Monthly Archives: April 2019
Medicare “Site Neutral” Reimbursements Hit Hospitals Hard, But Is It Legal?
Shockingly, not all new rules that emerge from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are actually compliant with the law. Wait! What? How can CMS publish Final Rules that are not compliant with the law?
This was an eye-opening discovery as a “baby lawyer” back 20 years ago. The government can and does publish and create Rules that, sometimes, exceed its legal authority. Of course, the Agency must follow appropriate rule-making procedure and allow for a comment period (etc.), but CMS does not have to listen to the comments. Theoretically, CMS could publish a Final Rule mandating that all Medicare providers provide 50 hours of free services a year or that the reimbursement rate for all services is $1. Both of my examples violate multiple rules, regulations, and laws, but until an aggrieved party with standing files a lawsuit declaring the Final Rule to be invalid or Congress passes a law that renders the Rule moot, the Rule exists and can be enforced by CMS and its agents.
The Rule-change (the “Site-Neutrality Rule”), which became effective January 1, 2019, reduced Medicare reimbursements to hospitals with outpatient facilities. Medicare will pay hospitals that have outpatient facilities “off campus” at a lower rate — equivalent to what it pays independent physicians for clinic visits. This decrease in Medicare reimbursements hits hard for most hospitals across the country, but, especially, rural hospitals. For the past 10+ years, hospitals have built outpatient facilities to serve more patients, and been reimbursed a higher Medicare reimbursement rate than independent physicians because the services at the hospital’s outpatient facility were connected to an outpatient facility affiliated with a hospital. Now the Site-Neutrality Rule leaves many hospitals trying to catch their breaths after the metaphoric punch to the belly. On the other hand, independent physicians claim that they have been providing the exact, same services as the hospital-affiliated outpatient facilities for years, but have received a lower reimbursement rate. I have no opinion (I do, but my opinion is not the topic in this blog) as to whether physicians and hospitals should be reimbursed equally – this blog is not pro-physician or pro-hospital. Rather, this blog is “pro-holding CMS liable to render Rules that follow the law.” Whether the hospitals or the physicians were receiving a cut in reimbursement rates, I am in favor of the those cuts (and future cuts) abiding by the law. Interestingly, should the AHA win this case, it could set solid, helpful, legal precedent for all types of providers and all types of decreased Medicare/caid reimbursements going forward.
Because of the Site-Neutrality Rule, in 2019, hospitals’ reimbursements will drop approximately $380 million and $760 million in 2020, according to CMS.
Before CMS brags on a decrease in the Medicare budget due to a proposed or Final Rule, it should remember that there is budget neutrality requirement when it comes to Rules implemented by CMS. 42 US.C. § 1395l. Yet, here, for the Site-Neutrality Rule, according to articles and journals, CMS is boasting its Site-Neutrality Rule as saving millions upon millions of dollars for Medicare. Can we say “Budget Non-Neutrality?”
The American Hospital Association filed a lawsuit December 2018 claiming that CMS exceeded its authority by implementing the Final Rule for “site neutral” Medicare reimbursements for hospitals with outpatient facilities. The lawsuit requests an injunction to stop the decrease and an order to repay any funds withheld thus far.
The claim, which, I believe has merit, argues that the Site-Neutrality Rule exceeds CMS’s statutory authority under the Medicare Act because of the budget neutrality mandate, in part – there are other arguments, but, for the sake of this blog, I am concentrating on the budget neutrality requirement. In my humble opinion, the budget neutrality requirement is overlooked by many attorneys and providers when it comes to challenging cuts to Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement rates.
On March 22, 2019, CMS filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative, a Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. On April 5, 2019, AHA (and the rest of the Plaintiffs) responded in opposition. On April 19, 2019, CMS responded to AHA’s response in opposition. The Judge has not ruled on the Motions, as of today, April 25, 2019.
Obviously, I will be keeping a close eye on the progress of this case going forward. In the meantime, more reductions in reimbursement rates are on the horizon…
Recently, CMS recently proposed three new rules that would further update the Medicare payment rates and quality reporting programs for hospices, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), and inpatient psychiatric facilities.
Stay tuned.
CMS Revises and Details Extrapolation Rules: Part II
Biggest RACs Changes Are Here: Learn to Avoid Denied Claims
See Part I: Medicare Audits: Huge Overhaul on Extrapolation Rules
Part II continues to explain the nuances in the changes made by CMS to its statistical sampling methodology. Originally published on RACMonitor.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently made significant changes in its statistical sampling methodology for overpayment estimation. Effective Jan. 2, 2019, CMS radically changed its guidance on the use of extrapolation in audits by Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs), Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs), Unified Program Integrity Contractors (UPICs), and the Supplemental Medical Review Contractor (SMRC).
