Blog Archives
Texas Judge Poo Poos the ACA Preventable Services Mandate!
In March, the U.S District Court in the Northern District of Texas vacated the requirement that ACA-compliant health plans cover certain U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended preventive services without cost sharing.
The DOJ argued the lower-court ruling from a federal judge in Texas “has no legal justification and threatens the public health.” The Health and Human Services Department estimates the ACA covered preventive services for more than 150 million people in 2020.
I am not taking a stance on the ACA. As a lawyer, I can tell you that to obtain an injunction, you have to prove:
- Likelihood of success on the merits;
- Irreprepable harm;
- Balancing the equities;
- Public interest.
Those standards come from a Supreme Court case called Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008).
I understand that the Texas case vacating that the ACA-compliant health plans cover preventive services has become highly polarizing in politics. Obviously, the Republicans are Plaintiffs in this case and fighting against Obamacare. But I do not care about the politics. My contention with this case is if the government is mandating (well, was mandating before this TX judge’s decision) preventive care to be free, how is that not forcing doctor’s to work for whatever the government deems to be fair. Will they get paid Medicare or Medicaid prices? They should be so lucky. I don’t want to go out on a limb and compare mandating doctors to provide services for Medicare and Medicaid prices, regardless whether that physician is even enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid to slavery, but if the shoe fits…
On another note, the Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs) added hospice to the list of CMS approved audit targets. The review will determine if Hospice General Inpatient Care (GIP) was reasonable and necessary to achieve pain control or acute or chronic symptom management which could not be managed in any other setting. Claims that do not meet the indications of coverage and/or medical necessity will be recoded to Routine Hospice Care 0651 and result in an overpayment.” The affected code will be REV code 0656.
On March 31, CMS issued the FY 2024 proposed rule which includes a 2.8% rate increase and the FY 2024 cap of $33,396.55. The proposed rule also includes updates on the Hospice Outcomes & Patient Evaluation (HOPE) tool, CAHPS® tool, the Hospice Special Focus Program, and a proposed addition of hospice physicians to the Medicare enrollment process. For a full analysis of the proposed rule, view NHPCO’s regulatory alert from April 4. Comments are due by May 30, 2023.
Other CMS approved audit targets for 2023 and 2024 are : Ambulance Providers, Ambulatory Surgery Center (ASC), Outpatient Hospital, Inpatient Hospital, Inpatient Hospital, Inpatient Psychiatric Facility, Inpatient, Outpatient, ASC, Physician, IP, OP, SNF, OP Clinics, ORF, CORF, OPH, OP Non-Hospital, SNF, ORF, CORF, Physician, Physician/Non-physician Practitioner (NPP), Physician/NPP, Professional Services (Physician/Non-Physician), and Radiologists/Part B providers.
To name a few.
Fifth Circuit Rules Individual Mandate Unconstitutional but Leaves ACA’s Fate Uncertain
Extra, extra, read all about it: Breaking News!
In a 2-1 decision issued December 18, a Fifth Circuit panel held that the individual mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is unconstitutional after Congress zeroed out the penalty in tax reform legislation.
Although the ruling was a victory for the 18 Republican-led states that initiated the challenge to the ACA, the appeals court side-stepped the critical issue of severability—i.e., whether other parts of the sprawling health care law could stand without the mandate—remanding to the district court for further proceedings.
In December 2018, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that no part of the ACA could stand after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) essentially eliminated the ACA’s “shared responsibility payment” for failing to comply with the mandate to buy insurance. The judgment was stayed pending appeal.
As a practical matter, the panel decision maintains the status quo and prolongs the litigation, likely leaving a final resolution of the ACA’s fate until after the 2020 elections.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who headed the coalition of mostly Democratic-led states that intervened to defend the law, said California “will move swiftly to challenge this decision.”
“For now, the President got the gift he wanted—uncertainty in the healthcare system and a pathway to repeal—so that the healthcare that seniors, workers and families secured under the Affordable Care Act can be yanked from under them,” Becerra said in a statement.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton applauded the panel’s decision, saying the opinion recognized “that the only reason the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare in 2012 was Congress’ taxing power, and without the individual mandate’s penalty, that justification crumbled.”
Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, who President George W. Bush appointed to the Fifth Circuit, wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Judge Kurt D. Englehardt, an appointee of President Donald Trump. The third panel member, Judge Carolyn Dineen King, was appointed by President Jimmy Carter, dissented.
The appeals court first concluded that the individual plaintiffs, the 18 plaintiff states, and the intervening states all had standing, an issue that the parties debated during oral arguments in July.
On the merits, the majority held once Congress zeroed out the shared responsibility payment, the individual mandate could no longer be upheld as a tax as it was under the Supreme Court’s decision in Nat’l Fed. of Independent Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012).
After finding the individual mandate was unconstitutional, the majority declined to resolve whether, or how much, of the ACA could stand on its own.
Instead, the appeals court remanded to the district court to determine “with more precision what provisions of the post-2017 ACA are indeed inseverable from the individual mandate.” The appeals court also told the lower court to consider the federal government’s “newly-suggested relief of enjoining the enforcement only of those provisions that injure the plaintiffs or declaring the Act unconstitutional only as to the plaintiff states and the two individual plaintiffs.”
The complexity of the ACA statutory scheme, which includes provisions regulating insurance, amending Medicare, funding preventative health care programs, enacting antifraud requirements, and establishing or expanding drug regulations, requires “a careful, granular approach” for determining severability, which the majority was not satisfied O’Connor had done.
In the majority’s view, O’Connor’s decision was incomplete because it didn’t sufficiently address the intent of the 2017 Congress in zeroing out the penalty in the TCJA. Nor did O’Connor parse “through the over 900 pages of the post-2017 ACA, explaining how particular segments are inextricably linked to the individual mandate.”
The appeals court therefore remanded with instructions for the district court “to employ a finer-toothed comb . . . and conduct a more searching inquiry into which provisions of the ACA Congress intended to be inseverable from the individual mandate.”
In her dissent, Judge King argued that by refusing to address severability, which in her view was plain given that Congress in 2017 removed the individual mandate’s enforcement mechanism while leaving the remaining provisions of the ACA intact, the majority “unnecessarily prolong[s] this litigation and the concomitant uncertainty over the future of the healthcare sector.”
King said she would vacate the district court’s order because none of the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the coverage requirement, would conclude that the coverage requirement is constitutional without the enforcement mechanism, and would find, in any event, the provision “entirely severable” from the remainder of the ACA.
Texas v. United States, No. 19-10011 (5th Cir. Dec. 18, 2019).
Article from American Health Lawyers Association.
Key Medicaid Questions Post-Election
Disclosure: This is the opinion/facts from the Kaiser Family Foundation, not me. But I found this interesting. My opinion will be forthcoming.
Kaiser Family Foundation article:
Medicaid covers about 73 million people nationwide. Jointly financed by the federal and state governments, states have substantial flexibility to administer the program under existing law. Medicaid provides health insurance for low-income children and adults, financing for the safety net, and is the largest payer for long-term care services in the community and nursing homes for seniors and people with disabilities. President-elect Trump supports repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and a Medicaid block grant. The GOP plan would allow states to choose between block grant and a per capita cap financing for Medicaid. The new Administration could also make changes to Medicaid without new legislation.
1. HOW WOULD ACA REPEAL AFFECT MEDICAID?
A repeal of the ACA’s coverage expansion provisions would remove the new eligibility pathway created for adults, increase the number of uninsured and reduce the amount of federal Medicaid funds available to states. The Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling on the ACA effectively made the Medicaid expansion optional for states. As of November 2016, 32 states (including the District of Columbia) are implementing the expansion. The full implications of repeal will depend on whether the ACA is repealed in whole or in part, whether there is an alternative to the ACA put in place and what other simultaneous changes to Medicaid occur. However, examining the effects of the ACA on Medicaid provide insight into what might be at stake under a repeal.
