CMS is Already Hurting Home Care and Now MedPAC Wants to Make it Worse

by | Dec 13, 2023 | CMS, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Last week, MedPAC met for their December meeting to discuss “Assessing payment adequacy and updating payments.” Hospice services and Home health care services were each presented separately to Congress and commissioners are set to review the key indicators and discuss updates to Medicare payment rates for 2024.

The findings presented to Congress gave me whiplash.

Hospice Services

  • There is ‘mixed evidence’ on whether hospice reduces Medicare expenditures, but is has important benefits for beneficiaries
  • 2021 saw a 6% increase in hospices, mostly in for-profit agencies
  • Hospice use rates are down overall, but MedPAC blames the effects of the pandemic on death rates and patterns of care
  • Hospice use continues to shift from SNFs to in-home care
  • In 2020, 18.6% of hospices exceeded the payment cap
  • MedPAC recommends the cap be wage adjusted and reduced by 20%

See the full Hospice Services presentation to Congress here.

Opinion

Of the 18.6% of hospices that exceeded the payment cap in 2020, 17.2% of those were also in the highest bracket of hospice providers with stays longer than 180 days. The payment cap is not enough to cover patients who need hospice care for longer time periods, even though the requirement for hospice care is expected death within 6 months. If hospice is intended to care for a patient for 180 days, shouldn’t the payment cap be equal to 180 days of care? If a hospice provider is caring for a patient for longer, shouldn’t they get paid more?

MedPAC is convinced that lowering the cap would only impact those hospice providers who have the longest stays. However, if those hospices can no longer provide care because the payment cap has been reached, it will fall to other providers to continue care, stretching the already overworked hospice nurses even thinner.

Home Health Care Services

  • The Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) of 2018 prompted CMS to implement PDGM and required MedPAC to review PDGM in its first year of operation
  • BBA 2018 changes must be budget neutral
  • CMS issued a $2 billion one-time reduction for overages and a 3.925 percent permanent reduction
  • The decline in the number of Home Health Agencies continues
  • The number of FFS beneficiaries declined, but the per capita use of HHS increased
  • The median Medicare margin (profit) for efficient providers is 28.4 percent, but only 14% of HHAs met cost and quality criteria
  • The median Medicare margin indicates Medicare payments are too high

Opinion

This makes about as much sense as the new phenomenon “dog math.” 14% of all Home Health Care agencies are considered efficient. On average, those who are efficient have a 28% Medicare profit margin. Among 133 industries reporting gross profit margins across the U.S., a 28% profit margin puts Home Care Agencies at number 104 out of 133, much lower than the average or median profit margins of every other industry.1 The all-payer margin is about 12%, making them the second least profitable industry in the U.S., coming in only slightly higher than auto manufacturers. The smallest HHAs have a profit margin just under 6%. MedPAC’s stance seems to be that if an HHA is making enough money to barely survive, they are making too much money.

See the full Home Health Care Agency presentation to Congress here.

 

©2023 by Rowan Consulting Associates, Inc., Colorado Springs, CO. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in Home Care Technology: The Rowan Report. homecaretechreport.com One copy may be printed for personal use; further reproduction by permission only. editor@homecaretechreport.com

CMS Issues Final Rule for 2024 with Drastic Pay Cut

by | Nov 8, 2023 | CMS, Regulatory

By Kristin Rowan, Editor

On November 1, CMS issued its Home Health Final Rule for CY 2024. As expected, the final rule includes drastic pay cuts to Medicare home health services payments. The original proposed rule issued earlier this year included a 5.653% rate reduction, the remainder of the 7.85% reduction from 2020-2021 and an additional 1.636% for 2022, for a total rate reduction of 9.36% overall from the start of PDGM. In a surprising turn, CMS has not implemented the full 5.779% rate cut from the initial proposal, opting instead to introduce the rate cuts over two years. The 2024 rate cut will be 2.890%, half of the full adjustment CMS alleges is still needed. The CMS final rule does not attempt to collect any of the alleged overpayments from 2020-2022, totaling $3,439,284,729.00.