The RAC program was created through the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) to identify and recover improper Medicare payments paid to healthcare providers under fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare plans. The RAC auditors review a small sample of claims, usually 150, and determine an error rate. That error rate is attributed to the universe, which is normally three years, and extrapolated to that universe. Extrapolation is similar to political polls – in that a Gallup poll will ask the opinions of 1-2 percent of the U.S. population, yet will extrapolate those opinions to the entire country.
First, I would like to address a listener’s question regarding the dollar amount’s factor in extrapolation cases. I recently wrote, “for example, if 500 claims are reviewed and one is found to be noncompliant for a total of $100, then the error rate is set at 20 percent.”
I need to explain that the math here is not “straight math.” The dollar amount of the alleged noncompliant claims factors into the extrapolation amount. If the dollar amount did not factor into the extrapolation, then a review of 500 claims with one non-compliant claim is 0.2 percent. The fact that, in my hypothetical, the one claim’s dollar amount equals $100 changes the error rate from 0.2 percent to 20 percent.
Secondly, the new rule includes provisions implementing the additional Medicare Advantage telehealth benefit added by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018. Prior to the new rule, audits were limited in the telehealth services they could include in their basic benefit packages because they could only cover the telehealth services available under the FFS Medicare program. Under the new rule, telehealth becomes more prominent in basic services. Telehealth is now able to be included in the basic benefit packages for any Part B benefit that the plan identifies as “clinically appropriate,” to be furnished electronically by a remote physician or practitioner.
The pre-Jan. 2, 2019 approach to extrapolation employed by RACs was inconsistent, and often statistically invalid. This often resulted in drastically overstated overpayment findings that could bankrupt a physician practice. The method of extrapolation is often a major issue in appeals, and the, new rules address many providers’ frustrations and complaints about the extrapolation process. This is not to say that the post-Jan. 2, 2019 extrapolation approach is perfect…far from it. But the more detailed guidance by CMS just provides more ways to defend against an extrapolation if the RAC auditor veers from instruction.
Thirdly, hiring an expert is a key component in debunking an extrapolation. Your attorney should have a relationship with a statistical expert. Keep in mind the following factors when choosing an expert:
- Price (more expensive is not always better, but expect the hourly rate to increase for trial testimony).
- Intelligence (his/her CV should tout a prestigious educational background).
- Report (even though he/she drafts a report, the report is not a substitute for testimony).
- Clusters (watch out for a sample that has a significant number of higher reimbursed claims. For example, if you generally use three CPT codes at an equal rate and the sample has an abnormal amount of the higher reimbursed claim, then you have an argument that the sample is an invalid example of your claims.
- Sample (the sample must be random and must not contain claims not paid by Medicaid).
- Oral skills (can he/she make statistics understandable to the average person?)
Fourthly, the new revised rule redefines the universe. In the past, suppliers have argued that some of the claims (or claim lines) included in the universe were improperly used for purposes of extrapolation. However, the pre-Jan. 2, 2019 Medicare Manual provided little to no additional guidance regarding the inclusion or exclusion of claims when conducting the statistical analysis. By contrast, the revised Medicare Manual specifically states:
“The universe includes all claim lines that meet the selection criteria. The sampling frame is the listing of sample units, derived from the universe, from which the sample is selected. However, in some cases, the universe may include items that are not utilized in the construction of the sample frame. This can happen for a number of reasons, including but not limited to:
- Some claims/claim lines are discovered to have been subject to a prior review;
- The definitions of the sample unit necessitate eliminating some claims/claim lines; or
- Some claims/claim lines are attributed to sample units for which there was no payment.”
By providing detailed criteria with which contractors should exclude certain claims from the universe or sample frame, the revised Medicare Manual will also provide suppliers another means to argue against the validity of the extrapolation.
Lastly, the revised rules explicitly instruct the auditors to retain an expert statistician when changes occur due to appeals and legal arguments.
As a challenge to an extrapolated overpayment determination works its way through the administrative appeals process, often, a certain number of claims may be reversed from the initial claim determination. When this happens, the statistical extrapolation must be revised, and the extrapolated overpayment amount must be adjusted. This requirement remains unchanged in the revised PIM; however, the Medicare contractors will now be required to consult with a statistical expert in reviewing the methodology and adjusting the extrapolated overpayment amount.
Between my first article on extrapolation, “CMS Revises and Details Extrapolation Rules,” and this follow-up, you should have a decent understanding of the revised extrapolation rules that became effective Jan. 2, 2019. But my two articles are not exhaustive. Please, click here for Change Request 10067 for the full and comprehensive revisions.
New Mexico Leads the Nation in Ground-Breaking Legislation in Support of Medicaid Providers
“Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed into law this week a bill (SB41) that ensures service providers accused of overbilling or defrauding Medicaid can review and respond to allegations of wrongdoing before state action is taken.” – Tripp Jennings, New Mexico In Depth.