What happened to coverage? The ACA expanded Medicaid eligibility to nearly all non-elderly adults with income at or below 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL) – about $16,396 per year for an individual in 2016. Since summer of 2013, just before implementation of the ACA expansions, through August 2016 about 16 million people have been added to Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. While not all of this increase is due to those made newly eligible under the ACA, expansion states account for a much greater share of growth. States that expanded Medicaid have had large gains in coverage, although ACA related enrollment has tapered. From 2013 to 2016 the rate of uninsured non-elderly adults fell by 9.2% in expansion states compared to 6% in non-expansion states.
What happened to financing? The law provided for 100% federal funding of the expansion through 2016, declining gradually to 90% in 2020 and beyond. Expansion states have experienced large increases in federal dollars for Medicaid and have claimed $79 billion in federal dollars for the new expansion group from January 2014 through June 2015. Studies also show that states expanding Medicaid under the ACA have realized net fiscal gains despite Medicaid enrollment growth initially exceeding projections in many states.
What other Medicaid provisions were in the ACA? The ACA required states to implement major transformations to modernize and streamline eligibility and enrollment processes and systems. The ACA also included an array of new opportunities related to delivery system reforms for complex populations, those dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid and new options to expand community-based long-term care services.
2. WHAT WOULD CHANGES IN THE FINANCING STRUCTURE MEAN FOR MEDICAID?
A Medicaid block grant or per capita cap policy would fundamentally change the current structure of the program. These policies are typically designed to reduce federal spending and fix rates of growth to make federal spending more predictable, but could eliminate the guarantee of coverage for all who are eligible and the guarantee to states for matching funds. States would gain additional flexibility to administer their programs but reduced federal funding could shift costs and risk to beneficiaries, states, and providers.
How would it work? Block grants or per capita caps could be structured in multiple ways. Key policy decisions would determine levels of federal financing as well as federal and state requirements around eligibility, benefits, state matching requirements, and beneficiary protections. Previous block grant proposals have determined a base year financing amount for each state and then specified a fixed rate of growth for federal spending. Under a Medicaid per capita cap, the federal government would set a limit on how much to reimburse states per enrollee. Payments to states would be based on per enrollee spending multiplied by enrollees. Spending under per capita cap proposals fluctuate based on changes in enrollment, but would not account for changes in the costs per enrollee beyond the growth limit. To achieve federal savings, the per capita growth amounts would be set below the projected rates of growth under current law.
What are the key policy questions? Key questions in designing these proposals include: what new flexibility would be granted to states, what federal requirements would remain in place, what requirements would be in place for state matching funds, what is the base year and growth rates, and how would a potential repeal of the ACA work with a block grant proposal? Given the lack of recent administrative data, setting a base year could be challenging. These financing designs could lock in historic spending patterns and variation in Medicaid spending across states, resulting in states deemed “winners” or “losers.”
What are the implications? Capping and reducing federal financing for Medicaid could have implications for beneficiaries, states, and providers including: declines in Medicaid coverage or new financial barriers to care; limited funding for children (the majority of Medicaid enrollees) as well as the elderly and those with disabilities (populations that represent the majority of Medicaid spending); reduced funding for nursing homes and community-based long-term care (Medicaid is the largest payer of these services); reductions in federal revenues to states and Medicaid revenues for safety-net providers. A block grant would not adjust to increased coverage needs during a recession. Block grants or per capita caps would not adjust to changes in health care or drug costs or emergencies. Recently Medicaid costs have increased due to high cost specialty drugs and Medicaid has been used to help combat the growing opioid crisis.
3. HOW COULD MEDICAID BE CHANGED THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS?
The Administration could make changes to Medicaid without changes in legislation.
How can changes be made through guidance? A new administration can reinterpret existing laws through new regulations and new sub-regulatory guidance. While there are rules that govern how to change regulations, a new administration has more flexibility to issue or amend sub-regulatory guidance, such as state Medicaid director letters. Rules promulgated by the Obama administration could be rolled back or changed.