NAHC President Bill Dombi offered this response:

 

“We continue to strenuously disagree with CMS’s rate setting actions, including the budget neutrality methodology that CMS employed to arrive at the rate adjustments. We recognize that CMS has reduced the proposed 2024 rate cut. However, overall spending on Medicare home health is down, 500,000 fewer patients are receiving care annually since 2018, patient referrals are being rejected more than 50% of the time because providers cannot afford to provide the care needed within the payment rates, and providers have closed their doors or restricted service territory to reduce care costs. If the payment rate was truly excessive, we would not see these actions occurring. The fatally flawed payment methodology that CMS continues to insist on applying is having a direct and permanent effect on access to care. When you add in the impact of shortchanging home health agencies on an accurate cost inflation update of 5.2% over the last two years, the loss of care access is natural and foreseeable.

We now implore Congress to correct what CMS has done and prevent the impending harm to the millions of highly vulnerable home health patients that depend and will depend in the future on this essential Medicare benefit. Fortunately, longstanding advocates for home health care, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) have introduced S. 2137 to eliminate the rate cuts. We urge the Congress to support this legislation and enact it into law before the end of the year. The 2024 rate cuts must not take effect.”

The final rule includes the following:

  • A net 3.0% inflation update
  • A 2.890% Budget Neutrality permanent adjustment
  • A $3,489,523,364 alleged overpayment in 2020-2022. CMS has not scheduled a collection of the alleged overpayment in 2024 or any other year yet.
  • Recalibration of the 432 case mix weights with a separate budget neutrality adjustment in the payment rates of +1.0124%
  • CMS estimates an increase in CY2024 Medicare spending of $140 million ($525 million inflation increase minus the $455 million rate adjustment plus a $70 million outlier FDL change)

HHAs that fail to provide required quality data will have these rates reduced by two percent.

Non-payment-related changes

In addition to the inflation increase and payment adjustments, the CMS Final Rule includes a number of other changes. These changes include amendments for the payment of Disposable Negative Pressure Wound Therapy, removing and replacing OASIS measures in HHVBP, new coverages and payments in IVIG services, the adoption of two new measures and the removal of one existing measure in HHQRP, coverage for lymphedema therapy items under a new Medicare Part B benefit, and revisions to Medicare provider enrollment requirements.

Hospice Provisions

Hospice Special Focus Program (SFP)

CMS is pushing forward with the Hospice SFP. Despite the commonsense suggested changes requested by NAHC and multiple others, CMS is using a flawed algorithm in the structure and implementation of SFP. This flawed algorithm will fail to identify hospices most appropriate for additional oversight and support. This creates the risk of reducing access to higher quality care and directing patients and families to hospices that perform most poorly relative to health and safety requirements. The official stance from NAHC is strong support of the SFPs goal to improve poor performing hospices, but are emphatically against the method in which SFP is being implemented and will continue to advocate for changes to the structure of the program.

Hospice Informal Dispute Resolution (IDR)

The IDR process for hospice is for condition-level survey findings which may trigger an enforcement action. The finalized IDR process allows hospice programs an opportunity to resolve disputes during recertification or reaccreditation for continued participation in Medicare. this allows for settlement agreement prior to a formal hearing, which will save time and money for the hospice agency. NAHC has additional recommendations for the Hospice IDR process that have not been implemented in the final rule.

Hospice 36-month rule

CMS is extending the “36-month” rule that currently applies to home health agencies and hospices, which is designed to prevent the flipping of Medicare certifications to non-vetted hospice owners. There are several exceptions to the rule for hospices. Even if a hospice undergoes a CIMO, a new owner must enroll as a new hospice and undergo a survey or accreditation unless:

  • The hospice submitted 2 consecutive years of full cost reports since initial enrollment or the last CIMO, whichever is later.
  • A hospice’s parent company is undergoing an internal corporate restructuring, such as a merger or consolidation.
  • The owners of an existing HHA are changing the hospice’s existing business structure (for example, from a corporation to a partnership (general or limited)), and the owners remain the same.
  • An individual owner of an hospice dies

New hospice owners will immediately be placed into the “high-risk” category for screening requirements and will have to submit fingerprints for a national background check from all owners with a 5% or greater direct or indirect ownership interest.

