On Friday, March 13, 2020, CMS issued blanket waivers under 42 U.S.C. 1320b-5 that impact long term acute care hospitals (LTCHs) and inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) as a result of President Trump declaring a state of an emergency due to COVID-19. The blanket waivers temporarily allow facilities operating inpatient rehabilitation units to exclude patients admitted

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued broad waivers to assist in the national COVID-19 response. They impact all provider types and generally remove regulatory burdens that could restrict access to care. For example, the waivers remove bed limits on Critical Access Hospitals and will allow Long Term Hospitals to exclude from the 25 ALOS calculation patients who were admitted or discharged to “meet the demands of the emergency.” Restriction on the separation of patients in excluded units in IPPS hospitals are waived. The requirement for three days of hospitalization to receive skilled nursing coverage is also waived. There are a number of other waivers.

In the wake of the COVID-19 global pandemic declaration, hospice providers are faced with the difficult conundrum of ensuring the continuity of care for their vulnerable patients while attempting to comply with the recent CDC and CMS guidelines regarding post-acute care facilities’ lock-down procedures. There is no question the intentions of long-term care facilities are well-meaning in an effort to protect its residents who are most susceptible to COVID-19 complications.[1] However, these precautionary measures put residents receiving hospice services at risk of missing supportive treatment and important care planning.  The American Health Care Association (AHCA) and National Center for Assisted Living (NCAL) derived its skilled nursing facility visitor restriction recommendations from the CMS revised guidance issued March 9, 2020, and hospice providers should take note of these recommendations to ensure they are not prohibited from caring for their patients.

As the novel coronavirus outbreak continues, the federal government and commercial health insurers have taken significant steps to increase Americans’ access to treatment and testing. In the past week, the federal government and private insurers have issued a number of guidance documents expanding coverage and payment requirements in an effort to minimize the spread of the virus. As with any changes in coverage and reimbursement, healthcare providers offering telehealth services should carefully review these changes and take steps to ensure that all regulatory and coverage requirements are met prior to submitting claims for reimbursement.

I. Medicare

On March 6, 2020, the bipartisan Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2020 (“Coronavirus Appropriations Act”) was signed into law authorizing federal spending to combat the ongoing coronavirus outbreak in the United States. This Act, among other things, gives the United States Department of Health and Human Services’ (“HHS”) secretary the authority to temporarily waive certain Medicare requirements for telehealth services.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) currently reimburses a limited set of telehealth services provided to Medicare beneficiaries subject to certain criteria under section 1834(m) of the Social Security Act. Generally, the patient receiving telehealth services must be located at one of eight “originating sites”, which include hospitals, physicians’ offices, and rural health clinics. In addition, the originating site must meet certain geographic requirements which have essentially limited the availability of telehealth to patients in rural areas. These requirements have long posed a hurdle to the expansion of telehealth despite the industry’s demand for lessened restrictions. However, with the rapid spread of the coronavirus and the possibility of facing large scale isolations and quarantines, lawmakers have signaled their willingness to expand access to telehealth to fight against this public health crisis.

Within the Coronavirus Appropriations Act is the Telehealth Services During Certain Emergency Periods Act of 2020, which sets forth the waiver authority for the secretary of HHS regarding the certain telehealth requirements. Under the Telehealth Services During Emergency Periods Act, the secretary is authorized to temporarily waive the originating site and geographic requirements for telehealth services provided to Medicare beneficiaries located in an identified “emergency area” during an “emergency period” when provided by a qualified provider. To qualify for the waiver, the provider must have treated the patient within the previous three years or be in the same practice (i.e., as determined by tax identification number) of a practitioner who has treated the patient in the past three years. The bill also lessens the telecommunications requirements by allowing Medicare beneficiaries to receive telehealth services via their smartphones (i.e., telephones that allow for real time, audio-video interaction between the provider and the beneficiary). Because the federal government has declared a nationwide public health emergency as a result of the coronavirus, the waiver will apply across the country until there is no longer a nationwide public health emergency.

A teaching hospital in Connecticut affiliated with Yale Medical School is facing age and disability discrimination allegations after imposing mandatory medical testing for doctors 70 and older who seek medical staff privileges.  The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has filed suit against Yale New Haven Hospital, claiming that subjecting older physicians to medical testing before renewing their staff privileges violates anti-discrimination laws.

According to the EEOC, the hospital’s “Late Career Practitioner Policy” dictates that medical providers over the age of 70 must undergo both neuropsychological and ophthalmologic examinations – a policy the federal agency claims violates both the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”).  The EEOC claims that the individuals required to be tested are singled out solely because of their age, instead of a suspicion that their cognitive abilities may have declined. The agency further charges that the policy also violates the ADA because it subjects the physicians to medical examinations that are not job-related or consistent with business necessity.

In this “Hospice Insights: The Law and Beyond” episode, the hospice team shares insights on how to manage and succeed in responding to additional documentation requests (“ADR”) stemming from Targeted Probe and Educate (“TPEs”) projects. We discuss the unique features of TPE and winning strategies for responding. Check out the Hospice Resource Library for tips

We are thrilled both to welcome four new hospice attorneys to Husch Blackwell and for the launch of their new podcast “Hospice Insights: The Law and Beyond.”

In this first episode, Meg Pekarske, Bryan Nowicki,  Erin Burns and Andrew Brenton discuss the exciting opportunities resulting from their move to Husch Blackwell. The episode is available