CMS Archives - Page 7 of 9 - The Rowan Report

Bill Dombi Spring Tour has two Major Announcements

Admin

by Tim Rowan | May 22, 2024 | Admin, CMS, Regulatory

by Tim Rowan, Editor Emeritus

For the last time, NAHC President Bill Dombi is spending another Spring on airplanes. It is state association meeting season, and the Bill Dombi Spring Tour has been bringing his regular Capitol Hill update from coast to coast, this time adding the announcement that he will retire at the end of the year.

After 40 years with NAHC, the lengthy standing ovation Californians gave him at the end of his Tuesday speech was well-deserved.

Advocacy and Change

Bill’s core message has not changed, though the details of his ongoing battle to force CMS to take HHAs and Hospices more seriously has its 2024-2025 nuances. “Letting Congress know that you are an important healthcare sector, and clearly the most popular sector, is not NAHC’s job alone. Every one of you has power. Use it. Make your voices heard.”

Meetings with the Senate Finance Committee

To illustrate the point, he related a story about his recent visit to Portland to meet with the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Ron Wyland (D-OR).

“Senator Wyden has been one of the major roadblocks to Medicare agencies getting fair payment rates. I went to see him with a group of agency owners and workers to describe the hardships the current and planned pay rate cuts will impose, and to explain the exact problems with the dumb formula CMS is using to calculate those pay rates.

“The Senator said, ‘But MedPAC says you make too much money and rates should be cut. Were they wrong? Or has something changed?’

Reaching Agreement…Almost

“Both, the group and I harmonized. One by one, each agency representative told him about the growing demand of an aging population, the difficulty hiring staff with the salaries our low pay rates allow them to pay, and a full litany of all the problems with Medicare Advantage.

“By the end of our meeting, we hadn’t turned him 180 degrees, but I could see he was beginning to turn.”Later, Dombi added, he met with Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), who is not only a member of the same Finance Committee but the fourth in line in the Senate pecking order. She offered to have a conversation with her colleague, and that turned Senator Wyden the rest of the way toward changing his position 180 degrees.

You Can Make a Difference

“If you think you as an individual owner have no power in Sacramento, Congress, or the White House,” Dombi concluded, “think again.”

See sidebar for the complete list of Finance Committee members. Everyone has power, but if you are a voter in one of their states, you have an even more powerful voice.

The Bill Dombi Spring Tour will continue throughout the year until his retirement. Join Dombi at the 2024 Financial Management Conference & Expo in Las Vegas, July 21-23 and at the 2024 Home Care and Hospice Conference and Expo in Tampa, October 20-22.

Senator Ron Wyland (D-OR)

SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Chair: Ron Wyland (D-OR)
Ranking Member: Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
John Thune (R-SD)
Thomas Carper (D-DE)D-
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Benjamin Cardin (D-MD)
Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
James Lankford (R-OK)
Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Steve Daines (R-MT)
Bob Casey (D-PA)
Todd Young (R-IN)
Mark Warner (D-VA)
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Maggie Hassan (D-NH)
Thom Tillis (R-NC)
Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

# # #

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
Tim@RowanResources.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. editor@homecaretechreport.com

The Wrong Way to Use AI in Healthcare

Admin

by Tim Rowan | May 16, 2024 | Admin, Artificial Intelligence, CMS, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

by Tim Rowan, Editor Emeritus

Lawsuits are beginning to pile up against insurance companies participating in the Medicare Advantage program. The complaint? The wrong way to use AI in healthcare is with faulty algorithms to approve or deny claims. While AI can be extremely helpful in streamlining administrative tasks — comparing physician notes with Home Health assessments and nursing notes or reading hospital discharge documents — it seems not to be any good at deciding whether to approve or deny care.

The Wrong Way to Use AI in Healthcare Example 1

The Minnesota case, November, 2023, UnitedHealth Group:

- An elderly couple’s doctor deemed extended care medically necessary
- UnitedHealth’s MA arm denied that care
- Following their deaths, the couple’s family sued UnitedHealth, alleging:
  - Straight Medicare would have approved the extended care
  - United uses an AI model developed by NaviHealth called nH Predict to make coverage decisions
  - UnitedHealth Group acquired NaviHealth in 2020 and assigned it to its Optum division
  - nH Predict is known to be so inaccurate, 90% of its denials are overturned when appealed to the ALJ level
  - UnitedHealth Group announced in October, 2023 that its division that deploys nH Predict will longer use the NaviHealth brand name but will refer to that Optum division as “Home & Community Care.”

