Medicare

Published on: January 27, 2012

CMS Clarifies Procedure for MAC Claims Against DMEPOS Suppliers’ Surety Bonds

All Medicare suppliers of Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics and Supplies (DMEPOS) must obtain and maintain a surety bond of at least $50,000 to participate in the Medicare program. A Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recent transmittal, effective February 21, clarifies this requirement and describes the procedures that DME Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) must follow when making claims against a provider’s surety bond.

Under 42 CFR § 424.57(d)(5)(i), a surety is liable to CMS for 1) the amount of any unpaid claim, plus accrued interest, for which the supplier of DMEPOS is responsible, and 2) the amount of any unpaid claim, civil monetary penalty (CMP) or assessment imposed by CMS or the Office of Inspector General (OIG) on the DMEPOS supplier, plus interest.

First, the DME MACs will notify the surety that payment of a claim must be made to CMS within 30 days. The letter must 1) identify the specific amount to be paid, 2) be accompanied by “sufficient evidence” of the unpaid claim, 3) state that payment shall be made via check or money order and that the Payee shall be the DME MAC, and 4) identify the address to which payment shall be sent. The DME MAC will notify the supplier when payment has been made.

DMEPOS suppliers must then obtain an additional surety bond within 30 calendar days of that letter, and submit to the National Supplier Clearinghouse (NSC) additional coverage of an amount that equals or, in the case of a final adverse action, exceeds $50,000. Suppliers must be aware that failure to submit such additional surety bond coverage within 30 days may result in the NSC revoking the supplier’s Medicare billing privileges.

If the DMEPOS supplier successfully appeals, CMS will notify the surety via letter and repay the surety within 30 days. Although a supplier may want to avoid the necessity of securing an additional surety bond, the DMEPOS appeals process may take longer than 30 days and prudent DMEPOS suppliers should obtain additional coverage to ensure continued Medicare billing privileges.

Published on: January 25, 2012

CMS Publishes Important Reminder to Providers and Suppliers Regarding Referred or Ordered Services and Items

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently published an important reminder for all providers and suppliers who provide services and items ordered or referred by other providers and suppliers. The reminder states that Medicare will only pay for items or services for Medicare beneficiaries that have been ordered by a physician or eligible profession enrolled in the Medicare program, and that the individual National Provider Identifier (NPI) of the referring provider or supplier must be included in any claim to Medicare.

CMS also emphasizes that providers and suppliers must ensure that any items or services submitted in Medicare claims were referred by Medicare-enrolled providers of a specialty type authorized to order or refer such services. Further, Medicare will only reimburse for specific items or services ordered or referred by providers or suppliers that are authorized by statute and regulation. Specifically, CMS highlighted that:

Chiropractors are not eligible to order or refer supplies or services of Medicare beneficiaries. Consequently, all services ordered or referred by a chiropractor will be denied.

Home Health Agency (HHA) services may only be ordered or referred by a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.), Doctor of Osteopathy (D.O.) or Doctor of Podiatric Medicine (DPM). Thus, claims for HHA services ordered by any other practitioner specialty will be denied.

Portable X-Ray services may only be ordered by a Doctor of Medicine or Doctor of Osteopathy. Portable X-Ray services ordered by any other practitioners will be denied.

Through this “important reminder,” CMS emphasizes the necessary standards and documentation for healthcare providers and suppliers to successfully bill for providing referred services or items. The reminder demonstrates CMS’ continued focus on ensuring proper referral arrangements and supporting documentation.

Published on: December 30, 2011

CMS Announces Delay of Power Mobility Device Demonstration Program

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

On December 29, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that it would delay the start of the Prepayment Review and Prior Authorization of Power Mobility Devices (PMDs) Demonstration Program. CMS originally announced the demonstration program on November 15 and followed the announcement with special Open Door Forums explaining the program’s implications for providers and suppliers. During the Open Door Forums suppliers expressed their concerns that the program would have dire consequences for suppliers of power mobility devices. Some suppliers also questioned CMS’ failure to consult with industry leaders prior to announcing the demonstration program.

The industry’s pressure was effective. CMS’ decision to delay the start of the program was a result of “intensive collaboration” between CMS and AAHomecare. Industry leaders also obtained support from a number of members of Congress who wrote a letter to Marilyn Tavenner, the Acting Administrator of CMS, to delay the implementation of the program and work with industry leaders. In a press release, AAHomecare’s Vice President of Government Affairs, Walt Gorski stated, “we are pleased that CMS has taken a deep breath to understand the power mobility sector and the impact that any widespread prepayment review would have on Medicare beneficiaries and homecare providers.”

