MedPAC Recommends More Pay Cuts
CMSBy Kristin Rowan, Editor
In December, 2023, The Medicare Payment Advisory Committee (MedPAC) recommended a 22% payment reduction for hospice providers. This week, they’ve recommended additional cuts once again.
MedPAC has just released the March, 2024 Medicare Payment Policy Report, issued to Congress. The initial statement from MedPAC recognized the long-lasting impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare providers and the record inflation rates. The commission admits that the pandemic has caused burnout and personal risk to clinicians and other health care workers. The commission also admits that the effects of COVID-19, PHE-related policy changes, and emergency funding made it difficult to interpret the indicators of adequacy in Medicare’s payment rates.
The commission openly states that the fundamental problem with FFS Medicare payments is that providers are paid more when they deliver more services, whether or not those services provide value. The call for additional payment reforms to force providers to coordinate care over time and across care settings and to eliminate what may be necessary services that MedPAC doesn’t deem valuable.
Home Health Agencies
The commission reports the Medicare margins for HHAs at 22.2 percent in 2022. The commission calculates these margins excluding some fixed costs. The margins, according to the commission, indicate that FFS Medicare payments exceed the costs of care. This should incentivize HHAs to take on additional beneficiaries, as the margins are calculating using only costs that diminish by volume.
The commission notes a drop in HHA use in 2022 and lists possible causes including:
- The number of FFS Medicare beneficiaries is lower due to the increased enrollment in Medicare Advantage
- Lower use of inpatient hospital care among FFS beneficiaries
- Hospitalized FFS beneficiaries were less likely to be discharged to home health care (no reason for this was given)
- More FFA beneficiaries are using SNFs after hospitalization (no reason for this was given)
- The staffing shortages reported by HHAs limit the volume of services they can provide
The commission implies that the staffing shortages are not a factor in the decline in HHA usage. The Department of Commerce’s employment data indicates staffing levels that are currently higher than pre-pandemic levels. Even though the data includes HHAs, hospice, private duty, pediatric agencies, and other home care providers, the commission still contends that Medicare HHAs comprise a significant enough share of this group to conclude there is no staffing shortage nationwide.
The commission also reports that the decrease in the number of HHAs nationwide is not a factor in the decline of HHA usage, because most beneficiaries still live in an area with at least on HHA. The commission recognizes that the number of employees and contract laborers is not used to calculate access to care, even though it is a factor. They also admit that an HHA does not need to serve an entire area to be counted as serving the area, and that the capacity to serve additional beneficiaries is not considered.
The report recognizes that preventable readmissions to hospitals is lower among for-profit and free-standing HHAs than for hospital-based care. However, the commission dismisses this data in favor of the all-cause measure of hospitalization, which is much higher for HHAs. This measure covers 60 days and includes all hospitalizations for any cause and includes community-admitted and home health admitted patients. Essentially, MedPAC is assigning a 14.2 percent hospitalization rate to all home health patients, regardless of the cause of hospitalization, whether or not it is deemed preventable, and whether or not it is in any way related to the initial 30-day-period of post acute care.
The average cost of a 30-day period increased by 4 percent in 2022, due to a higher cost per visit. The HHAs are combatting this by reducing the number of in-person visits per 30-day period. Since MedPAC did not track telehealth visits, there is no data on the overall cost per visit, regardless of whether it was in person or remote. HHAs are working within the PDGM model for reimbursement by lowering their overall costs per 30-day period through telehealth visits, remote patient monitoring, and other technologies implemented to increase efficiency in HHAs. MedPAC wants to penalize this by reducing payment rates. This will only serve to push HHAs to further decrease the number of visits, which will impact quality of care, satisfactions rates, and rehospitalization rates.
The commission concludes that because the payments exceed the costs, the benefits of home health care are devalued as a substitute for more costly care options. MedPAC argues that the overpayment since 2000 creates higher expenditures for beneficiaries, but fails to provide data to this effect.
As noted by NAHC, there are flaws in MedPACs calculations as well as in the foundation of their position:
- Exclusions such as taxes, telehealth, and marketing in cost calculations incorrectly inflate the margins
- MedPAC relies heavily on the CMS calculations for budget-neutrality, which NAHC has already refuted as incorrect, bordering illegal formulas
- The data used in these calculations omitted all HHAs that are hospital-based.
NAHC, along with other agencies, will continue to advocate on behalf of HHAs, hospice providers, and other home-based care agencies in front of Congress to ensure these disastrous cuts will not become permanent inclusions in Medicare policy. We will continue to bring you updates as this issue continues to unfold.
# # #
Kristin Rowan has been working at Healthcare at Home: The Rowan Report since 2008. She has a master’s degree in business administration and marketing and runs Girard Marketing Group, a multi-faceted boutique marketing firm specializing in event planning, sales, and marketing strategy. She has recently taken on the role of Editor of The Rowan Report and will add her voice to current Home Care topics as well as marketing tips for home care agencies. Connect with Kristin directly kristin@girardmarketinggroup.com or www.girardmarketinggroup.com
©2024 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in Healthcare at Home: The Rowan Report.homecaretechreport.com One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only.