The family’s complaint stated, “The elderly are prematurely kicked out of care facilities nationwide or forced to deplete family savings to continue receiving necessary medical care, all because [UnitedHealth’s] AI model ‘disagrees’ with their real live doctors’ determinations.”

The Wrong Way to Use AI in Healthcare Example 2

The Class-Action case, December 2023, Humana:

- A lawsuit was filed on December 12, 2023 in the U.S, District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
- It was filed by the same Los Angeles law firm that filed the Minnesota case the previous month, Clarkson
- The suit notes that Louisville-based Humana also uses nH Predict from NaviHealth
- The plaintiffs claim, “Humana knows that the nH Predict AI Model predictions are highly inaccurate and are not based on patients’ medical needs but continues to use this system to deny patients’ coverage.”
- The suit says Medicare Advantage patients who are hospitalized for three days usually are eligible to spend as many as 100 days getting follow-up care in a nursing home, but that Humana customers are rarely allowed to stay as long as 14 days.
- A Humana representative said Humana their own employed physicians see AI recommendations but make final coverage decisions.

What Makes This Possible

According to experts we speak with, there are many ways to use data analytics. The insurance companies named in the lawsuits use predictive decision making. This way of analyzing data compares a patient to millions of others and deduces what treatment plan might be suitable for one patient, based on what was effective for most previous patients. Opponents of this method have called it “data supported guessing.”

A superior analysis method experts are coming to understand is prescriptive decision making. This is taking all of the available historical and current data surrounding a patient and making a clinical decision specifically designed to that patient’s age, gender, co-morbidities, doctor recommendations, and treatment records.

Until recently, predictive analysis was the preferred method because of its resource efficiency. Examining the data of every individual patient used to be prohibitively labor-intensive, requiring hours of reading hospital records, physician notes, and claims. Today, however, AI tools are able to do that work in seconds, making prescriptive analytics and customized plans of care possible.

Fix May Be in the Works

In a February 6, 2024 memo to all Medicare Advantage Organizations and Medicare-Medicaid Plans, CMS explained the difference between predictive and prescriptive analytics. The memo said these plans may not make coverage determinations based on aggregated data but must look at each individual:

“For Medicare basic benefits, MA organizations must make medical necessity determinations in accordance with all medical necessity determination requirements, outlined at § 422.101(c)1 ; based on the circumstances of each specific individual, including the patient’s medical history, physician recommendations, and clinical notes; and in line with all fully established Traditional Medicare coverage criteria.”

In response to a request for clarification, the CMS memo laid out its rule in specific language: Wrong AI in Healthcare Prescriptive Analytics

An algorithm or software tool can be used to assist MA plans in making coverage determinations, but it is the responsibility of the MA organization to ensure that the algorithm or artificial intelligence complies with all applicable rules for how coverage determinations by MA organizations are made. For example, compliance is required with all of the rules at § 422.101(c) for making a determination of medical necessity, including that the MA organization base the decision on the individual patient’s circumstances, so an algorithm that determines coverage based on a larger data set instead of the individual patient’s medical history, the physician’s recommendations, or clinical notes would not be compliant with § 422.101(c).
(emphasis added)

“Therefore, the algorithm or software tool should only be used to ensure fidelity with the posted internal coverage criteria which has been made public under § 422.101(b)(6)(ii).”

In further responses to questions in the same memo, CMS made it clear MA plans must make the same coverage decision original Medicare would make. The only allowable exception is that plans may use their own criteria when Medicare Parts A and B coverage criteria “are not fully established.”

Knowledge of this CMS directive may give Home Health agencies one more arrow in their quiver when going to battle with powerful, profit-oriented insurance companies over harmful, illogical AI algorithm decisions.

For information on the right way to use AI in healthcare, see our complimentary article in this week’s issue.

