Category Archives: Medicaid Services

Termination Underway for Virginia Medicaid Behavioral Health Care Providers!

As Virginia Medicaid behavioral health care providers are being terminated, the question remains, is it legal?

Virginia behavioral health care providers that accept Medicaid are under statewide blanket fire.

Without warning or provocation, the Managed Care Organizations (MCOs) recently began a mass firing, terminating all Medicaid behavioral health care providers “without cause.” Since the terminations involved multiple MCOs that were not ostensibly connected by business organization, involving providers across the state, it became immediately clear that the MCOs may have planned the terminations together.

Why are the MCOs doing this, you might ask? If you were charged with managing a firehose of Medicaid dollars, would you rather deal with 100 small providers or two large providers? This appears to be discrimination based on size.

Thankfully, for the behavioral healthcare providers of Virginia, they had an association, which is run by a tenacious woman with energy like the Energizer Bunny and passion like a tsunami. Caliber Virginia is the association heading the defense.

This is not my first rodeo with large-scale litigation regarding Medicare or Medicaid. I represented four behavioral healthcare providers in the New Mexico debacle through the administrative process. I have brought class-action lawsuits based on the computer software program implemented by the state to manage Medicaid funds. I have been successful in federal courts in obtaining federal injunctions staying terminations of Medicaid provider contracts.

Since I was contacted by Caliber Virginia, I have reviewed multiple contracts between providers and MCOs, termination letters, and federal and state law, listened to the stories of the providers that are facing imminent closure, and brainstormed legal theories to protect the providers.

I came up with this – these MCOs cannot terminate these providers “without cause.” In fact, these MCOs cannot terminate these providers without good reason.

Under numerous Supreme Court holdings, most notably the Court’s holding in Board of Regents v. Roth, the right to due process under the law only arises when a person has a property or liberty interest at stake.

In determining whether a property interest exists, a Court must first determine that there is an entitlement to that property. Unlike liberty interests, property interests and entitlements are not created by the Constitution. Instead, property interests are created by federal or state law, and can arise from statute, administrative regulations, or contract.

Specifically, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that North Carolina Medicaid providers have a property interest in continued provider status. In Bowens v. N.C. Dept. of Human Res., the Fourth Circuit recognized that the North Carolina provider appeals process created a due-process property interest in a Medicaid provider’s continued provision of services, and could not be terminated “at the will of the state.” The Court determined that these due process safeguards, which included a hearing and standards for review, indicated that the provider’s participation was not “terminable at will.” The Court held that these safeguards created an entitlement for the provider, because it limits the grounds for termination, only for cause, and that such cause was reviewable. The Fourth Circuit reached the same result in Ram v. Heckler two years later. I foresee the same results in other appellate jurisdictions, but definitely again within the Fourth Circuit.

Since Ram, North Carolina Medicaid providers’ rights to continued participation has been strengthened through the passage of Chapter 108C. Chapter 108C expressly creates a right for existing Medicaid providers to challenge a decision to terminate participation in the Medicaid program in the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). It also makes such reviews subject to the standards of Article 3 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Therefore, North Carolina law now contains a statutory process that confers an entitlement to Medicaid providers. Chapter 108C sets forth the procedure and substantive standards for which OAH is to operate, and gives rise to the property right recognized in Bowens and Ram. Similarly, the Virginia law provides an appeal process for providers to follow in accordance with the Virginia Administrative Process Act.  See VA Code § 32.1-325 and 12 VAC 30-121-230.

In another particular case, a Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) terminated a provider’s ability to deliver four CPT® codes, which comprised of over 80 percent of the provider’s bailiwick, severely decreasing the provider’s funding source, not to mention costing Medicare recipients’ access to care and choice of provider.

The MAC’s contention was that the provider was not really terminated, since they could still participate in the network in ways. But the company was being terminated from providing certain services.

The Court found that the MAC’s contention that providers have no right to challenge a termination was without merit. And, rightfully so, the Court stated that if the MAC’s position were correct, the appeals process provided by law would be meaningless. This was certainly not the case.

The MAC’s contention that it operates a “closed network” and thus can terminate a provider at its sole discretion was also not supported by the law. No MAC or MCO can cite to any statute, regulation, or contract provision that gives it such authority. The statutory definition of “closed network” simply delineates those providers that have contracted with the Local Management Entity (LME) MCOs to furnish services to Medicaid enrollees. The MAC was relying on its own definition of “closed network” to exercise complete and sole control and discretion, which is without foundation and/or any merit. Nothing in the definition of “closed network” indicates that MACs or MCOs have absolute discretion to determine which existing providers can remain in the closed network.

It is well-settled law that there is a single state agency responsible for Medicare and Medicaid: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Case law dictates that the responsibility cannot be delegated away. A supervisory role, at the very least, must be maintained.

On the Medicaid level, 42 CFR § 438.214, titled “Provider Selection,” requires the state to ensure, through a contract, that each MCO PIHP (Prepaid Inpatient Health Plan) “implements written policies and procedures for selection and retention of providers.”) A plain reading of the law makes clear that MCOs that operate a PIHP are required to have written policies and procedures for retention of providers. Requiring policies and procedures would be pointless if they are not followed.

The Medicare Provider Manual and any the provisions of a request for proposal (RFP) must be adhered to, pursuant to the federal regulation and the state contracts. To the extent that Alliance’s policy states that it can decide not to retain a provider for any reason at its sole discretion, such a policy does not conform with federal law or the state requirements.

On the Medicare level, 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) spells out the judicial review available to providers, which is made applicable to Medicare by 42 U.S.C. § 1395ii. Section 405(h) aims to lay out the sole means by which a court may review decisions to terminate a provider agreement in compliance with the process available in § 405(g). Section 405(g) lays out the sole process of judicial review available in this type of dispute. The Supreme Court has endorsed the process, for nearly two decades, since its decision in Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Inc., holding that providers are required to abide by the provisions of § 405(g) providing for judicial review only after the administrative appeal process is complete.

