The out-of-network (OON) business model faces challenges as the result of changes to health and benefit plan OON coverage, but a ruling by Judge Hoyt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas suggests that health plans should be careful in refusing payment based on perceived OON high charges, questions about OON co-insurance collection, or provider financial arrangements.
Reimbursement
CMS’ quest for quality – proposed merit-based and alternative payment model rules released
On April 27, 2016, the Department of Health & Human Services Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released its proposed rule regarding models for tying professional reimbursement to quality. While this may be great news for providers who enjoy the challenges of tracking and reporting data, these challenges are going to cause problems (namely, reimbursement reductions) for some providers. Regardless of whether providers think this is good or bad, providers should start looking at the proposed regulations now because, as proposed, quality-based payments will be a fact of life for all physicians, mid-levels, CRNAs and groups effective Jan. 1, 2019. The regulations will be published in the May 9, 2016, Federal Register. The comment period will officially start at that time and run through 5 p.m. on June 27, 2016.
Summary of the final HHS rule for reporting and returning of overpayments
On Feb. 12, the Department of Health and Human Services’ (“HHS”) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) published its final rule regarding reporting and returning Medicare overpayments. This final rule comes nearly four years after its proposed rule regarding the reporting and return of Medicare overpayments that left the provider community nervous and uncertain about when an overpayment would be considered “overdue” under CMS’s vague 60-day standard.
CMS to rewrite the rules of EHR meaningful use
Recent remarks made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) Acting Administrator Andy Slavitt at a healthcare conference indicated that CMS will be ending the “meaningful use” electronic health record (“EHR”) Incentive Program in 2016, five years ahead of its original final end date of 2021. Acting Administrator Slavitt did not elaborate on the specifics of what will replace meaningful use, but stated it would likely be tied to the implementation of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (“MACRA”) and would include various streamlined quality reporting programs. MACRA emphasizes a new Merit-Based Incident Payment System and alternative payment models, and according to Acting Administrator Slavitt, this new law warrants a new streamlined regulatory approach to EHR as well.
Texas 1115 Waiver Extension
On Thursday, July 16, 2015, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) held a public meeting regarding its request to seek an extension of its Section 1115 Medicaid Transformation Waiver. The current waiver covered a five year period ending September 30, 2016. Under the waiver Texas has expanded Medicaid managed care, created a funding pool to offset uncompensated care and provided incentives for hospitals and other providers to develop delivery system infrastructure in Texas. Over the waiver period, Texas will commit $29 Billion to the uncompensated care and delivery system payment pools (approximately 58% or $16.82 Billion represent federal funds).
Physician compensation caution
The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a special fraud alert on June 9, 2015, stating that physician compensation arrangements may result in significant liability. Hopefully this is not a surprise to any physician or entity that treats federal health plan beneficiaries. However, given that, historically, OIG regulatory actions largely (although not exclusively) focused on the entity from which a physician received compensation, such as hospitals, laboratories, durable medical equipment suppliers, pharmacies, etc., the June 9, 2015, fraud alert highlights the potential for physician liability in these arrangements.
Value-based payments are heading for physicians
In a 92-8 vote on April 14, 2015, the Senate passed a bipartisan measure to repeal the Medicare payment formula known as the Sustainable Growth Rate (“SGR”). The legislation also included a new payment system that rewards providers for the quality and efficiency of care they provide.
Update: Texas Medicaid ‘incident to’ rule now in effect
The Texas Health & Human Services Commission’s (HHSC) final rules regarding physician billing for services provided by an APRN or PA became effective Jan. 1, 2015, and include limitations on such billing arrangements. See 39 Tex. Reg. 9884 (Dec. 19, 2014). The adopted rule requires that a physician billing for services provided by an APRN or PA under the physician’s Medicaid billing number must make a decision regarding the patient’s care or treatment on the same date of service as the billable medical visit and documented that decision in the patient’s record. See Tex. Admin. Code Tit. 1 §354.1062. If a physician billing for such services does not make a decision regarding the patient’s care or treatment on the same date of service, the physician must note on the claim that the services were provided by a supervisee. See Tex. Admin. Code Tit. 1 §354.1001.
HHS makes moves toward value-based payments
On Jan. 26, 2015, Secretary Sylvia M. Burwell announced the goals and a timeline of the U. S. Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”) to move the Medicare program, and the healthcare system at large, toward paying providers based on quality, rather than quantity, of care they give to patients.
DOJ intervenes in first False Claim Act case involving ACA ’60-day repayment provision’
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the New York State Attorney General intervened in a federal False Claims Act (FCA) case on June 27, 2014, accusing Mount Sinai Health System of failing to report and return Medicaid overpayments within 60 days of identifying them. See U.S. ex rel Kane v. Healthfirst, Inc., et al., No. 11-2325 (S.D.N.Y). This case is one of the first examples of litigation involving “the 60-day repayment provision” under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).