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
Tim@RowanResources.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. editor@homecaretechreport.com

Understanding Differences in Medicare Policy and Conditions of Participation

Admin

by Rowan Report | Apr 26, 2024 | Admin, Clinical, CMS, Regulatory

by Johnathan Eaves, Senior Director of Communications, Axxess

Treating Medicare patients comes with a level of nuance that is important to understand to ensure that organizations remain compliant and patients receive appropriate care. Standards for quality care and payment can sometimes be dictated by Medicare’s payment policies and at other times be decided by the Conditions of Participation. There is an important difference between these two governing principles that providers should understand to ensure compliance.

Care at home industry veteran and Axxess Senior Vice President of Clinical Services Arlene Maxim RN, HCS-C, offered insights into the differences between Medicare’s policy and its Conditions of Participation during a recent webinar.

Explaining the Difference Medicare Policies

Maxim pointed out that the differences between policy and the conditional requirements comes down to what can be billed and what are the quality standards for the services provided.

“The Conditions of Participation are dealing primarily with quality, whereas Medicare policy is related to payment,” said Maxim. And while there is a difference, that doesn’t mean both aren’t important and must always be followed.

“If Medicare policies are not followed, you are audited and if you do not have documentation to support those policies, you’re not going to get paid,” said Maxim “Oftentimes, with PDGM, staff members are not getting past that first 30 days. They’re not understanding what they need to do to keep that patient who continues to qualify for services on for longer.”

Maxim says that the problem is often that clinicians do not understand Medicare policy. “Every piece of documentation we submit to the Medicare program for review [needs to be] as pristine as we can possibly get it,” she said.

Assessment and Documentation

Proper assessment and documentation is something Maxim feels is critical in ensuring quality care, meeting Medicare requirements, and receiving payment for services.

“Complete and detailed documentation is going to be the key for agency payment by the Medicare program,” Maxim said.

Maxim pointed out certain services covered under Medicare policy may include observation and assessment, management and evaluation of a care plan, maintenance therapy, teaching and training activities, administration of medications, wound care, ostomy care, rehab nursing, venipuncture, skilled nursing visits, and more.

She also cautioned that agencies need to be prudent with the funds they receive from Medicare, viewing them as a potential “short-term, interest-free loan” until undergoing any audit. Until their documentation is reviewed and approved, there are no guarantees.

“Medicare is an insurance and it’s not free,” said Maxim. “Medicare policy provides us with a list of covered items. If experiencing an audit, and if the documentation is not there to cover the covered service, you’re not in compliance with that Medicare policy and you will not be paid for the services.”

Communicating With Physicians

Maxim further emphasized the importance of frequent contact with physicians, adherence to care plans, and ensuring that care plans are simple with individualized plans and goals that are achievable.

“You want to make sure that you have orders that physicians are actually going to read and to determine that they make sense and they’re going to sign off on them,” said Maxim.

“Keep your plan of care simple.”

# # #

Axxess Home Health, a cloud-based home health software, streamlines operations for every department while improving patient outcomes.

80/20 Finalized Rule

CMS

by Kristin Rowan | Apr 26, 2024 | CMS, Recruitment & Retention, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has finalized the “Ensuring Access to Medicaid Services” rule, more commonly known as the 80/20 rule. The 80/20 finalized rule requires at least 80% of Medicaid payments for home care services goes to caregiver wages. No more than 20% can be spent on administrative or other overhead costs. The White House, citing a study by The Commonwealth Fund, says that higher wages for caregivers will reduce turnover. Facing massive workforce shortages, home health, hospice, and supportive care at home agencies have been struggling to recruit and retain an adequate number of caregivers. The higher wage will also increase the quality of care, according to the study.

Prior to the 80/20 rule, there was no law or rule requiring home care agencies to report how they were spending money from federal medical payments. The rule includes requirements for states to create advisory groups to consult on rates and compensation. This changes the current Medical Care Advisory Committee regulations by increasing the percent of beneficiaries on the committee from 10% to 25% over the next two year. The Home Care Association of America (HCAOA) and the National Association for Home Care & Hospice (NAHC) argued that the rule adds administrative requirements to home care agencies while simultaneously reducing the resources available to fund them. NAHC President Bill Dombi said, “We all agree that more needs to be done to support the direct care workforce; however, this policy will make things worse, not better.” NAHC suggests the policy will force some agencies to close and others will leave the Medicaid program altogether, causing patients to have even more problems accessing care.

