoption of the May 2014 proposed rule, aims to assist providers in utilizing Certified EHR Technology (CEHRT) by giving eligible providers another year to continue using the 2011 Edition CEHRT, or a combination of the 2011 and 2014 Edition CEHRT. However, providers should be aware that in 2015 they are required to use the 2014 Edition CEHRT software.

Additionally, the final rule extends Stage 2 of meaningful use through 2016, thus delaying implementation of Stage 3. For those providers who first became meaningful users of EHR in 2011 or 2012, Stage 3 of meaningful use is now scheduled to begin in 2017. According to CMS, the updates in the final rule will better enable providers to participate and meet meaningful use objectives, including:

Electronic prescribing;

Published on: September 15, 2014

CMS Holds Conference Call on 68% Settlement Offer

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

On Tuesday, September 9, the Medicare Learning Network (MLN) hosted a Conference Call regarding the newly revealed 68% settlement offer from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for short-stay inpatient status claims. In an effort to ‘more quickly reduce the volume of inpatient status claims’ pending in the appeals process, CMS offered an administrative agreement to any hospital willing to withdraw all of their pending short-stay inpatient status claim denial appeals in exchange for partial payment of 68% of the net allowable amount as long as the date of admission was prior to October 1, 2013 and the claim is either pending appeal or the appeal has been filed and is pending review. In its release, CMS further noted that only acute care hospitals and critical access hospitals are eligible to submit a settlement request; psychiatric hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, long-term care hospitals, cancer hospitals, and children’s hospitals are not permitted to submit a settlement request.

The purpose of the Conference Call was to provide interested stakeholders an opportunity to speak with CMS representatives in order to ask questions and obtain a better understanding of how this settlement process will work. Wachler & Associates healthcare attorneys participated in the Conference Call and came away with a deeper understanding of how this process works, but there are still unanswered questions. First and foremost, submissions for settlement are due by October 31, 2014. If your entity cannot meet this deadline, you may ask CMS for an extension. Additionally, short-stay inpatient status claims pending at any level of the appeals process are eligible to be submitted for settlement.

In sum, eligible claims must also meet four requirements: (1) they must be pending in the appeals process or within the timeframe to appeal; (2) the date of admission for the claim must have been prior to October 1, 2013; (3) the denial must be based on a patient status review; and (4) the claim must not have been previously withdrawn or re-billed for payment under Part B. During the Conference Call participants requested clarification of whether the rebill for Part B must not have been submitted or whether it must not have been paid. CMS indicated that it would provider further clarification on this issue through the Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) page on CMS’ website for hospitals. In agreeing to settle all claims for the 68%, the entity agrees to the dismissal of all associated claims (the entity may not pick and choose which ones to settle) and agrees that the settlement will serve as the final administrative and legal resolution of all eligible claims. However, this resolution does not resolve any potential False Claims Act reviews by the Department of Justice. Additionally, eligible claims include claims from any Medicare contractor so long as the denial was based on a patient status review.

Published on: September 8, 2014

CMS Announces Settlement Offer to Hospitals

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

In an effort to reduce the amount of cases currently pending appeal, specifically the backlog at the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) level of appeal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced an offer to hospital appellants to settle their patient status claim denials currently pending appeal. In exchange for hospitals’ withdrawal of their pending appeals, CMS has offered to pay hospitals 68% of the net payable amount of the claims.

In its announcement, CMS lists a number of conditions that must be met for a hospital to be eligible for settlement, including:

The provider must be either (1) an Acute Care Hospital, including those paid via Prospective Payment System, Periodic Interim Payments, and Maryland waiver, or (2) Critical Access Hospitals (CAH). Those entities which are not eligible for the settlement include: psychiatric hospitals paid under the Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities Prospective Payment System, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities (IRFs), long-term care hospitals (LTCHs), cancer hospitals and children’s hospitals.
The claim was not provided to a Medicare Part C (i.e., Medicare Advantage) enrollee.
The claim was denied upon review by a CMS audit contractor (e.g., Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC), Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC), Zone Program Integrity Contractor (ZPIC) or Comprehensive Error Rate Testing Contractor (CERT)).
The claim was denied was based on the CMS contractor’s finding that the patient was inappropriately treated as an inpatient as opposed to outpatient.
The first day of the inpatient admission was before October 1, 2013.
The claim denial was timely appealed, or the provider has not yet exhausted their appeal rights.
The provider did not subsequently rebill and receive payment for the claim under Medicare Part B.

For those hospitals with eligible claims, CMS has provided instructions on its website detailing the process for hospitals to participate in the settlement offer. In order to take advantage of the settlement offer, hospitals must submit their settlement requests by October 31, 2014.