For those of you who don’t know, in 2013, the State of New Mexico, suspended the Medicaid reimbursements of 15 behavioral health care providers based on “credible allegations of fraud.” 42 CFR 455.23. The Attorney General eventually determined that no fraud existed as to ANY of the 15 behavioral health care providers. These providers constituted 87.5% of the behavioral health care providers in New Mexico, which is predominantly Medicaid and has the highest suicide rate of any state, if you consider the Native American population.
There was no due process. The providers were informed of the immediate Medicaid suspension in a group meeting without ever being told what exactly the “fraud” was that they allegedly committed. They were informed by, then assistant Attorney General, Larry Hyeck, that fraud existed and because of the ongoing investigation nothing could be divulged to those accused. Supposedly, the evidence for such “fraud” was based on an independent audit performed by Public Consulting Group (PCG). However, according to testimony from an employee of PCG at the administrative hearing of The Counseling Center (one of the 15 accused behavioral health care providers), PCG was not allowed by the Human Services Department of NM (HSD) to complete its audit. According to this employee’s testimony, it is PCG’s common practice to return to the providers which are the subject of the audit a 2nd or even 3rd time to ensure that all the relevant documents were collected and reviewed. Human error and the sheer amount of medical records involved in behavioral health care suggest that a piece of paper or two can be overlooked, especially because this audit occurred in 2013, before most of the providers had adopted electronic medical record systems. Add in the fact that PCG’s scanners were less than stellar and that the former Governor Susan Martinez, Optum’s CEO, and the HSD Secretary -at the time- had already vetted 5 Arizona companies to overtake the 15 NM behavioral health care companies – even prior to PCG’s determination – and the sum equals a pre-determined accusation of fraud. PCG’s initial report stated that no credible allegations of fraud existed. However, PCG was instructed to remove that sentence.
Almost all the providers were forced out of business. The staff were terminated or told to be employed by the new 5 AZ companies. The Medicaid recipients lost their mental health services. One company remained in business because they paid the State for fraud that they never committed. Another company held on by a very thin thread because of its developmental disability services. But the former-CEO became taxed and stepped down and many more left or were let go. The 13 other providers were financially ruined, including the largest behavioral health care provider in NM, which serviced over 700 Medicaid recipients and employed hundreds of clinical staff. It had been servicing NM’s poor and those in need of mental health services for over 30 years. Another company had been in business over 40 years (with the same CEO). The careers and live’s work were crumbled in one day and by one accusation that was eventually proven to be wrong.
No one ever foresaw this amount of abuse of discretion to occur by government agents.
Now, today, in 2019, the new Governor of NM, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, signed a law introduced by Senator Mary Kay Papen, a long proponent and advocate that the 15 behavioral health care providers were unjustly accused and forced out of business, that will protect Medicaid providers in NM from ever being subjected to the unjust and arbitrary suspension of Medicaid funds and unfounded allegations of Medicaid fraud.
Even though 42 C.F.R. 455.23 requires a state to suspend Medicaid funding upon “credible allegations of fraud,” NM has taken the first step toward instituting a safeguard for Medicaid providers. Already too few health care providers accept Medicaid – and who can blame them? The low reimbursement rates are nothing compared to the regulatory scrutiny that they undergo merely for accepting Medicaid.
NM SB41 contradicts the harsh language of 42 CFR 455.23, which mandates that a State “must” suspend payments upon a credible allegation of fraud. NM SB41 provides due process for Medicaid providers accused of fraud. Which begs the question – why hasn’t anyone brought a declaratory action to determine that 42 CFR 455.23 violates due process, which happens to be a constitutional right?
Part of the due process enacted by New Mexico is that a suspension of Medicaid reimbursements should be released upon a post of a surety bond and that the posting of a surety bond shall be deemed good cause to not suspend payments during the investigation. Although the new law also states that the Medicaid reimbursement suspension must be released within 10 days of the posting of the surety bond “in the amount of the suspended payment.” After 4 administrative hearings in New Mexico, I can assure you that the provider and HSD will have two disparate views of the “amount of the suspended payment.” And by disparate, I mean REALLY disparate.
Regardless, I view this new law as a giant leap in the direction of the Constitution, which was actually enacted in 1789. So is it apropos that 230 years later NM is forced to enact a law that upholds a legal right that was written and enacted into law 230 years ago?
Thank you, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, Senator Papen, Patsy Romero, and Shawn Mathis for your amazing effort on getting this legislation passed.
And – look forward to my webcast on RACMonitor on Monday, April 8, 2019, detailing how courts across the country are revising their views and granting federal injunctions stopping premature recoupments when a Medicare/caid provider is accused of an overpayment. Due process is on a come-back.