CMS Final Rule Synopsis and NAHC Response

We reached out to NAHC President Bill Dombi after the release of the Final Rule for CY2024. He provided us with a full breakdown of each provision in the final rule and the NAHC stance on each topic.

You can read all of these changes and how NAHC will continue to advocate for changes to the final rule here.

# # #

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 started writing for 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

©2023 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.

editor@homecaretechreport.com

Big Win for Advocacy in Home Care

by | Oct 25, 2023 | Admin, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Marking a significant victory for the HCAOA Connecticut Chapter and the home care industry, in the legislative session that ended last week, lawmakers unanimously passed a bill to reverse the policy guidance issued by the Department of Consumer Protection in January that banned use of the word “care” by home care agencies. In response to the guidance that directly harmed the industry, the Chapter and its members engaged in a strong lobbying effort to reverse it.
The guidance had caused significant concern and confusion for agencies, caregivers, consumers and lawmakers. Indeed, the Department had recently begun enforcing the ban against HCAs, requiring them to remove the word “care” from websites and other advertising.

On June 2, the state Senate gave final legislative approval to House Bill 5781, which allows HCAs to use the word “care” in their business names and advertising and advertise having employees trained to provide services to individuals experiencing memory difficulties as long as the agency prominently advertises that it solely provides nonmedical care, and doesn’t use any words, such as those related to medical or health care licensure or services, to describe services beyond the scope of those a HCA is authorized to provide. Also, HCAs must give consumers written notice that the agency provides nonmedical care and obtain the consumer’s signature on the notice before providing services. The Governor is expected to sign Public Act 23-48 shortly.

Chapter leaders and many members testified in support of the legislation, contacted the Governor and met with lawmakers and other officials, engaged in grass roots support, and advocated for the change. “It was a significant effort by the Chapter but our strategy and the work of members paid off,” said Marlene Chickerella, Chapter Chair and owner of B&M Homemaking Services in West Haven. “We are very grateful to lawmakers for changing the policy and appreciate all the support and assistance of our member-home care agency owners. They stepped up and clearly made a difference.”

Additionally, House Bill 5781, which originally arose out of the Homemaker-Companion Task Force recommendations:
• Requires the Office of Policy and Management to develop a plan and proposed timeline to transfer oversight of HCAs from Consumer Protection to the Department of Public Health; the plan will include recommendations on training standards and appropriate use of the term “care” to describe home care services.
• Adds failure to give a consumer written notice that the agency provides nonmedical care to a list of violations for which DCP may revoke, suspend, or refuse to issue or renew a HCA’s registration; requires DCP to revoke a HCA’s registration if the agency is found to have violated any revokable provisions three times in a calendar year.
• Requires HCAs to develop in consultation with the consumer a service plan or contract that includes (1) a person-centered plan of care, (2) anticipated oversight by the agency of the caregiver assigned to the consumer, and (3) how often the person who oversees the agency’s caregiver and consumer will meet.
• Requires DCP to post on its website a guide detailing the process for consumers to file complaints against a HCA; and requires agencies to give consumers a printed copy of this guide with their contract or service plan.
• Requires HCAs to create a brochure and maintain a website detailing the services it provides.

###

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 at kristin@girardmarketinggroup.com or www.girardmarketinggroup.com

Should Insurance Companies Own Home Health Agencies?

by | Sep 13, 2023 | Editorial, M&A, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

UnitedHealth Group Makes Bid to Buy Amedisys after Acquiring LHC Group

Amedisys is one of the leading providers of home health, hospice, and other healthcare at home services. It operates more than 500 locations in 37 states and the District of Columbia. After acquiring Contessa Health in 2021 for $250 million, Amedisys added hospital-at-home, SNF-at-home, and palliative care to its list of services.

