Articles Posted in Compliance

Published on:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a final rule (Final Rule) on June 27, 2023, which implements statutory provisions for specific individuals or entities subject to the information blocking requirements established by the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act). The Cures Act imposes civil money penalties (CMP) of up to $1 million per violation of information blocking, which is defined as “a practice that interferes with, prevents, or materially discourages access, exchange, or use of electric health information,” except as required by law or covered by an exception.

The Final Rule authorizes HHS to impose CMPs, assessments, and exclusions on individuals and entities that engage in alleged fraud or other misconduct related to HHS grants, contracts, and other agreements, as well as increases the maximum penalties for certain CMP violations. OIG may impose CMPs of up to $1 million per violation of information blocking on a health information technology (Health IT) developer of certified health IT or a health information network or health information exchange (HIN/HIE), as those terms are defined by OIG.

Penalties may be imposed on certified Health IT developers and HIN/HIEs that do not actually interfere with access, exchange, or use of electronic health information (EHI) if the requisite intent is present. Specifically, such individual or entity may have CMP exposure under the Final Rule if it knew or should have known that a practice was likely to interfere with access, exchange, or use of EHI. Additionally, OIG has clarified that a discrete action by an actor that implicates information blocking would be viewed as a single violation. Thus, it appears that the number of violations will be directly connected to the number of discrete acts.

Published on:

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:

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) released Advisory Opinion 23-04 (Advisory Opinion) on July 11, 2023, addressing arrangements between online healthcare directories and certain third-party websites (Directories) with federal healthcare program beneficiaries. In the Advisory Opinion, the OIG declined to impose sanctions on healthcare provider Directories offering these sort of advertising services to providers.

Under the proposed arrangement, healthcare provider Directories are serving as marketplaces in which users and potential patients can book medical appointments with physicians and other healthcare providers (Providers) who are listed on the online Directories. Patients can filter their results by searching for different types of medical providers, and the Directories generate personalized results using a proprietary algorithm.

Although no fee is charged to the patients for using the directory, Providers pay a fee to be included in the directory through an array of payment methods. Whenever potential patients click on a Provider’s profile during their searches, a “per-click” fee is charged to Providers. A “per-booking” fee is also charged to Providers for each new patient the Providers receive through the Directory which may vary in amount based on location, specialty, and other factors impacting the fair market value of the marketing service. Providers can also set spending caps, which would remove the Providers from the directory once a certain amount of booking fees has been met.

Published on:

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:

HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) has released a new analysis of claims paid under the COVID-19 Uninsured Program. OIG reportedly identified a few dozen instances where the program reimbursed healthcare providers for services provided to patients who ended up having health insurance coverage. OIG generally assigned responsibility for these payments to the private contractor who administered the program, but nonetheless encouraged audits and recovery from the healthcare providers who received payments.

The COVID-19 Uninsured Program was created in early 2020 in response to provide reimbursement for providers who treated uninsured patients for COVID-19. The program was part of the larger Provider Relief Fund and paid claims up until April 2022, when it ran out of money. Altogether the Program paid out approximately $24.5 billion in claims. The program was overseen by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), but the day-to-day administration and claims processing functions were contracted to Optum Pay, a subsidiary of Optum Bank.

According to OIG (which did not refer to Optum Pay by name in its report, referring only to “HRSA’s contractor”), the contractor processing claims under the program indicated that it would check the insurance status of patients for whom claims were submitted, but in fact only checked insurance status when the patient’s Social Security Number (SSN) was included on the claim. HRSA did not require SSNs on such claims and so the majority of claims did not include SSNs and were not screened by the contractor prior to payment. Instead, HRSA’s contractor relied on the attestation by providers that the patient did not have health insurance coverage.

Contact Information