Exceptions to the Rule

From the text of the final rule, CMS acknowledges additional comments that the minimum direct payment to caregivers in this rule will create hardships for some agencies. Across the country, there are substantial differences among waiver programs for HCBS that are not accounted for in the rule. There is some flexibility built into the rule to account for these factors, according to CMS. Some of the flexibilities include:

Excluding some costs from the calculation
Including clinical supervisors in the calculation
Allowing states to set a different minimum for small providers
Allowing states to develop their own criteria to qualify as a small provider
Allowing states to develop criteria to exempt some providers from the rule

Exemption from the minimum payment rule for all Indian Health Service and Tribal health programs

The final rule also changes the timeline for complying with the rule from four years after the date of publication to six.

Objections to the Rule

Other comments included the need to address various reasons for the workforce shortage. In addition to low wages, commenters cited the social valuation of direct care work, lack of governmental support for some workforce pipelines, and immigration policies as deterrents to recruitment. One suggested that CMS start looking at creative strategies for developing an atypical workforce.

There were several submitted comments stating the either HHS or CMS or both does not have the authority under the Affordable Care Act to make specific requirements for minimum payments, but only to ensure that each State is assessing payment regulations and ensuring payments are economical, efficient, and ensure quality of care. A specific section of the Affordable Care Act, section 2402(a)(1) requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to ensure states implement service systems to allocate resources. The provision does not give HHS the authority to dictate the terms of those service systems, only to ensure the states develop those systems. Not surprisingly, CMS disagreed with those comments.

Many people questioned the 80% as being unrealistic, too high, and not based on quality data. CMS cited data from several states, who have pass-through requirements of 80-95% for all rate increases. This is not a minimum payment from all Medicaid payments, only a requirement for a minimum pass-through to direct care workers of increases in rates. Two states, Minnesota and Illinois, currently have minimum payment requirements set at 72% and 77%, respectively. CMS used these two states as justification for the 80% rule, acknowledging that it is higher than both states while also acknowledging that they did not perform a state-by-state study of the impact the 80% rule will have. CMS states the rate was set higher than those states to “encourage further steps towards improving compensation for workers.” CMS believes that requiring HCB agencies to pay their direct care workers a higher percentage of Medicaid rates than any state currently does will somehow make those agencies want to voluntarily pay even more.

The 80/20 Rule and Technology

Technological advances in telehealth, remote patient monitoring, revenue cycle management, scheduling, employee benefits, assistive technology, EVVs, EMRs, CRMs, and other software solutions can and will lower overhead costs and increase efficiency in your agency. Paperwork automation can reduce the time spent on documentation by a significant percentage. Revenue Cycle Management software can reduce claim denials and decrease reimbursement payment cycles so you can get your money faster. They can also reduce the number of unpaid claims. Employee benefit and training software can reduce responsibilities for HR teams, lessen the requirements for clinical supervisors, and cut training time in half, getting your newly recruited caregivers out in the field faster. Scheduling and onboarding software can increase your intake capabilities. The advances in generative AI allow you to create robust reports almost instantly so you can see your agency’s strengths and weaknesses and create plans for improvement.

Some of these costs will be excluded from the calculations for the 80% rule. Now is the time to invest in technology for your agency. Not only will your agency be more efficient and more effective, but you will be able to care for more patients with the same staff you have now, and the software solutions are as close to cost-neutral as they will ever be. We have a list of technology solutions that we’ve recently discovered and will be writing about in the next few weeks. If you are in immediate need of a software solution, contact us directly for a consultation.

# # #

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

HOPE is on the Way: Part 3

CMS

by Rowan Report | Apr 26, 2024 | CMS, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

By Beth Noyce, RN, BSJMC, BCHH-C, COQS
CHAP-certified home health & hospice consultant

This is part 3 of the 3 in the series, outlining the discussions and implications in adopting new outcome and process measures for Hospice care. The final segment addresses future process and outcome measures that the board discussed, but did not yet implement. Read Part 1 on Outcome Measures and Part 2 on Process Measures.