The MACs and the MCOs cannot circumvent federal law and state requirements regarding provider retention by creating a policy that allows them to make the determination for any reason in its sole discretion. Such a provision is tantamount to having no policies and procedures at all.

If you or someone you know is being terminated in Virginia, please contact me – kemanuel@potomasclaw.com, or Caliber Virginia – calibervaed@gmail.com.

Caliber Virginia, formerly known as the Association for Community-Based Service Providers (ACBP), was established in 2006 to provide support, resources, and information with a united, well-informed and engaged voice among the community-based behavioral and mental health service providers of the Commonwealth. Caliber Virginia represents organizations that provide health and human services and supports for children, adults, and families in the areas of mental health, substance use disorders, developmental disabilities, child and family health and well-being, and other related issue areas.  Its member providers deliver quality health and human services to over 500,000 of Virginia’s residents each year. Caliber Virginia promotes equal opportunity, economic empowerment, independent living, and political participation for people with disabilities, including mental health diagnoses.

Programming Note:

Listen to Knicole Emanuel’s live reporting on this story Monday, Sept. 23, 2019, on Monitor Monday, 10-10:30 a.m. EST.

First published on RACMonitor

Your Medicare Reimbursements Are Your Property Rights

As a Medicare/caid health care provider, you have a property right to your reimbursements for services rendered that were medically necessary.

Why does it matter if your Medicare/caid reimbursements constitute property rights? If you have a property right to something it cannot be taken from you without due process of law. Due process equals a fair hearing and notice. If you have a property right in something then it cannot be usurped from you. For example, since I own my house, you cannot come to my house and claim ownership, even as a squatter. I am afforded due process for my right to my property. Similarly, when you provide Medicare services that are medically necessary and properly completed, your reimbursements for such services cannot be withheld without due process. This means that many rules and regulations across the nation may be unconstitutional.

One of the questionable laws comes into light under many managed care catchment area’s (MCOs) closed network system, which comprises the majority of managed care in America, as well as Medicare Administrative Companies (MACs). MCOs and MACs act as if it are the judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to payments. But, according to the constitution and property rights, Medicare/caid reimbursements are not based on a subjective review by a government contractor.

The ultimate victims in unfair, premature, or erroneous terminations from Medicare or Medicaid programs are the recipients. Often there are too few providers who accept Medicare and Medicaid in certain areas. The other victims in a wrongful termination is the provider and its staff. While the adverse consequences of an unjust termination has minimal to no unfavorable results to the government.

Under numerous Supreme Court holdings, most notably the Court’s holding in Board of Regents v. Roth the right to due process under the law only arises when a person has a property or liberty interest at stake. See also Bowens v. N.C. Dept. of Human Res.

In determining whether a property interest exists a Court must first determine that there is an entitlement to that property. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill. Unlike liberty interests, property interests and entitlements are not created by the Constitution. Instead, property interests are created by federal or state law and can arise from statute, administrative regulations, or contract. Bowens.

Specifically, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that North Carolina Medicaid providers have a property interest in continued provider status. Bowens, 710 F.2d 1018. In Bowens, the Fourth Circuit recognized that North Carolina provider appeals process created a due process property interest in a Medicaid provider’s continued provision of services and could not be terminated “at the will of the state.” The Court determined that these due process safeguards, which included a hearing and standards for review, indicated that the provider’s participation was not “terminable at will.” The Court held that these safeguards created an entitlement for the provider, because it limits the grounds for his/her termination such that the contract was not terminable “at will” but only for cause, and that such cause was reviewable. The Fourth Circuit reached the same result in Ram v. Heckler, two years later. I foresee the same results in other Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction.

Since Ram, North Carolina Medicaid provider’s right to continued participation has been strengthened through the passage of Chapter 108C. Chapter 108C expressly creates a right for existing Medicaid providers to challenge a decision to terminate participation in the Medicaid program in the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). It also makes such reviews subject to the standards of Article 3 of the APA. Therefore, North Carolina law now contains a statutory process that confers an entitlement to Medicaid providers. Chapter 108C sets forth the procedure and substantive standards for which OAH is to operate and gives rise to the property right recognized in Bowens and Ram.

In another particular case, a MAC terminated a provider’s ability to deliver four CPT codes, which comprised of over 80% of the provider’s bailiwick and severely decreased the provider’s financial income, not to mention Medicare recipients lost their access to care and choice of provider.

The MAC’s contention was that the provider was not really terminated since they could still participate in the network in ways. But the company was being terminated from providing certain services.

The Court found that the MAC’s contention that providers have no right to challenge a termination was without merit. And, rightfully so, the Court stated that if the MAC’s position were correct, the appeals process provided by law would be meaningless. This was certainly not the case.

The MAC’s contention that it operates a “closed network” and thus can terminate a provider at its sole discretion was also not supported by the law. No MAC or MCO can cite to any statute, regulation or contract provision that gives it such authority. The statutory definition of “closed network” simply delineates those providers that have contracted with the LME-MCOs to furnish services to Medicaid enrollees. The MAC was relying on its own definition of “closed network” to exercise complete and sole control and discretion which is without foundation and/or any merit. Nothing in the definition of “closed network” indicates that MACs or MCOs have absolute discretion to determine which existing providers can remain in the closed network.

It is well settled law that there is a single state agency responsible for Medicare and Medicaid, which equals the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Case law dictates that the responsibility cannot be delegated away. A supervisory role, at the very least, must be maintained.

On the Medicaid level, 42 CFR § 438.214 entitled “Provider Selection” requires the State to ensure, through a contract, that each MCO/PIHP “implements written policies and procedures for selection and retention of providers.”). A plain reading of the law makes clear that MCOs that operate a PIHP are required to have written policies and procedures for retention of providers. Requiring policies and procedures would be pointless if they are not followed.

To the extent that a MAC or MCO’s policy states that it can decide not to retain a provider for any reason at its sole discretion, such a policy does not conform with Federal law and the State requirements.