Medicare Reform Proposals Include Eliminating “Incident-to” Rules
There are a lot of concerns related to “incident-to“ billing. However, for physician practices, “incident-to” billing is a money maker, which, in the world, of sub-par Medicare reimbursement rates is a minute ray of sunshine in an otherwise eclipsed land. Auditors argue that there are fraud and abuse concerns because practices ignore or are confused about the rules and bill everything “incident-to“regardless of the conditions being met. This can result in a nasty audit, as well as substantial fines, penalties, and attorneys’ fees. If you bill “incident-to,” just follow the rules…unless those rules are eliminated. Until possible elimination, keep up with the rules, which can differ depending on the auditor in the region.
Recently, people have been pushing for Medicare reform to include disallowing nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) from billing “incident-to.” Proponents of the suggested amendment claims that the recommendation would save the Medicare program money — approximately $50 to $250 million annually and just under $1 billion over 5 years.
The number of NPs who bill Medicare has more than doubled, from 52,000 to 130,000 from 2010 to 2017
What is “incident-to” billing?
In colloquialism, “incident-to” billing allows non-physician providers (NPPs) to report services “as if” they were performed by a physician. The NPP stands in the shoes of the physician. The advantage is that, under Medicare rules, covered services provided by NPPs typically are reimbursed at 85% of the fee schedule amount; whereas, services properly reported “incident-to” are reimbursed at the full fee schedule value.
In legalize, “incident-to” services under §1861(s)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act are provided by NPPs as a part of the services provided directly by the physician, but billed as if they were in fact performed by the physician. Several, legal, threshold requirements must be satisfied before billing eligibility for these services is established.
Billing using “incident-to” can be a huge money-maker for providers. If billed incorrectly, it can also be a provider’s financial downfall.
“Incident-to” billing can only apply to established patients. Not new patients. Not consults. The other non-negotiable factor is that the physician who is supervising must be on-site. Not a phone call away. Not grabbing a burger at a local eatery. On-site. Although with hospitals, the cafeteria is a viable option. I foresee, in the future, telehealth and Skype may change this on-site requirement. The incident-to rules also require that the services be part of a patient’s normal course of treatment. The rules require that the physician remains actively involved in the patient’s course of treatment. There must be direct supervision. Direct supervision = on-site. The following services cannot be billed as “incident-to:”
- new patient visits
- visits in which an established patient is seen for a new problem
- visits in which the treatment provided or prescribed is not a part of the treatment plan established by a physician
- services provided in the hospital or ambulatory surgery center.
Do not confuse “incident-to” with Medicare patients versus Medicaid patients. MediCAID’s regulations for the coverage of MD services vary significantly than Medicare’s rules and requires direct contact with the patient with exceptions.
Here is a question that I often get: “When billing “incident-to,” do you bill “incident to” the physician who is physically on-site that day or the physician who is overseeing that patient’s care? Both physicians are in the same group and it is billed under the Group NPI, but not sure which physician to reference for “incident-to.”
Answer: Bill under the MD who is on-site. This was addressed by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in the 2016 Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule.
The Medicare Benefit Policy Manual addresses the “incident-to” rules for each provider type and in any scenario:
- Section 60 contains policies for services furnished incident to physicians’ services in the physician’s office.
- Chapter 6, section 20.5 enumerates the policies for therapeutic services furnished “incident-to” physicians’ services in the hospital outpatient setting.
- Section 80 states the policies for diagnostic tests in the physician’s office
- Chapter 6, section 20.4 lists the policies for diagnostic tests furnished in the hospital outpatient setting.
Drug Administration under “incident-to”
“The Medicare program provides limited benefits for outpatient prescription drugs. The program covers drugs that are furnished “incident to” a physician’s service provided that the drugs are not usually self-administered by the patients who take them.” Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, 50.2. Injectable drugs, including intravenously administered drugs, are typically eligible for inclusion under the “incident-to” benefit.
The Medicare Administrative Contracts (MACs) (or – auditors) must fully explain the process they will use to determine whether a drug is usually self-administered and thus does not meet the “incident-to” benefit category. The MACs must publish a list of the injectable drugs that are subject to the self-administered exclusion. If there is discrepancy amongst the MACs, a lawsuit could help.
In order to meet all the general requirements for coverage under the “incident-to” provision, an FDA approved drug or biological must:
- Be of a form that is not usually self-administered;
- Must be furnished by a physician; and
- Must be administered by the physician, or by auxiliary personnel employed by the physician and under the physician’s personal supervision
The charge, if any, for the drug or biological must be included in the physician’s bill, and the cost of the drug or biological must represent an expense to the physician.
Summary
“Incident-to” billing is subject to elimination. The difference in billing “incident-to” is a 100% reimbursement rate versus an 85% reimbursement rate. That 15% difference cannot be passed onto the Medicare recipients.
While “incident-to” billing continues to be allowed, it is imperative to keep up with the ever changing rules.