SNF Abuses Could be Selling Point for In-Home Care Providers
Clinicalby Tim Rowan, Editor Emeritus
For as long as I can remember, Home Health and Home Care owners and advocates, including their national and state associations, have struggled to develop concrete data to prove what we all know to be true: In-home care is a great deal for payers, both public and private. Underpaying our sector in a misguided attempt to reduce costs results in paying more in the long run. Buying more in-home care translates into lower overall cost.
This is one part of the story, and we continually search for the proof our sector so desperately needs. But there is another aspect to the Home Health, Home Care advantage that must not be overlooked as we focus on payer finances.
Patient care and safety
One need look no further than our post-acute care neighbor, Skilled Nursing Facilities, to understand how much better off elderly citizens are when in-home caregivers and clinicians enabled them to stay in their own homes and avoid institutionalized care. A new, peer-reviewed study titles “Profits Over Patients” was published in the online collective The Conversation. If unfamiliar, think of it as The Huffington Post for scholars and researchers.
In the exposé, investigators Sean Campbell and Charlene Harrington reveal that for-profit organizations have been infiltrated by Wall Street investors and other venture capitalists, seeking quick turnarounds and handsome profits. Founders and other SNF owners gladly accept generous offers to be acquired or partner with investors who immediately begin to impose cost-cutting measures and maximize profits. The probe, which paired an academic expert with an investigative reporter, discovered a number of startling findings:
“The investigation revealed an industry that places a premium on cost cutting and big profits, with low staffing and poor quality, often to the detriment of patient well-being. Operating under weak and poorly enforced regulations with financially insignificant penalties, the for-profit sector fosters an environment where corners are frequently cut, compromising the quality of care and endangering patient health.”
Campbell and Harrington also looked at the ineffectiveness of state inspectors, who have limited ability to impose meaningful fines for violations. One startling example in the report is that of a Louisville SNF. The care was found to be “abysmal” when Kentucky inspectors filed their survey report.
“Residents wandered the halls in a facility that can house up to 250 people, yelling at each other and stealing blankets. One resident beat a roommate with a stick, causing bruising and skin tears. Another was found in bed with a broken finger and a bloody forehead gash. That person was allowed to roam and enter the beds of other residents. In another ase, there was sexual touching in the dayroom between residents, according to the [surveyor’s] report.
“Meals were served from filthy meal carts on plastic foam trays, and residents struggled to cut their food with dull plastic cutlery. Broken tiles lined showers, and a mysterious black gunk marred the floors.
“Overall, there was a critical lack of training, lack of staff, and lack of supervision.”
The report said state inspectors found 29 deficiencies, including six that put residents in immediate jeopardy of serious harm and three where actual harm was found. The fine imposed was $319,000 — more than 29 times the average for a nursing home. Payments from Medicare and Medicaid were suspended. The investors and owners chalked the fine up to a normal cost of doing business and, five months later, inspectors found six additional deficiencies “of immediate jeopardy,” the highest level.
The parent company of the Kentucky SNF, Infinity Healthcare Management, owns 58 facilities across five states. Since 2021, Infinity has been hit with nearly $10 million in fines, more than 4.5 times the national average.
Cut staff, save money, hide money
The investigation revealed an industry that places a premium on cost cutting and big profits, with low staffing and poor quality, endangering patient health. “Meanwhile,” the authors assert, “owners make the facilities look less profitable by siphoning money from the homes through byzantine networks of interconnected corporation
s. Federal regulators have neglected the problem as each year likely billions of dollars are funneled out of nursing homes through related parties and into owners’ pockets.”
The report points out that problems of this magnitude are found far less often in small, single-location facilities and in national chains and franchises. The sweet sport for abuse seems to be in the mid-range, for-profit organizations that have been taken over by far-away investors. Sadly, 72 percent of the SNF’s in this category are for-profit. “While such chains account for about 39 percent of all facilities, they operate 11 of the 15 most-fined facilities.
Relevance
A frequent message at Home Healthcare conferences in recent years has been the renewed interest in our sector from big money investors. While quick profits and the enticement of early retirement might bring Home Health and Home Care owners to the negotiating table, this exposé may be a reason to take a breath and think it through. Most of you who nurtured your company from startup to attractive acquisition target did so as much out of compassion as entrepreneurship. Would you not wonder, from your perch on the sun deck of a cruise ship, whether your legacy is being dragged in the mud and your patients and employees reduced to a Wall Street cost column?
Tim Rowan is a 30-year home care technology consultant who co-founded and served as Editor and principal writer of this publication for 25 years. He continues to occasionally contribute news and analysis articles under The Rowan Report’s new ownership. He also continues to work part-time as a Home Care recruiting and retention consultant. More information: RowanResources.com or Tim@RowanResources.com
©2024 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in Healthcare at Home: The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com
HOPE is on the Way: Part 2 – Process Measures
Clinicalby Beth Noyce, RN, BSJMC, HCS-C, BCHH-C, COQS
CHAP-certified home health & hospice consultant
Process Measures
The outcome measures being considered look at effectiveness of hospice clinical efforts to decrease pain and other symptoms. The process measures paired with them focus on the hospice’s follow up with the patient after moderate or severe symptoms are found during assessment.