How can changes be made through waivers? Throughout the history of the Medicaid program, Section 1115 waivers have provided states an avenue to test and implement demonstrations that, in the view of the Health and Human Services Secretary, advance program objectives but do not meet federal program rules. Longstanding federal policy has required waivers to be budget neutral for the federal government.
What kind of waivers may be considered? Seven states are using waivers to implement the ACA Medicaid expansion, including Indiana. The Indiana waiver, implemented under then Governor Pence, includes provisions to impose: premiums on most Medicaid beneficiaries; a coverage lock-out period for individuals with incomes above the poverty level who fail to pay premiums; health savings accounts; and healthy behavior incentives. The Obama administration has not approved waivers that would require work as a condition of Medicaid eligibility. It also has denied Ohio’s waiver request to impose premiums regardless of income and exclude individuals from coverage until all arrears are paid on the basis that this would restrict or undermine coverage from existing levels. Many other states are using waivers to implement payment and delivery system reforms. The incoming administration could decide whether or not to renew existing waivers and can approve a new set of waivers to promote its own program goals.
All Medicare/Caid Health Care Professionals: Start Contracting with Qualified Translators to Comply with Section 1557 of the ACA!!
Being a health care professional who accepts Medicare and/ or Medicaid can sometimes feel like you are Sisyphus pushing the massive boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll down, over and over, with the same sequence continuing for eternity. Similarly, sometimes it can feel as though the government is the princess sleeping on 20 mattresses and you are the pea that is so small and insignificant, yet so annoying and disruptive to her sleep.
Well, effective immediately – that boulder has enlarged. And the princess has become even more sensitive.
On May 18, 2016, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a Final Rule to implement Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Section 1557 of the ACA has been on the books since the ACA’s inception in 2010. However, not until 6 years later, did HSD finally implement regulations regarding Section 1557. 81 Fed. Reg. 31376.
The Final Rule became effective July 18, 2016. You are expected to be compliant with the rule’s notice requirements, specifically the posting of a nondiscrimination notice and statement and taglines within 90 days of the Final Rule – October 16, 2016. So you better giddy-up!!
First, what is Section 1557?
Section 1557 of the ACA provides that an individual shall not, on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability, be
- excluded from participation in,
- denied the benefits of, or
- subjected to discrimination under
all health programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance through HHS, including Medicaid, most Medicare, student health plans, Basic Health Program, and CHIP funds; meaningful use payments (which sunset in 2018); the advance premium tax credits; and many other programs.
Section 1557 is extremely broad in scope. Because it is a federal regulation, it applies to all states and health care providers in all specialties, regardless the size of the practice and regardless the percentage of Medicare/caid the agency accepts.
HHS estimates that Section 1557 applies to approximately 900,000 physicians. HHS also estimates that the rule will cover 133,343 facilities, such as hospitals, home health agencies and nursing homes; 445,657 clinical laboratories; 1300 community health centers; 40 health professional training programs; Medicaid agencies in each state; and, at least, 180 insurers that offer qualified health plans.
So now that we understand Section 1557 is already effective and that it applies to almost all health care providers who accept Medicare/caid, what exactly is the burden placed on the providers? Not discriminating does not seem so hard a burden.
Section 1557 requires much more than simply not discriminating against your clients.
Section 1557 mandates that you will provide appropriate aids and services without charge and in a timely manner, including qualified interpreters, for people with disabilities and that you will provide language assistance including translated documents and oral interpretation free of charge and in a timely manner.
In other words, you have to provide written materials to your clients in their spoken language. To ease the burden of translating materials, you can find a sample notice and taglines for 64 languages on HHS’ website. See here. The other requirement is that you provide, for no cost to the client, a translator in a timely manner for your client’s spoken language.
In other words, you must have qualified translators “on call” for the most common 15, non-English languages in your state. You cannot rely on friends, family, or staff. You also cannot allow the child of your client to act as the interpreter. The clients in need of the interpreters are not expected to provide their own translators – the burden is on the provider. The language assistance must be provided in a “timely manner. “Further, these “on call” translators must be “qualified,” as defined by the ACA.
I remember an English teacher in high school telling the class that there were two languages in North Carolina: English and bad English. Even if that were true back in 19XX, it is not true now.