On the Medicare level, 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) spells out the judicial review available to providers, which is made applicable to Medicare by 42 U.S.C. § 1395ii. Section 405(h) aims to lay out the sole means by which a court may review decisions to terminate a provider agreement in compliance with the process available in § 405(g). Section 405(g) lays out the sole process of judicial review available in this type of dispute. The Supreme Court has endorsed the process, for nearly two decades, since its decision in Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Inc., holding that providers are required to abide by the provisions of § 405(g) providing for judicial review only after the administrative appeal process is complete.

The MACs and the MCOs cannot circumvent federal law and State requirements regarding provider retention by creating a policy that allows it to make the determination for any reason in its sole discretion. Such a provision is tantamount to having no policies and procedures at all.

United Behavioral Health SLAMMED by Judge for Improperly Denying Behavioral Health Care Services

We have had parity laws between mental and physical health care services on the books for years. Regardless of the black letter law, mental health health care services have been treated with stigma, embarrassment, and of lesser importance than physical health care services. A broken leg is easily proven by an X-Ray; whereas a broken mind is less obvious.

In an unprecedented Decision ripe with scathing remarks against Optum/United Behavioral Health’s (UBH) actions, a Court recently ruled that UBH improperly denied mental health services to insureds and that those improper denials were financially-driven. A slap-on-the-wrist, this Decision was not. More of a public whipping.

In a 106-page opinion, the US District Court, Northern District of California, slammed UBH in a blistering decision finding that UBH purposely and improperly denied behavioral health care benefits to thousands of mentally ill insureds by utilizing overly restrictive guidelines. This is a HUGE win for the mental health community, which often does not receive the parity of services (of physical health) that it is legally is entitled. U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero spared no political correctness in his mordacious written opinion, which is rarity in today’s vitriolic world.

2019- Spero

The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), saying the insurer denied benefits in violation of the terms of their insurance plans and state law. The Plaintiffs consisted of participants in UBH health care plans and who were denied mental health care services.

Judge Spero found United Behavioral’s guidelines were influenced by financial incentives concerning fully-funded and self-funded ERISA plans:

“While the incentives related to fully insured and self-funded plans are not identical, with respect to both types of plan UBH has a financial interest in keeping benefit expense down … [A]ny resulting shortcomings in its Guideline development process taints its decision-making as to both categories of plan because UBH maintains a uniform set of Guidelines for fully insured and self-funded plans … Instead of insulating its Guideline developers from these financial pressures, UBH has placed representatives of its Finance and Affordability Departments in key roles in the Guidelines development process throughout the class period.”

Surprisingly, this decision came out of California, which is notoriously socially-driven. Attorneys generally avert their eyes when opinions come from the 9th District.

Judge Spero found that UBH violated “generally accepted standards of care” to administer requests for benefits.

The Court found that “many mental health and substance use disorders are long-term and chronic.” It also found that, in questionable instances, the insurance company should err on the caution of placing the patient in a higher level of care. The Court basically cited the old adage – “Better safe than sorry,” which seems a pretty darn good idea when you are talking about mental health. Just ask Ted Bundy.

Even though the Wit Decision involved private pay insurance, the Court repeatedly cited to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) Manual. For example, the Court stated that “the CMS Manual explains, [f]or many . . . psychiatric patients, particularly those with long-term, chronic conditions, control of symptoms and maintenance of a functional level to avoid further deterioration or hospitalization is an acceptable expectation of improvement.” It also quoted ASAM criteria as generally accepted standards, as well as LOCUS, which tells me that the law interprets the CMS Manual, ASAM criteria, and LOCUS as “generally accepted standards,” and not UBH’s or any other private pay insurance’s arbitrary standards. In fact, the Court actually stated that its decision was influenced by the fact that UBH’s adopted many portions of CMS’ Manual, but drafted the language in a more narrow way to ensure more denials of mental health benefits.

The Court emphasized the importance of ongoing care instead of acute care that ceases upon the end of the acute crisis. The denial of ongoing care was categorized as a financial decision. The Court found that UBH’s health care policy “drove members to lower levels of care even when treatment of the member’s overall and/or co-occurring conditions would have been more effective at the higher level of care.”

The Wit decision will impact us in so many ways. For one, if a State Medicaid program limits mental health services beyond what the CMS Manual, ASAM criteria, or LOCUS determines, then providers (and beneficiaries) have a strong legal argument that the State Medicaid criteria do not meet generally accepted standards. Even more importantly, if the State Medicaid policies do NOT limit mental health care services beyond what the CMS Manual, ASAM criteria, and LOCUS defines, but an agent of the State Medicaid Division; i.e, a managed care organization (MCO) deny mental health care services that would be considered appropriate under the generally accepted standards, then, again, both providers and beneficiaries would have strong legal arguments overturning those denials.

I, for one, hope this is a slippery slope…in the right direction.

 

New Revisions to the Additional Documentation Request (ADR) Process

The ADR rule went into effect Jan. 1, 2019. Original blog post published March 6, 2019, on RACMonitor.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has updated its criteria for additional document requests (ADRs). If your ADR “cycle” is less than 1, CMS will round it up to 1.

What is an ADR cycle?

When a claim is selected for medical review, an ADR is generated requesting medical documentation be submitted to ensure payment is appropriate. Documentation must be received by CGS (A Celerian Group Company)  within 45 calendar days for review and payment determination. Any selected and submitted claim can create an ADR. In other words, a provider is asked to prove that the service was rendered and that the billing was compliant.

It is imperative to understand that you, as the provider, check the Fiscal Intermediary Standard System (FISS) status/location S B6001. Providers are encouraged to use FISS Option 12 (Claim Inquiry) to check for ADRs at least once per week. You will not receive any other form of notification for an ADR.

To make matters even more confusing, there are two different types of ADRs: medical review (reason code 39700) and non-medical review (reason code 39701).

An ADR may be sent by CGS, Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPICs), Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs), Supplemental Medical Review Contractors (SMRCs), the Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) contractor, etc. When a claim is selected for review or when additional documentation is needed to complete the claim, an ADR letter is generated requesting that documentation and/or medical records be submitted.

The ADR process is essentially a type of prepayment review.