The TEP discussed potential future process and outcome measure concepts that Abt Associates presented to the panel as well.

The process measures included:

Education for Medication Management
Wound Management Addressed in Plan of Care
Transfer of Health Information to Subsequent Provider
Transfer of Health Information to Patient/Family Caregiver

Hope-based outcome measures were:

Patient Preferences Followed throughout Hospice Stay
Hospitalization of Persons with Do-Not-Hospitalize Order

Developing education for medication management as a process measure was a popular concept, and the top priority of the recommended measures with the TEP as they “broadly agreed that CMS should develop this measure,” the report says, citing “a significant need for training in medication management for patients and their caregivers.” They recommended that the measure weigh more heavily when care is provided in a home setting than in a facility setting because hospices are unable to control facility training and hiring practices. One panelist commented that including the phrase “during today’s visit” in the measure is important.

Whether CMS should further develop the process measure addressing wound management in the plan of care was less straight-forward, as panelists provided varied feedback. They generally agreed that this measure is important, as having a record of wound management addressed in the plan of care can hold the staff accountable for treating the wounds. But some members recommended measuring wound management with outcome measures rather than process measures. One panelist cited potential problems from patients’ deterioration over time and another noted that the time frame of this measure is important, and encouraged recording the process of getting care in place once a wound is identified. The panel agreed CMS should carefully define the measure’s specifications.

Because standard practice for most agencies is, when a patient is discharged live, to transfer health information to the subsequent provider and to the patient and family or caregiver, TEP members expressed that the two measures were likely to “top out,” meaning they would almost always be marked “Yes,” making them of no value in differentiating between hospice providers. The group generally discouraged developing these process measures.

The group strongly rejected any merit in developing two outcome measures concerning Patient Preferences Followed Throughout Hospice Stay and Hospitalization of Persons with Do-Not-

Hospitalize Order. The report says “Multiple TEP members described situations in which patients who had preferred not to be hospitalized changed their minds when a crisis occurred. Patients’ preferences and unexpected crises are usually out of the hospice’s control. Although it is still important for hospices to ask patients about their preferences as part of patient-centered care, the TEP did not believe these two items would be practical measures of a hospice’s care quality.”

Dr. McNally expects that Abt. Associates will apply the HQEP TEP’s suggestions to the HOPE tool.

“Oh yeah, they did it,” he says. “Abt would come to a specific meeting with information, data, suggestions, and specific information about how these things would be measured. We’d give feedback. Then they’d come back to the next meeting having incorporated our suggestions,” he explains. “All of us felt very much heard and responded to. It didn’t feel in the least bit perfunctory.”

Whatever specific measures are eventually included in the HOPE tool, Lund Person sees value in its implementation. “Hospice providers have had a woeful lack of outcome measures for hospice patients, which has made the evaluation of quality hospice care based only on process measures and the family’s evaluation of hospice care in the CAHPS® Hospice Survey, she explains. “Implementing HOPE will begin to identify outcome measures that can be compared between providers.”

Lund Person warns of potential challenges as well. “The selection of risk adjustment and stratification must be carefully done to minimize bias and maximize effectiveness of measures,” she says. “In addition, hospice providers have been awaiting the release of the HOPE tool with significant anxiety about content and administrative burden.”

Dr. McNally is confident the HOPE tool will be a healthy change for hospices.

“A lot of my role as a medical director and hospice physician is supporting our nurses,” he says. “They do 95% of the work. I really would like to see this not be burdensome for our hospice nurses. I’m looking forward to seeing what the [HOPE tool] beta testing translates to in our own hospice world.” He added “What I would hope to see is that the tool feels user-friendly to the hospice team, the people who have to use it, and that it also provides useful information to patients and families.”