Here is a chart depicting the number of non-English speakers in North Carolina in 1980 versus 2009-2011:
As you can see, North Carolina has become infinitely more diverse in the last three decades.
And translators aren’t free. According to Costhelper Small Business,
| Typical costs: |
|
It seems likely that telehealth may be the best option for health care providers considering the cost of in-person translations. Of course, you need to calculate the cost of the telehealth equipment and the savings you project over time to determine whether the investment in telehealth equipment is financially smart.
In addition to agencies having access to qualified translators, agencies with over 15 employees must designate a single employee who will be responsible for Section 1557 compliance and to adopt a grievance procedure for clients. Sometimes this may mean hiring a new employee to comply.
The Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) at HHS is the enforcer of Section 1557. OCR has been enforcing Section 1557 since its inception in 2010 – to an extent.
However, expect a whole new policing of Section 1557 now that we have the Final Rule from HHS.
Medicare/Caid Audits: Urine Testing Under Fire!!
I have blogged about peeing in a cup before…but we will not be talking about dentists in this blog. Instead we will be discussing pain management physicians and peeing in a cup.
Pain management physicians are under intense scrutiny on the federal and state level due to increased urine testing. But is it the pain management doctors’ fault?
When I was little, my dad and I would play catch with bouncy balls. He would always play a dirty little trick, and I fell for it every time. He would toss one ball high in the air. While I was concentrating on catching that ball, he would hurl another ball straight at me, which, every time, smacked into me – leaving me disoriented as to what was happening. He would laugh and laugh. I was his Charlie Brown, and he was my Lucy. (Yes, I have done this to my child).
The point is that it is difficult to concentrate on more than one thing. When the Affordable Care Act (ACA) came out, it was as if the federal government wielded 500, metaphoric, bouncy balls at every health care provider. You couldn’t comprehend it in its entirety. There were different deadlines for multiple changes, provider requirements, employer requirements, consumer requirements…it was a bloodbath! [If you haven’t seen the brothers who trick their sister into thinking it’s a zombie apocalypse, you have to watch it!!]
A similar “metaphoric ball frenzy” is occurring now with urine testing, and pain management physicians make up the bulk of prescribed urine testing. The urine testing industry has boomed in the past 4-5 years. This could be caused by a number of factors:
- increase use of drugs (especially heroine and opioids),
- the tightening of regulations requiring physicians to monitor whether patients are abusing drugs,
- increase of pain management doctors purchasing mass-spectrometry machines and becoming their own lab,
- simply more people are complaining of pain, and
- the pharmaceutical industry’s direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA).
Medicare’s spending on 22 high-tech tests for drugs of abuse hit $445 million in 2012, up 1,423% in five years. “In 2012, 259 million prescriptions were written for opioids, which is more than enough to give every American adult their own bottle of pills.” See article.
According to the American Association of Pain Management, pain affects more Americans than diabetes, heart disease and cancer combined. The chart below depicts the number of chronic pain sufferers compared to other major health conditions.
In the world of Medicare and Medicaid, where there is profit being made, the government comes a-knockin’.
But should we blame the pain management doctors if recent years brought more patients due to increase of drug use? The flip side is that we do not want doctors ordering urine tests unnecessarily. But aren’t the doctors supposed to the experts on medical necessity??? How can an auditor, who is not a physician and never seen the patient opine to medical necessity of a urine test?
The metaphoric ball frenzy:
There are so many investigations into urine testing going on right now.
Ball #1: The machine manufacturers. A couple of years ago, Carolina Liquid Chemistries (CLC) was raided by the federal government. See article. One of the allegations was that CLC was misrepresenting their product, a urinalysis machine, which caused doctors to overbill Medicare and Medicaid. According to a source, the federal government is still investigating CLC and all the physicians who purchased the urinalysis machine from CLC.