A baseline annual ADR limit is established for each provider based on the number of Medicare claims paid in the previous 12-month period that are associated with the provider’s six-digit CMS Certification Number (CCN) and the provider’s National Provider Identifier (NPI) number. Using the baseline annual ADR limit, an ADR cycle limit is also established.

After three 45-day ADR cycles, CMS will calculate (or recalculate) a provider’s denial rate, which will then be used to identify a provider’s corresponding “adjusted” ADR limit. Auditors may choose to either conduct reviews of a provider based on their adjusted ADR limit (with a shorter lookback period) or their baseline annual ADR limit (with a longer lookback period).

The baseline, annual ADR limit is one-half of one percent of the provider’s total number of paid Medicare service types for which the provider had reimbursed Medicare claims.

Effective Jan. 1, 2019, providers whose ADR cycle limit is less than 1, even though their annual ADR limit is greater than 1, will have their ADR cycle limit round up to 1 additional documentation request per 45 days, until their annual ADR limit has been reached.

For example, say Provider ABC billed and was paid for 400 Medicare claims in a previous 12-month period. The provider’s baseline annual ADR limit would be 400 multiplied by 0.005, which is two. The ADR cycle limit would be 2/8, which is less than one. Therefore, Provider ABC’s ADR cycle limit will be set at one additional documentation request per 45 days, until their annual ADR limit, which in this example is two, has been reached. In other words, Provider ABC can receive one additional documentation request for two of the eight ADR cycles, per year.

ADR letters are sent on a 45-day cycle. The baseline annual ADR limit is divided by eight to establish the ADR cycle limit, which is the maximum number of claims that can be included in a single 45-day period. Although auditors may go more than 45 days between record requests, in no case shall they make requests more frequently than every 45 days.

And that is the update on ADRs. Remember, the rule changed Jan. 1, 2019.

Hospital Association Joins Lawsuit to Enjoin “Psychiatric Boarding”

New Hampshire hospitals have joined the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in a lawsuit against the State of New Hampshire over the boarding of mental health patients in hospital emergency rooms.

In November 2018, the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit in NH federal court asking the court to order the cease of the practice of “psychiatric boarding,” in which mental health patients are held sometimes against their will and without due process in hospital emergency rooms throughout New Hampshire as they await admission to the state psychiatric hospital, often for weeks at a time. This is not only a New Hampshire problem. This is a problem in every state. The hospitals want the practice abolished because, in most cases of severe mental illness, the patient is unemployed and uninsured. There are not enough psychiatric beds to hold the amount of mentally ill consumers.

Many psychiatric patients rely on Medicaid, but due to the Institution for Mental Disease (IMD) exclusion, Medicaid does not cover the cost of care for patients 21 to 64 years of age (when Medicare kicks in) at inpatient psychiatric or addiction treatment facilities with a capacity greater than 16 beds. This rule makes it difficult for states to fund larger inpatient psychiatric hospitals, which further exacerbates the psychiatric boarding crisis.

The emergency rooms (ER) have become the safety net for mental health. The two most common diagnoses at an ER is alcohol abuse and suicidal tendencies. There has been a sharp increase in ER visits for the people suffering from mental health issues in the recent years. Are we as a population growing more depressed?

It is very frustrating to be in a hospital without the allowance to leave. But that is what psychiatric boarding is – patients present to an ER in crisis and because there is no bed for them at a psychiatric hospital, the patient is held at the hospital against their will until a bed opens up. No psychiatric care is rendered at the ER. It is just a waiting game, which is not fun for the people enduring it.

I recently encountered a glimpse into how it feels to be stuck at a hospital without the ability to leave. On a personal level, although not dealing with mental health but with hospitals in general, I recently broke my leg. I underwent surgery and received 6 screws and a plate in my leg. Around Christmas I became extremely ill from an infection in my leg. After I passed out at my home due to an allergic reaction to my medication which caused an epileptic seizure, my husband called EMS and I was transported to the hospital. Because it was the day after Christmas, the staff was light. I was transported to a hospital that had no orthopedic surgeon on call. (Akin to a mental health patient presenting at an ER – there are no psychiatric residents at most hospitals). Because no orthopedic surgeon was on call, I was transported to a larger hospital and underwent emergency surgery for the infection. I stayed at the hospital for 5 of the longest days of my life. Not because I still needed medical treatment, but because the orthopedic surgeon had taken off for vacation between Christmas and New Year’s. Without the orthopedic’s authorization that I could leave the hospital I was stuck there unless I left against medical advice. Finally, at what seemed to be at his leisurely time, the orthopedic surgeon came back to work the afternoon of January 1, 2019, and I was able to leave the hospital… but not without a few choice words from yours truly. I can tell you without any reservation that I was not a stellar patient those last couple days when I felt well enough to leave but there was no doctor present to allow it.

I imagine how I felt those last couple days in the hospital is how mentally ill patients feel while they are being held until a bed at a psychiatric unit opens up. It must be so frustrating. It certainly cannot be ameliorating any presenting mental health condition. In my case, I had no mental health issues but once I felt like I was being held against my will, mental health issues started to arise from my anger.

A shortage of psychiatric inpatient beds is a key contributing factor to overcrowded ERs across the nation. Between 1970 and 2006, state and county psychiatric inpatient facilities in the country cut capacity from about 400,000 beds to fewer than 50,000.

A study conducted by Wake Forest University found that ER stays for mental health issues are approximately 3.2 times longer stays than for physical reasons.

ER visits rose by nearly 15% between 2006 and 2014, according to the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. Over the same time period, ER visits associated with mental health and substance abuse shot up by nearly 44%.

Hopefully if the NH Hospital Association is successful in its lawsuit, other states will follow suit and file a lawsuit. I am not sure where the mentally ill will go if they do not remain at the ER. Perhaps this lawsuit and others that follow will force states to change the current Medicaid laws that do not allow mental health coverage for those over 21 years old. With the mental health and physical health Americans with Disabilities’ parity laws, I do not know why someone hasn’t challenged the constitutionality of the IMD exclusion.