It is unclear at this time how long the start of the program will be delayed. CMS stated that it will review the comments and suggestions provided by industry stakeholders and will provide at least 30 days’ notice prior to the demonstration program implementation date.

Published on: December 23, 2011

Ten Highlights from the Proposed Physician Payment Sunshine Act Rule

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

In the December 19, 2011 Federal Register, CMS published a Proposed Rule to implement the “Physician Payment Sunshine Act” portion of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), or health care reform, which requires drug, medical device, biological and medical supply manufacturers to track and report payments made to physicians and teaching hospitals. The Proposed Rule clarifies several components of the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, including the following:

1. Applicable manufacturers must report the required information to CMS in an electronic format by March 31, 2013 and on the 90^th day of each calendar year thereafter.

2. The Physician Payment Sunshine Act will apply to any manufacturer whose products are sold or distributed in the United States regardless of where they are manufactured.

Published on: December 22, 2011

CMS’ Special Open Door Forum on Recovery Auditor Pre-Payment Review Demonstration Program

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

On December 21, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) held a special Open Door Forum (“ODF”) for the Recovery Auditor Pre-Payment Review Demonstration Program announced on November 15 along with two other demonstration programs, all of which will become effective on January 1, 2012.

The ODF, in which 1600 callers participated, addressed the purposes and the operational aspects of the program. CMS explained that they developed the program in an effort to reduce the error rate for improper payments, prevent improper payments before they are made and to focus on claims with high improper payment rates.

The demonstration program will begin with the pre-payment review of short-stay inpatient hospital claims (two days or less) for hospitals located in the eleven states affected by the demonstration program. Specifically, one MS-DRG, 312 Syncope & Collapse, will be reviewed beginning January 1. In March and then again in May CMS will add two more MS-DRGs and in July CMS will add three more. Thus, by July there will be eight DRGs subject to pre-payment review under the demonstration program:

Published on: December 20, 2011

CMS to Reopen Home Health Claims Denied Based on Face-to-Face Requirements

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

CMS has announced that it is requiring Medicare to reopen claims that contractors denied because Home Health Agencies (“HHA”) allegedly did not comply with “Face-to-Face” encounter requirements put in place by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), or Health Reform legislation.

The Face-to-Face encounter rules require that the physician certifying the patient’s need for home health care must have seen the patient “face-to-face” in order for Medicare to pay for a home healthcare episode. This encounter must take place either 90 days before the home health episode, or within 30 days of the beginning of home health care.

Providers brought to CMS’ attention that contractors were inappropriately denying claims based on the face-to-face requirement in two situations following an acute or post-acute stay:

Published on: December 5, 2011

CMS AB Demonstration Program: Hospitals’ Participation in December 8 Open Door Forum

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

As discussed in earlier posts, hospitals that participate in CMS’ upcoming Part A to Part B Rebilling Demonstration Program will be required to waive their right to appeal claims denied for lack of medical necessity for services provided in the inpatient setting. CMS’ rationale for this “all or nothing” approach is the concern that a participating hospital could appeal the denial of the Part A inpatient claim and at the same time resubmit the claim for Part B reimbursement. As any participating provider that intentionally engages in that type of billing practice would expose themselves to liability for double-billing, it is unrealistic for CMS to anticipate that participation in the demonstration program would encourage this behavior. During the RAC demonstration programs, in which hospitals were afforded the flexibility denied to them for the AB demonstration program, there was no evidence that hospitals tried to “game” the system.

Further, despite CMS’ overreaching concerns that hospitals will take advantage of a more flexible demonstration program that allowed case-by-case appeals, the agency’s concerns do not extend to the likelihood that RACs will take advantage of the demonstration program’s structure. CMS claims that the RACs will not know the hospitals that participate in the demonstration program, and therefore will not have an incentive to deny more claims from those hospitals knowing that they are immune from appeals. However, RACs will very likely know the participants because those hospitals will not submit appeals for the denied inpatient claims and the RACs will receive smaller contingency fees for those denied claims.

We strongly urge hospitals to participate in the CMS’ December 8 special Open Door Forum (details below). During the Open Door Forum, hospitals should express their dismay with the current structure of the demonstration program, specifically the waiver of any appeal rights for denied inpatient claims. In addition, hospitals must incorporate into their RAC appeals process the effort to obtain Part B payment for inpatient services denied as not medically necessary. Only through a concerted effort by the hospital industry will we convince CMS to modify the current rebilling system.