Ball #2: The federal government. Concurrently, the federal government is investigating urine testing billed to Medicare. In 2015, Millennium Health paid $256 million to resolve alleged violations of the False Claims Act for billing Medicare and Medicaid for medically unnecessary urine drug and genetic testing. I wonder if Millennium bought a urinalysis machine from CLC…
Ball #3: The state governments. Many state governments are investigating urine testing billed to Medicaid. Here are a few examples:
New Jersey: July 12, 2016, a couple and their diagnostic imaging companies were ordered to pay more than $7.75 million for knowingly submitting false claims to Medicare for thousands of falsified diagnostic test reports and the underlying tests.
Oklahoma: July 10, 2016, the Oklahoma attorney general’s office announced that it is investigating a group of laboratories involved in the state’s booming urine testing industry.
Tennessee: April 2016, two lab professionals from Bristol, Tenn., were convicted of health care fraud in a scheme involving urine tests for substance abuse treatments.
If you are a pain management physician, here are a few recommendations to, not necessarily avoid an audit (because that may be impossible), but recommendations on how to “win” an audit:
- Document, document, document. Explain why the urine test is medically necessary in your documents. An auditor is less likely to question something you wrote at the time of the testing, instead of well after the fact.
- Double check the CPT codes. These change often.
- Check your urinalysis machine. Who manufactured it? Is it performing accurately?
- Self-audit
- Have an experienced, knowledgeable, health care attorney. Do not wait for the results of the audit to contact an attorney.
And, perhaps, the most important – Do NOT just accept the results of an audit. Especially with allegations involving medical necessity…there are so many legal defenses built into regulations!! You turn around and throw a bouncy ball really high – and then…wallop them!!
The Effects of Medicaid Expansion under the ACA: Findings from a Literature Review — The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
Research on the effects of Medicaid expansions under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) can help increase understanding of how the ACA has impacted coverage; access to care, utilization, and health outcomes; and various economic outcomes, including state budgets, the payer mix for hospitals and clinics, and the employment and labor market. These findings also may…
RAC Audits: If It Walks Like a Duck and Quacks Like a Duck, It IS a RAC Audit
Recently, hundreds of dentists across North Carolina received Tentative Notices of Overpayment (TNOs) from Public Consulting Group (PCG) demanding recoupment for reimbursements made to dentists who rendered services on Medicaid for Pregnant Women (MPW) eligible recipients. There was no dispute at this hearing that these women were eligible for MPW according to the Department of Health and Human Services’ (DHHS) portal. There was also no dispute that these woman had delivered their babies prior to the date of dental service. So the question becomes: If DHHS informs a dentist that a woman is MPW eligible on the date of the service, does that dentist have an individual and separate burden to determine whether these women are pregnant. And if so, what is it? Have them pee in a cup prior to dental services? See blog, and blog, and blog.
We do not have a definitive answer to the above-posed question, as the Judge has not rendered his decision. However, he did substantially limit these “nameless audits” or “non-RAC” audits to the RAC program limitations. In an Order on our Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that, even if the State does not agree that an audit is a RAC audit, if the audit conducted falls within the definition of a RAC audit, then the audit is a RAC audit.
The reason this is important is because RAC auditors yield such powerful and overwhelming tools against health care providers, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) limits the RAC auditors’ ability to look-back on older claims. For example, even though a provider is, generally, required to maintain records for six (6) years, the federal regulations only allow RAC auditors to look-back three (3) years, unless credible allegations of fraud exist.
Thus, when an auditor reviews documents over three-years-old, I always argue that the review of claims over 3-years-old violates the statute of limitations and federal law.
During hearings, inevitably, the state argues that this particular audit…the one at issue here…is not a RAC audit. The opposing side could no more identify which acronym this audit happens to be, but this audit is not a RAC. “I don’t know what it is, but I know what it’s not!”
Well, an ALJ looked past the rhetoric and pleas by the State that “this is not a RAC” and held that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a RAC audit and, subsequently, the RAC audit limitations do apply.
In the case for this dentist, Public Consulting Group (PCG) audited claims going back as far as six years! The Department of Health and Human Services’ argument was that this audit is not a RAC audit. So what is it? What makes it NOT a RAC? Because you say so? We all know that PCG has a contract with DHHS to perform RAC audits. Is this audit somehow outside its contractual purview?