Another NCTracks Debacle? Enter NC HealthConnex – A Whole New Computer System To Potentially Screw Up

North Carolina is mandating that health care providers link with all other health care providers. HIPAA be damned! Just another hoop to jump through in order to get paid by Medicaid – as if it isn’t hard enough!

If you do not comply and link your health care practice to NC HealthConnex by June 1, 2019, you could lose your Medicaid contract.

“As North Carolina moves into data-driven, value-based health care, the NC HIEA is working to modernize the state-designated health information exchange, now called NC HealthConnex.” About NC HealthConnex website.

NC HIEA = NC Health Information Exchange Authority (NC HIEA) and created by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-414.7. “North Carolina Health Information Exchange Authority.”

North Carolina state law mandates that all health care providers who receive any State funds, which would include Medicaid, HealthChoice and the State Health Plan, must connect and submit patient demographic and clinical data to NC HealthConnex by June 1, 2019. The process could take 12 to 18 months. So you better get going. Move it or lose it, literally. If you do not comply, you can lose your license to participate in state-funded programs, including Medicaid.

If you go to the NC Health Information Exchange Authority (NC HIEA) website article, entitled, “NC HealthConnex Participant Base Continues to Grow,” you will see the following:

Screen Shot 2018-11-29 at 3.21.53 PM

I highlighted the Session Law that, according to the above, requires that health care providers who receive state funds must connect to NC HealthConnex. See above. However, when you actually read Session Law 2017-57, it is untrue that Session Law 2017-57 mandates that health care providers who receive state funds must connect to NC HealthConnex.

If you follow the citation by NC HIEA (above), you will see that buried in Session Law 2017-57, the 2017 Appropriations Bill, is a clause that states:

“SECTION 11A.8.(e)  Of the funds appropriated in this act to the Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Central Management and Support, Office of Rural Health, for the Community Health Grant Program, the sum of up to one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) in recurring funds for each fiscal year of the 2017‑2019 fiscal biennium shall be used to match federal funds to provide to safety net providers eligible to participate in the Community Health Grant Program, through the Rural Health Technology Team, ongoing training and technical assistance with respect to health information technology, the adoption of electronic health records, and the establishment of connectivity to the State’s health information exchange network known as NC HealthConnex.”

As you can plainly read, this clause only allots funds to provide training and assistance to providers eligible to participate in the Community Health Grant Program. The above clause certainly does not mandate that Healthcare providers who receive state funds connect to NC HealthConnex.

Session Law 2017-57, only mandates $150,000 for training and assistance for HealthConnex.

So what is the legal statute that mandates health care providers who receive state funds must connect to NC HealthConnex?

Ok, bear with me. Here’s where it gets complex.

A law was passed in 2015, which created the North Carolina Health Information Exchange Authority (NC HIEA). NC HIEA is a sub agency of the North Carolina Department of Information Technology (NC DIT) Government Data Analytic Center. NC HIEA operates the NC HealthConnex. The State CIO maintains the responsibility if the NC HealthConnex.

Supposedly, that 2015 law mandates that health care providers who receive state funds must connect to NC HealthConnex…

I read it. You can click on the link here. This subsection is the only section that I would deem apropos to health care providers accepting State funding:

“In consultation with the Advisory Board, develop a strategic plan for achieving statewide participation in the HIE Network by all hospitals and health care providers licensed in this State.”

What part of the above clause states that health care providers are MANDATED to participate? So, please, if any of my readers actually know which law mandates provider participation, please forward to me. Because my question is – Is participation REALLY mandated? Will providers seriously lose their reimbursement rights for services rendered for failing to participate in NC HealthConnex?? Because I see multiple violations of federal law with this requirement, including HIPAA and due process.

HealthConnex can link your practice to it if you use the following EHR programs:

  • Ace Health Solutions
  • Allscripts
  • Amazing Charts/Harris Healthcare Company
  • Aprima
  • Athena Health
  • AYM Technologies
  • Casehandler
  • Centricity
  • Cerner
  • CureMD
  • DAS Health/Aprima
  • eClinicalWorks
  • eMD
  • eMed Solutions, LLC
  • EPIC
  • Evident- Thrive
  • Greenway
  • ICANotes Behavioral Health EHR
  • ICAN Solutions, Inc
  • Integrity/Checkpoint
  • Kaleidacare
  • Lauris Online
  • McKesson Practice Partners
  • Medical Transcription Billing Corporation
  • Medinformatix
  • Meditab Software, Inc.
  • Meditech
  • Mediware-Alphaflex
  • MTBC
  • MicroMD
  • Netsmart
  • NextGen
  • Office Ally
  • Office Practicum
  • Oncelogix Sharenote
  • Patagonia Health
  • Physician’s Computer Company (PCC)
  • PIMSY
  • Practice Fusion Cloud
  • Praxis
  • PrognoCIS
  • PsyTech Solutions, Inc.
  • Qualifacts – Carelogic
  • Radysans
  • Reli Med Solutions
  • SET-Works
  • SRS
  • The Echo Group
  • Therap
  • Trimed Tech
  • Valant
  • Waiting Room Solutions

The law also requires:

  • Hospitals as defined by G.S. 131E-176(13), physicians licensed to practice under Article 1 of Chapter 90 of the General Statutes, physician assistants as defined in 21 NCAC 32S .0201, and nurse practitioners as defined in 21 NCAC 36 .0801 who provide Medicaid services and who have an electronic health record system shall connect by June 1, 2018.
  • All other providers of Medicaid and state-funded services shall connect by June 1, 2019. See changes in 2018 Session Law below.
  • Prepaid Health Plans (PHPs), as defined in S.L. 2015-245, will be required to connect to the HIE per their contracts with the NC Division of Health Benefits (DHB). Clarifies that PHPs are required to submit encounter and claims data by the commencement of the contract with NC DHB.
  • Clarifies that Local Management Entities/Managed Care Organizations (LMEs/MCOs) are required to submit encounter and claims data by June 1, 2020.