Optum Outbids Option Care Health

In May of this year, Option Care Health and Amedisys issued joint statements announcing a merger of the two companies in an all stock-option bid. Option Care Health provides home and alternate site infusion services, while Amedisys provides home health, hospice, and high-acuity care. The merger was valued at $3.6 billion. It would have increased stockholder value, increased access to care across the United States, and created a network of more than 16,000 health care professionals, according to the joint statement.1

By June 26th, Option Care Health confirmed the termination of the merger and a $106 million termination payment from Amedisys, after Amedisys accepted an all-cash bid from UnitedHealth Group.2

UnitedHealth Expanding Service Options

UnitedHealth Group acquired LHC Group earlier this year for $5.4 billion.3  That acquisition folded LHC Group into UnitedHealth Group’s Optum. The acquisition came after increased demands for home care services. UnitedHealth Group considered this a move toward value-based care. The Federal Trade Commission stalled the merger with requests for additional details in mid-2022. Despite the FTC probe and a shareholder lawsuit, the deal was ultimately approved and the LHC Group delisted its stock on February 22.4

New Merger Faces Federal Scrutiny

Optum and Amedysis expected concerns over anti-trust issues surrounding the merger, according to a joint statement from the two groups. The Department of Justice recently asked for more information.5  The request will push back the timeline for the merger. Amedisys believes there is little geographic overlap between Amedisys and LHC Group and that the scrutiny is a result of other UnitedHealth Group acquisitions.

Optum Amedysis

Optum Remains Optimistic

In a press release about the merger, Optum CEO Patrick Conway, M.D. said, “Amedisys’ commitment to quality and care innovation within the home, and the patient-first culture of its people, combined with Optum’s deep value-based care expertise can drive meaningful improvement in the health outcomes and experiences of more patients at lower costs, leading to continued growth.”6

Even with the recent acquisitions and mergers, if this deal with Amedisys proceeds, Optum will have only a 10% market share across the U.S. For this reason, as well as the demand for home care far exceeding the supply, Optum believes this merger will be approved.

Opinion

Should a company that brokers health insurance also be allowed to be the provider of care? In this author’s experience, job-based healthcare insurance does not come with many options. There may be different levels of care to fit your budget, but the insurance company is already chosen by the employer. This means that employees and their families choose to have health insurance or not but cannot choose the insurance company.

Home Care, Hospice, Post-Acute Care, Palliative Care, and other in-home services are very personal. The company you choose and the care provider you get have to fit your needs and personality and there is a high level of trust needed to allow a stranger into your home when you are in a vulnerable state. If the insurance company is also providing the care, the option to find a care provider that suits the level of trust needed almost disappears.

Oversight

In 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order for more vigorous oversight of the healthcare market. Mergers and acquisitions are being scrutinized more heavily to preclude monopolies of care. The FTC and DOJ, in response to this executive order, have proposed updates to antitrust guidelines that will make healthcare mergers and acquisitions more difficult.7

Medicare Advantage

Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage has now reached 50%, making insurance companies more involved in senior care than ever before.8  Insurance companies only recently increased the percentage of revenue spent on patient care to 80%, up from as low as 50% before 2010.9  Given these facts, it may be worth questioning whether the insurance companies have too much control over care now, and if the acquisition of care providers by insurance providers should be eliminated completely to avoid a complete takeover of healthcare by insurance companies that already focus more on profit than people.

# # #

Kristin Rowan, Editor
Kristin Rowan, Editor

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. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com

 1https://investors.optioncarehealth.com/news-releases/news-release-details/option-care-health-and-amedisys-combine-creating-leading
2https://investors.optioncarehealth.com/news-releases/news-release-details/option-care-health-confirms-termination-merger-agreement
3https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/amedisys-agrees-unitedhealth-buyout-offer-scraps-option-care-deal-2023-06-26/
4https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payers/unitedhealth-lhc-group-close-54b-merger-deal
5https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/unitedhealth-amedisys-second-request-doj/690612/
6https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/newsroom/2023/2023-06-05-optum-offers-to-combine-with-amedisys.html
7https://www.medicaldevice-network.com/news/unitedhealth-acquisition-under-doj-scrutiny/?cf-view
8https://homecaretechreport.com/article/3549
9https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2019/jul/how-aca-medical-loss-ratio-rule-protects-consumers-insurers