So I filed a Motion for Summary Judgment requesting the Judge to throw out all claims outside the three-year look-back period per the RAC limitations.
Lo, and behold, I was right!! (The good guys win again!)
To understand this fully, it is important to first understand what the RAC program is and its intention. (“It depends on what the definition of “is” is”).
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(42):
the State shall—(i) establish a program under which the State contracts (consistent with State law and in the same manner as the Secretary enters into contracts with recovery audit contractors under section 1893(h), subject to such exceptions or requirements as the Secretary may require for purposes of this title or a particular State) with 1 or more recovery audit contractors for the purpose of identifying underpayments and overpayments and recouping overpayments under the State plan and under any waiver of the State plan with respect to all services for which payment is made to any entity under such plan or waiver[].
(emphasis added).
RAC is defined as an entity that “…will review claims submitted by providers of items and services or other individuals furnishing items and services for which payment has been made under section 1902(a) of the Act or under any waiver of the State Plan to identify underpayments and overpayment and recoup overpayments for the States.” 42 CFR § 455.506(a).
Under this definition, PCG is clearly a recovery audit contractor. And the Judge agreed. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, just because the duck protests it is a donkey, it is still a duck. (Hmmmm..wonder how this logic would carry over to the whole transgender bathroom issue…another topic for another blogger…)
RACs must follow certain limitations as outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations. For example, pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 455.508(f), a Medicaid RAC “must not review claims that are older than 3 years from the date of the claim, unless it receives approval from the State.”
In this particular case, there were 15 claims at issue. Eleven (11) of those claims were outside the three-year look-back period!! With one fell swoop of an ALJ’s signature, we reduced the claims at issue from 15 to 4. Nice!
In DHHS’ Response to our Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, DHHS argued that, in this case, PCG was not acting as a RAC; therefore, the limitations do not apply. In support of such decision, DHHS supplied an affidavit of a DMA employee. She averred that the audit of this particular dentist was not per the RAC program. No rules were cited. No contract in support of her position was provided. Nothing except an affidavit of a DMA employee.
Obviously, it is my opinion that the ALJ was 100% accurate in ruling that this audit was a RAC audit and was limited in scope to a 3-year look-back period.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is not a donkey. No matter how much it pleads that it is, in fact, a donkey!
Remember the Super Bowl Ad of the Puppy, Baby, Monkey?:
That is so NOT ok!
CMS Clarifying Medicare Overpayment Rules: The Bar Is Raised (Yet Again) for Health Care Providers
Have you ever watched athletes compete in the high jump? Each time an athlete is successful in pole vaulting over the bar, the bar gets raised…again…and again…until the athlete can no longer vault over the bar. Similarly, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) continue to raise the bar on health care providers who accept Medicare and Medicaid.
In February, CMS finalized the rule requiring providers to proactively investigate themselves and report any overpayments to CMS for Medicare Part A and B. (The Rule for Medicare Parts C and D were finalized in 2014, and the Rule for Medicaid has not yet been promulgated). The Rule makes it very clear that CMS expects providers and suppliers to enact robust self auditing policies.
We all know that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was intended to be self-funding. Who is funding it? Doctors, psychiatrists, home care agencies, hospitals, long term care facilities, dentists…anyone who accepts Medicare and Medicaid. The self-funding portion of the ACA is strict; it is infallible, and its fraud, waste, and abuse (FWA) detection tools…oh, how wide that net is cast!
Subsection 1128J(d) was added to Section 6402 of the ACA, which requires that providers report overpayments to CMS “by the later of – (A) the date which is 60 days after the date on which the overpayment was identified; or (B) the date any corresponding cost report is due, if applicable.”
Identification of an overpayment is when the person has, or reasonably should have through the exercise of reasonable diligence, determined that the person received an overpayment. Overpayment includes referrals or those referrals that violate the Anti-Kickback statute.
CMS allows providers to extrapolate their findings, but what provider in their right mind would do so?