New from the 2018 Legislative Short Session, NCSL 2018-41: 

  • Dentists and ambulatory surgical centers are required to submit clinical and demographic data by June 1, 2021.
  • Pharmacies are required to submit claims data pertaining to State services once per day by June 1, 2021, using pharmacy industry standardized formats.

To meet the state’s mandate, a Medicaid provider is “connected” when its clinical and demographic information pertaining to services paid for by Medicaid and other State-funded health care funds are being sent to NC HealthConnex, at least twice daily—either through a direct connection or via a hub (i.e., a larger system with which it participates, another regional HIE with which it participates or an EHR vendor). Participation agreements signed with the designated entity would need to list all affiliate connections.

Let’s just wait and see how this computer system turns out. Hopefully we don’t have a second rendition of NCTracks. We all know how well that turned out. See blog and blog.

Medicaid participation continues to get more and more complicated. Remember the day when you could write a service note with a pen? That was so much cheaper than investing in computers and software. When did it get so expensive to provide health care to the most needy?

Medicaid Incidents: To Report or Not To Report?

The answer resides in the injury, not the quality of the care.

A consumer trips and falls at your long term care facility. It is during her personal care services (PCS). Dorothy, a longtime LPN and one of your most trusted employees, is on duty. According to Dorothy, she was aiding Ms. Brown (the consumer who fell) from the restroom when Ms. Brown sneezed multiple times resulting in a need for a tissue. Dorothy goes to the restroom (only a few feet away) when Ms. Brown’s fourth sneeze sends her reeling backward and falling on her hip.

To report or not to report? That is the question. 

Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them.

What is your answer?

Is Ms. Brown’s fall a Level I, Level II, or a Level III incident? What are your reporting duties?

  • If you answered Level II and no requirement to report – you would be correct.
  • If you answered Level III and that you must report the incident within 24 hours, you would be correct.

Wait, what? How could both answers be correct? Which is it? A Level II and no reporting it or a Level III and a report due within 24 hours?

It depends on Ms. Brown’s injuries, which is what I find fascinating and a little… how should I put it… wrong?! Think about it…the level of incident and the reporting requirement is not based on whether Dorothy properly provided services to Ms.Brown. No…the answer resides in Ms. Brown’s injuries. Whether Dorothy acted appropriately or not appropriately or rendered sub-par services has no bearing on the level of incident or reporting standards.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services’ (DHHS) Incident Response and Reporting Manual, Ms. Brown’s fall would fall (no pun intended) within a Level II of response if Ms. Brown’s injuries were not a permanent or psychological impairment. She bruised her hip, but there was no major injury.

However, if Ms. Brown’s fall led to a broken hip, surgery, and a replacement of her hip, then her fall would fall within a Level III response that needs to be reported within 24 hours. Furthermore, even at a Level III response, no reporting would be required except that, in my hypothetical, the fall occurred while Dorothy was rendering PCS, which is a billable Medicaid service. Assuming that Ms. Brown is on Medicaid and Medicare (and qualifies for PCS), Dorothy’s employer can be reimbursed for PCS; therefore, the reporting requirement within 24 hours is activated.

In each scenario, Dorothy’s actions remain the same. It is the extent of Ms. Brown’s injury that changes.

See the below tables for further explanation:

INCIDENT RESPONSE AND REPORTING MANUAL

Screen Shot 2018-11-08 at 12.49.35 PM

Screen Shot 2018-11-08 at 12.54.44 PM

These tables are not exhaustive, so please click on the link above to review the entire Incident Response and Reporting Manual.

Other important points:

  • Use the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) guidelines to distinguish between injuries requiring first aid and those requiring treatment by a health professional. 
  • A visit to an emergency room (in and of itself) is not considered an incident. 
  • Level I incidents of suspected or alleged cases of abuse, neglect or
    exploitation of a child (age 17 or under) or disabled adult must still be reported
    pursuant to G.S. 108A Article 6, G.S. 7B Article 3 and 10A NCAC 27G .0610.

Providing residential services to anyone is, inevitably, more highly regulated than providing outpatient services. The chance of injury, no matter the cause, is exponentially greater if the consumer is in your care 24-hours a day. That’s life. But if you do provide residential services, know your reporting mandates or you could suffer penalties, fines, and possible closure.

Lastly, understand that these penalties for not reporting can be subjective, not objective. If Ms. Brown’s fall led to a broken hip that repaired without surgery or without replacement of the hip, is that hip injury considered “permanent?” 

In cases of reporting guidelines, it is prudent to keep your attorney on speed dial.

 

Medicare ACOs: Too Much Risk, Too Quickly?

As seen on RACMonitor.

More than a third of ACOs might leave if the proposed rule takes effect.

The comment period closed for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) proposed rule on Oct. 16. The MSSP has been a controversial program since its inception. The chief concern is that the financial “dis-incentives” will decrease the number of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). The proposed rule for MSSP intensifies the financial “dis-incentives,” causing even more concern about the number of ACOs.

What is the Medicare Shared Savings Program? It is a voluntary program that is supposed to encourage groups of doctors, hospitals, and other healthcare providers to come together as ACOs to give coordinated, high-quality care to their Medicare patients. Providers can choose among three distinctive tracks, depending on the amount of risk the providers want to bear. The purpose of the MSSP is to diversify risk – of both loss and gain – between the government and the ACOs. For example, Track 1 ACOs do not assume downside risk (shared losses) if they do not lower growth in Medicare expenditures.

CMS created the MSSP in hopes that doctors, hospitals, and other healthcare providers would want to participate, with the incentive of the chance to make more money, rather than remaining in the traditional Medicare relationship. The program turned out to be more successful than anticipated, with the majority of ACOs opting to become Track 1, or the least risky model (one-sided risk).

CMS’s new proposed rule, however, increases the risk placed on the ACOs. Needless to say, providers aren’t happy, and many ACOs in the program warn that they’ll drop out if CMS finalizes its proposal as is.

What are these proposed changes to the MSSP?

Restricting Track 1 Enrollment

ACOs currently have six years to shift to a risk-bearing model from a shared savings-only model (Track 1). The proposed rule would give existing ACOs one year and new ACOs two years to transfer to a risk-bearing model. This one change could cause mass exodus from the MSSP, as many providers are, by nature, risk-averse.