Published on: November 30, 2011

Open Door Forum for Part A to Part B Rebilling Demonstration Program

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

This afternoon, CMS conducted the first special Open Door Forum (ODF) on the Part A to Part B Rebilling Demonstration Program. The ODF involved a brief overview of the Demonstration Program followed by many questions by the ODF participants. Although the ODF provided some clarification on the Demonstration Program, CMS’ answers also gave rise to many concerns regarding the fairness of the Demonstration Program.

One of the most serious concerns is a Demonstration Program participant’s right to appeal a denial of an inpatient claim. According to CMS’ answers from callers’ questions, participation in the Demonstration Program is “all-or-nothing”. This means that if a participant’s claim is denied for lack of medical necessity for services provided in the inpatient setting, the participant’s only option is to resubmit the claim for outpatient reimbursement. Even if the participant disagrees with the contractor’s denial of the inpatient claim, the participant will not be allowed to appeal the inpatient denial. Clearly this limitation has very serious consequences for hospitals because it requires participants to waive all of their due process rights for these claims. First, between the RAC Demonstration Program and Permanent Program we have had success in overturning 90% of short-stay inpatient claims denied for services provided in the wrong setting. Accordingly, requiring a hospital to waive the right to challenge these denials appears to be a high price to pay to participate in the AB Demonstration Program. The limitation highlights the inequity of a system where a provider must choose between either appealing the denial of an inpatient claim, but being unable to rebill the claim for outpatient reimbursement or rebilling the claim for 90% reimbursement of the outpatient claim, but waiving all due process rights.

In a program where RACs are paid through a contingency fee based upon the dollar amount of claims they deny, it is concerning that RACs now have an incentive and unbridled discretion to deny inpatient claims where there will be no right to appeal. During the ODF, CMS insisted that the RACs will not be informed of the hospitals participating in the demonstration program and thus, will not have an incentive to deny more inpatient claims. However, RACs will likely be able to deduce the participants because the participants will not appeal any inpatient claim denials and RACs contingency fee for participants will be different from non-participants. Specifically the contingency fees that RACs will receive as a result of denials from participants will not be the contingency fee of the full inpatient claim or the outpatient claim, but of the difference between the full inpatient claim and outpatient claim. This differential will be unique to program participants. Therefore, it is likely that RACs will know the participants of the Demonstration Program and could target them because of the participants’ inability to appeal denied inpatient claims.

Published on: November 21, 2011

CMS Announces Special Open Door Forum for Part A to Part B Rebilling Demonstration Program

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

On Friday, November 18, CMS released a Q&A about the Part A to Part B Rebilling Demonstration Program. Although the Q&A does not answer many of the questions that arose from the Fact Sheet released on November 15, it does give insight into when those answers could be provided. CMS will hold two special Open Door Forums, one on November 30, 2011 and another on December 8, 2011. Both will be conducted at 2pm EST.

In addition, the Q&A announced that enrollment for the Demonstration Program will begin on December 12, 2011 at 2pm EST and some hospital facilities will be ineligible to participate in the program. For instance, facilities that receive periodic interim payments from CMS and do not participate in Medicare, will not be able to participate. In addition, psychiatric hospitals paid under the Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities Prospective Payment System, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities, Long-Term Care Hospitals, cancer hospitals, Critical Access Hospitals, and children’s hospitals all are ineligible to participate.

Finally, the Q&A provided an email for additional questions regarding the Demonstration Program to be sent to CMS. This email is ABRebillingDemo@cms.hhs.gov.

Published on: October 24, 2011

20 Notable Aspects of the Final ACO Rule

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

On October 20, 2011, CMS released the much awaited final rule for implementation of the Medicare Shared Savings Program for providers and suppliers participating in Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). The following are 20 notable aspects of the final rule:

•1. While the proposed rule would have required all ACOs to share risk of loss in the final year of the three year participation period, the final rule created an alternative for a “shared savings only” track (one-sided model) that will not require any sharing of losses. The final rule also retains the proposed two-sided model that will allow ACOs to share in an increased portion of savings, so long as the ACO also agrees to share in any losses to the program.

•2. The final rule will allow ACOs beginning in April 1, 2012 or July 1, 2012 to have a longer first performance year (21 months or 18 months respectively) and an option to receive an interim payment calculation following the first 12 months of participation. One-sided ACOs receiving an interim payment will be required to demonstrate a self-executing repayment mechanism similar to that which the two-sided ACOs must demonstrate.