Exhibit 6 (below) shows the numerator and denominator for these.
TEP members determined that these two process measures have high face validity. This means the measure items clearly state, or “look like” they will measure what CMS intends them to measure. This allows consumers to see what hospices are assessing and treating. It can also help hospices track how well they are reducing or treating patients’ symptoms.
Katie Wehri, Director of Home Health & Hospice Regulatory Affairs for the National Association for Home Care & Hospice says the face validity of process items is the most important information the HQRP TEP provided to CMS. “Having HOPE items and subsequent measures that actually measure what is intended is key to success,” she says.
Exclusions from Process Measures Success
Exclusions from calculating a hospice’s process measures’ success need careful consideration. Here is the list of options of which patients to exclude:
- Patient desired tolerance level for symptoms
- Patient preferences for symptom management
Neuropathic pain- Actively Dying (death is imminent)
- Other conditions
The report says that reassessing a symptom within two days of identifying that symptom as moderate or severe is fundamental. This is true regardless of the beneficiary’s stated tolerance-level for symptoms. It also said that process measure calculations should include patients with no symptom-management preference. Further, exclusion criteria should be the same for pain and non-pain symptoms.
Neuropathic Pain
The TEP’s recommends including neuropathic pain in the HOPE tool’s pain-reassessment process measure. Including rather than excluding patients suffering neuropathic pain prompts nurses to reassess these patients for changes. The report references research that suggests 40% of hospice patients may experience neuropathic pain. Patients who experience neuropathic pain have more severe and more distressing pain symptoms. [Tofthagen, C., Visovsky, C., Dominic, S., & McMillan, S. (2019). Neuropathic symptoms, physical and emotional well-being, and quality of life at the end of life. Supportive Care in Cancer, 27(9), 3357-3364. doi:10.1007/s00520-018-4627-x]
The TEP agrees that patients with neuropathic pain should be part of the process measure. However, they recommend excluding the same patients from the outcome measure addressing the patient’s pain impact. The report cited TEP discussion that such pain is chronic and not likely to be resolved or decreased within two days when the reassessment captures outcome data.
The TEP broadly agreed that a nurse who assesses a patient who is actively dying (life expectancy of 3 days or fewer based on clinicians’ assessment) as suffering moderate or severe pain should attempt to reassess the patient. Such patientsshould not be excluded.
The panelists agreed that process measures should include patients of all ages. Several TEP members noted that all patients experience pain and non-pain symptoms, and therefore the measures should apply to adults and children alike.
Exclusion Due to Inability to Reassess
When a hospice is unable to reassess a patient for a valid reason process measures should exclude those patients.
Identified exclusion reason were:
- discharge, alive or dead
- visit refusal
- inability to access the patient due to an emergency department or hospitalization event
- the patient traveling outside of the hospice’s service area
- inability of the hospice to contact the patient or caregiver.
However, the report says, “…hospices should be penalized if reassessment is missing or delayed due to hospice staffing or scheduling issues.”
This article is the second in a series about implementation of HOPE. Next week, Beth Noyce shares details from the panel as it discussed potential future process and outcome measure concepts.
# # #
©2024 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in Healthcare at Home: The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com
Telehealth and AI in Home Care: An Interview with Dr. Pamela Ograbisz
Artificial Intelligence by Kristin Rowan, Editor Telehealth’s evolution includes the dramatic shift to at-home and hybrid healthcare models post COVID-19 as well telehealth’s role in program management and staffing. From telehealth’s earliest models to today’s...A New Path for Recruitment and Retention
Admin by Kristin Rowan, Editor Recruitment and Retention amidst the national workforce shortage is not a new topic for The Rowan Report. We have feature articles dating back months, even years, talking about how you can recruit the top talent in the industry and keep the...Recruitment, Retention, and Reward: Product Review
Admin by Kristin Rowan, Editor Caregiver Recruitment, Retention, & Reward The workforce shortage, caregiver burnout, after effects of the pandemic, and the advent of “quiet quitting” have impacted home care agencies’s ability to fully staff and care for...Kickbacks for Referrals are Costly…and Illegal
Admin by Elizabeth E Hogue, Esq. Kickback on Kickbacks Three home health agencies and their parent company in Cincinnati, Ohio, must pay $4,496,330 to resolve alleged violations of the federal False Claims Act by providing kickbacks to assisted living facilities in exchange...Patient Preference by Race or Nationality
Admin This article provides updated information about a discrimination case filed against a home care agency by the EEOC. The Rowan Report published the initial press release and article last year. by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. What to do When Patients Don't Want Caregivers...Survive Medicare Advantage
Admin by Alexandria Nelson, Communications Specialist, Axxess How to Survive Medicare Advantage in Home Health Navigating the complexities of Medicare Advantage continues to be a sticking point for organizations trying to scale their business. In an education session at the...