Morphing to Five-Year Agreement Periods

The proposed rule requires CMS and the ACOs to morph into using five-year agreement periods. I am on the fence regarding this change. It could strengthen ACOs’ incentives to reduce spending by breaking the link between ACOs’ performance in the first two years of each agreement period and their future benchmarks. However, this modification could worsen incentives during the first two years of each agreement period. I would love to hear your opinions.

Slashing Shared Savings Rates

The proposed rule purports to slash shared savings rates for upside-risk models from 50 percent to as low as 25 percent. Under the one-sided model years of the glide path, an ACO’s maximum shared savings rate would be 25 percent, based on quality performance, applicable to first-dollar shared savings after the ACO meets the minimum savings rate. The glide path concludes with a maximum 50 percent sharing rate, based on quality performance, and a maximum level of risk, which qualifies a provider as an Advanced APM for purposes of the Quality Payment Program.

Other proposed changes include the following:

  • A bifurcated system for high- and low-revenue ACOs, which functionally would penalize certain ACOs for the size of their patient populations and volume of services.
  • A differential system for experienced versus inexperienced ACOs, which would allow experienced ACOs to choose from a more robust menu of participation options.
  • Dis-incentives to lower spending: ACOs have had little incentive to lower spending because of the link between the spending reductions they achieve and subsequent benchmarks. One could argue that it is astonishing that the MSSP has produced any savings at all. CMS proposes that the MSSP needs to be re-vamped.
  • A modified and more rigorous application review process to screen for good standing among ACOs seeking to renew or re-enter MSSP after termination or expiration of their previous agreement. ACOs in two-sided models would be held accountable for partial-year losses if either the ACO or CMS terminates the agreement during a performance year.

Will there be too much risk too quickly placed on the ACOs? Stay tuned for whether this proposed rule becomes finalized.

Safety-Net Hospitals Penalized for Too Many Readmissions – Fair or Not Fair?

Since 2012, Medicare has penalized hospitals for having too many patients end up back in their care within a month. Mind you, these re-admissions are not the hospitals’ fault. Many of the re-admissions are uninsured patients and who are without primary care. Without an alternative, they present back at the hospitals within 30 days. This penalty on hospitals is called the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) and is not without controversy.

For example, if hospitals are not allowed to turn away patients for their lack of ability to pay, then penalizing the hospital for a readmission (who the hospital cannot turn away) seems fundamentally unfair. Imagine someone at the Center for  Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) yelling at you: “You cannot turn away any patients by law! But if you accept a patient for readmission, then you will be penalized!!” The logic is incongruous. The hospital is found in a Catch-22. Damned if they do; damned if they don’t.

The Emergency Medical and Treatment Labor Act (EMTLA) passed by Congress in 1986 explicitly forbids the denial of care to indigent or uninsured patients based on a lack of ability to pay. It also prohibits “patient dumping” a practice in which a hospital orders unnecessary transfers while care is being administered and prohibits the suspension of care once it is initiated.

Even non-emergent care is generally required, depending on the hospital. Public hospitals may not deny patient care based on ability to pay (or lack thereof). Private hospitals may, in non-emergency situations, deny or discontinue care.

The most recent HRRP report, which concentrated on Connecticut hospitals, which will penalize CT hospitals for too many readmissions starting October 1, 2018, shows: 27 of the 29 hospitals evaluated — or 93% — will be penalized in the 2019 fiscal year (Oct. 1, 2018 – Oct. 1, 2019) that began Oct. 1, according to a Kaiser Health News analysis of CMS data. $566 million in total penalties will be required, depending on the severity of the violations.

Here is the formula used to determine penalties for readmission within 30 days to a hospital:

Screen Shot 2018-10-11 at 2.13.52 PM

No hospital that was audited received the maximum penalty of 3%, but 9 CT hospitals will have their Medicare reimbursements reduced by 1% or more. They are: Waterbury Hospital at 2.19%, Bridgeport Hospital at 2.01%, Bristol Hospital at 1.91%, Manchester Memorial Hospital at 1.74%, Johnson Memorial Hospital in Stafford Springs at 1.71%, Midstate Medical Center in Meriden at 1.37%, St. Vincent’s Medical Center in Bridgeport at 1.21%, Griffin Hospital in Derby at 1.17%, and Yale New Haven Hospital at 1.03%.

There is controversy over the HRRP.

Observation status does not count.

Interestingly, what is not evaluated in the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program may be just as important, or more so, than what it is evaluated. -And what is not evaluated in the HRRP has morphed our health care system into a plethora of observation only admissions.

Patients who are admitted under observation status are excluded from the readmission measure. What, pray tell, do you think the result has been because of the observation status being excluded??

  • More in-patient admissions?
  • More observation status admissions?
  • No change?

If you guessed more observation status admissions, then you would be correct.

Most hospitals have developed clinical decision units, which are typically short-stay observation areas designed to care for patients in less than 24-hours. The difference between inpatient and observation status is important because Medicare pays different rates according to each status. Patients admitted under observation status are considered outpatients, even though they may stay in the hospital for several days and receive treatment in a hospital bed. Medicare requires a three-day hospital inpatient stay minimum before it will cover the cost of rehabilitative care in a skilled nursing care center. However, observation stays, regardless of length, do not count toward Medicare’s requirement.

30-Day readmission period is arbitrary.

Why 30-days? If a patient is readmitted on the 30th day, the hospital is penalized. But if the patient is readmitted on Day 31, the hospital is not penalized. There just isn’t a lucid, common sense reason except that 30 is a nice, round number.

The HRRP disproportionately discriminates against hospitals that have high volume of uninsured.

HRRP does not adjust for socioeconomic status. This means that the HRRP may be penalizing hospitals, such as safety-net hospitals, that care for disadvantaged populations.

When other laws, unintentionally or intentionally, discriminate between socioeconomic status, often an association or group brings a class action lawsuit in federal court asking the judge to declare the law unconstitutional due to discrimination. Discrimination can be proven in court by how the law of supply or how the law is written.