There is a six-year look back period, so you don’t have to report overpayments for claims older than six years.
You can get an extension of the 60-day deadline if:
• Office of Inspector General (OIG) acknowledges receipt of a submission to the OIG Self-Disclosure Protocol
• OIG acknowledges receipt of a submission to the OIG Voluntary Self-Referral Protocol
• Provider requests an extension under 42 CFR §401.603
My recommendation? Strap on your pole vaulting shoes and get to jumping!
As the 31st State Expands Medicaid: Do We Need to Be Concerned About a Physician Shortage?
Recently, Montana became the 31st state, including D.C., to expand Medicaid. Discussion regarding Medicaid expansion is ongoing in one state: Utah. Nineteen (19) states have rejected Medicaid expansion, including NC.
When Medicaid expansion was first introduced, it was a highly polarized, political topic, with Republican governors, generally, rejecting expansion and Democrat governors, generally, accepting expansion.
Now, however, many Republican governors have opted to expand Medicaid. There are currently 31 Republicans, 18 Democrats, and one independent that hold the office of governor in the states. Yet, 31 states have expanded Medicaid. Here is an extremely, difficult-to-read chart outlining the states that have opted to expand, those that have opted to reject expansion, and the one state (Utah) still discussing:
I know, it’s hard to read. Feel free to go to the actual Kaiser website to see the chart readable by humans. (Microsoft’s “Snipping Tool” leaves much to be desired; Apple’s “Screen Shot” is much better, in my opinion).
An interesting fact is that, in its first week with Medicaid expansion, Montana had over 5,500 people sign up for Medicaid.
Another interesting fact is that, approximately 18,078 physicians graduate from medical school in America per year. But in Montana?
N/A…as in, none. Not applicable. You see, Montana does not have a medical school. It does participate in the Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho collaborative program. However, the collaborative program does not do a stellar job at recruiting physicians to Montana. It tries. But the statistics are stacked against Montana.
“Sixty-eight percent of doctors who complete all their training in one state end up practicing there,” according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.
Yet Montana has no medical school. And expanded Medicaid. If any of you ever took economics, there is this accepted theory called, “supply and demand.”
Supply and demand dictates that, when supply is low and demand is high, the product, whatever it is, can be sold at the highest price. Medicaid expansion, however, is creating an anomaly. Medicaid expansion expects a higher demand to meet the lower supply without increasing the reimbursement rates. This is a fundamental flaw in Medicaid expansion. If, on the other hand, Medicaid expansion was premised on an increase in reimbursement rates, we may see an uptick in supply. When demand is high and supply is low, many people “demanding” get nothing.
Let’s think about how many patients each primary care physician can handle.
“According to a 2013 survey by the American Academy of Family Physicians, the average member of that group has 93.2 “patient encounters” each week — in an office, hospital or nursing home, on a house call or via an e-visit. That’s about 19 patients per day. The family physicians said they spend 34.1 hours in direct patient care each week, or about 22 minutes per encounter, with 2,367 people under each physician’s care.” See article.
“The baseline projections from BHPr’s physician supply and requirements models suggest that overall requirements are growing faster than the FTE supply of physicians (Exhibits 51 and 52). Between 2005 and 2020, requirements are projected to grow to approximately 976,000 (22 percent), while FTE supply is projected to grow to approximately 926,600 (14 percent). These projections suggest a modest, but growing, shortfall of approximately 49,000 physicians by 2020 if today’s level of health care services is extrapolated to the future population. ” See article.
This is not the first time I have noted the increasing physician shortage with Medicaid expansion. There is a huge difference in giving someone a Medicaid card and providing a person with quality health care. A card is a piece of paper. If you cannot find a physician..or psychiatrist…or pulmonologist….or neurosurgeon who will accept Medicaid, then your Medicaid card is simply a piece of paper, not even worth the paper upon which it is printed. See blog. And blog. And blog.
The same can be said with the shortage of dentists. See blog.
With a shortage of approximately 49,000 physicians in 2o20, I pray that I am not holding a Medicaid card.
If I am, I will be another victim of high demand with low supply.