Here, the 27 hospitals, which will be receiving penalties for fiscal year 2019, serve a high population of low income patients. The result of which hospitals are getting penalized is an indication of a discriminatory practice, even if it is unintentional.

The Upshot from Knicole:

These hospitals should challenge the HRRP legally. Reimbursements for services render constitute a property right. Usurping this property right without due process may be a violation of our Constitution. For $566 million…there should be a fair fight.

 

Medicare and Medicaid Regulations Suspended During Natural Disasters

My blog (below) was published on RACMonitor.

CMS provides Medicare waivers for providers dealing with natural disasters.

I live in North Carolina, and as most of you have seen on the news, we just underwent a natural disaster. Its name is Hurricane Florence. Our Governor has declared a state of emergency, and this declaration is extremely important to healthcare providers that accept Medicare and Medicaid and are located within the state of emergency. Once a state of emergency is implemented, the 1135 Waiver is activated for Medicare and Medicaid providers, and it remains activated for the duration of the state of emergency. The 1135 Waiver allows for exceptions to normal regulatory compliance regulations during a disaster. It is important to note that, during the disaster, a state of emergency must be officially “declared” in order to activate the 1135 Waiver.

About a year ago, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized the 1135 Waiver to establish consistent emergency preparedness requirements for healthcare providers participating in Medicare and Medicaid, to increase patient safety during emergencies, and to establish a more coordinated response to natural and manmade disasters. The final rule requires certain participating providers and suppliers to plan for disasters and coordinate with federal, state, tribal, regional, and local emergency preparedness systems to ensure that facilities are adequately prepared to meet the needs of their patients during disasters and emergency situations.

The final rule states that Medicare and Medicaid participating providers and suppliers must do the following prior to a natural disaster capable of being foreseen:

  • Conduct a risk assessment and develop an emergency plan using an all-hazards approach, focusing on capacities and capabilities that are critical to preparedness for a full spectrum of emergencies or disasters specific to the location of a provider or supplier;
  • Develop and implement policies and procedures, based on the plan and risk assessment;
  • Develop and maintain a communication plan that complies with both federal and state law, and ensures that patient care will be well-coordinated within the facility, across healthcare providers, and with state and local public health departments and emergency systems; and
  • Develop and maintain training and testing programs, including initial and annual trainings, and conduct drills and exercises or participate in an actual incident that tests the plan.

Obviously, the minutiae of this final rule deviates depending on the type of provider. The waivers and modifications apply only to providers located in the declared “emergency area” (as defined in section 1135(g)(1) of the Social Security Act, or SSA) in which the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has declared a public health emergency, and only to the extent that the provider in question has been affected by the disaster or is treating evacuees.

Some examples of exceptions available for providers during a disaster situation under the 1135 Waiver are as follows:

  • CMS may allow Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs) to exceed the 25-bed limit in order to accept evacuees.
  • CMS can temporarily suspend a pending termination action or denial of payment sanction so as to enable a nursing home to accept evacuees.
  • Normally, CAHs are expected to transfer out patients who require longer admissions to hospitals that are better equipped to provide complex services to those more acutely ill. The average length of stay is limited to 96 hours. However, during a natural disaster, the CAH may be granted a 1135 Waiver to the 96-hour limit.
  • Certification for a special purpose dialysis facility can be immediate.
  • Relocated transplant candidates who need to list at a different center can transfer their accumulated waiting time without losing any allocation priority.
  • For home health services, normally, the patient must be confined to his or her home. During a state of emergency, the place of residence may include a temporary alternative site, such as a family member’s home, a shelter, a community, facility, a church, or a hotel. A hospital, SNF, or nursing facility would not be considered a temporary residence.

In rare circumstances, the 1135 Waiver flexibilities may be extended to areas beyond the declared emergency area. A limitation of the 1135 Waiver is that, during a state of emergency, an Inpatient Prospective Payment System- (IPPS)-excluded psychiatric or rehabilitation unit cannot be used for acute patients. A hospital can submit a request for relief under 1135 Waiver authority, and CMS will determine a course of action on a case-by-case basis. A hospital could also apply for certification of portions of its facility to act as a nursing facility. Hospitals with fewer than 100 beds, located in a non-urbanized area, may apply for swing bed status and receive payment for skilled nursing facility services.

If a provider’s building is devastated during a state of emergency, the 1135 Waiver allows the provider to maintain its Medicare and Medicaid contract, despite a change of location – under certain circumstances and on a case-by-case basis. Factors CMS will consider are as follows: (1) whether the provider remains in the same state with the same licensure requirements; (2) whether the provider remains the same type pf provider after relocation; (3) whether the provider maintains at least 75 percent of the same medical staff, nursing staff, and other employees, and whether they are contracted; (4) whether the provider retains the same governing body or person(s) legally responsible for the provider after the relocation; (5) whether the provider maintains essentially the same medical staff bylaws, policies, and procedures, as applicable; (6) whether at least 75 percent of the services offered by the provider during the last year at the original location continue to be offered at the new location; (7) the distance the provider moves from the original site; and (8) whether the provider continues to serve at least 75 percent of the original community at its new location.

The 1135 Waiver does not cover state-run services. For example, the 1135 Waiver does not apply to assisted living facilities. The federal government does not regulate assisted living facilities. Instead, assisted living is a state service under the Medicaid program. The same is true for clinical laboratory improvement amendment (CLIA) certification and all Medicaid provider rules. The 1135 Waiver also does not allow for the 60 percent rule to be suspended. The 60 percent Rule is a Medicare facility criterion that requires each Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) to discharge at least 60 percent of its patients with one of 13 qualifying conditions.

In conclusion, when the governor of your state declares a state of emergency, the 1135 Waiver is activated for healthcare providers. The 1135 Waiver provides exceptions and exclusions to the normal regulatory requirements. It is important for healthcare providers to know and understand how the 1135 Waiver affects their particular types of services prior to a natural disaster ever occurring.