NAHC’s Wehri says that standardizing processes through the HOPE tool is the key foundational element for the hospice industry. “High quality care is driven by reducing variance through standardized processes, Wehri writes. “Also, CMS will have a better idea of how the type of population a hospice serves impacts some of the clinical care.” This small glimpse into hospice variances that CMS does not currently have could be very helpful in future policy and payment decisions, according to Wehri. “What CMS finds in terms of differences between hospices and their care for patients may be a bit of a surprise to CMS,” she says. “I hope they are pleasantly surprised with the overall quality of care that is revealed.”

# # #

Beth Noyce provides education, consulting, mentoring, compliance assessments and auditing services to home health and hospice agencies and their clinicians in several states. She also now provides patient and family guidance concerning hospice and home health services. Beth loves teaching and helping others succeed. She also makes available recordings of much of her education for her clients’ convenience.

©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

Clinical

by Rowan Report | Apr 18, 2024 | Clinical, CMS, Regulatory

by 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.

HOPE-based Process Measures

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

Adding Insult to Injury: Change Healthcare Attacked Again

Admin

by Kristin Rowan | Apr 11, 2024 | Admin, CMS, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

For a few weeks now, we have been covering the Change Healthcare cyberattack by ALPHV/BlackCat and the subsequent updates from CMS. Pharmacy and medical orders have been delayed, providers and patients are suffering, and CMS has issued “guidance” with no real solution. Underground reports indicate that Change Healthcare paid $22 million to BlackCat following the first cyberattack and that BlackCat stole 6TB of data from the system. Change Healthcare has refused to respond to questions about the alleged payment. Three weeks after the attack, Change Healthcare started to come back online, starting with the pharmacy services, which returned on March 7th. Parent company UnitedHealth Group indicated that other services would return in the coming weeks.

Legal Action

More than 87% of physicians are see more than a 20% drop in daily claim submissions. As of April 9th, physicians are still reporting issues with cash flow and anticipate higher than expected losses due to financing and loans that may be needed to cover them as the effects of the attack continue. Rivals of Change Healthcare are reportedly onboarding hundreds of customers who have left the organization. One of these, Availity, has processed more than $5 billion in claims that were left unprocessed by Change Healthcare’s system and has onboarded 300,000 providers with a backlog of more than 50 health systems waiting to start using the platform.

The attack has caused long-term disruptions, delays, cash flow problems, patient care disruptions, prescription delays, and billing issues. Some physician practices have started using personal money to cover payroll and other expenses. The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has launched a formal inquiry into Change Healthcare’s data protection standards. This inquiry follows six class action lawsuits filed against the organizations. Physicians were still reporting significant impacts on their claims.

Adding Insult to Injury

Change Healthcare has barely gotten their systems up and running were still putting out fires when they were hit again. CyberAttack On April 8, RansomHub contacted Change Healthcare and alleged to have 4TB of data stolen from the system and are demanding an extortion payment to keep the data private . RansomHub has threatened to sell the data, which includes US military personnel and patient data, medical records, and financial data, to the highest bidder in 12 days if the ransom isn’t paid.

Among the prevailing theories as to why Change Healthcare has been hit again is that the first ransom was supposed to have been split between ALPHV/BlackCat and an associate known as “notchy”, but ALPHV absconded with the ransom, leaving the other with nothing. Looking for a payout equal to what they lost, notchy partnered with RansomHub to try to recoup their losses. A second theory is that ALPHV and RansomHub are one in the same and that ALPHV went to ground after the ransom payout and have resurfaced as RansomHub. RansomHub, however, claims that after ALPHV went to ground, some of their affiliates joined the RansomHub operation and this is how they came by the data. Either way, it seems that the data stolen in the first attack was not returned after the ransom was paid and Change Healthcare is still susceptible to further extortion. This also means that the Change Healthcare system was not hacked a second time, but rather this is just an extension of the first data breach.

No word yet on whether Change Healthcare and UnitedHealth Group will pay the second ransom demand.

We will continue to follow this story and provide updates as it impacts payment and claims processing.

# # #

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

HOPE is on the Way: Part 1 – Outcome Measures

Clinical

by Rowan Report | Apr 11, 2024 | Clinical, CMS, Regulatory

By Beth Noyce, RN, BSJMC, HCS-C, BCHH-C, COQS
Home health & hospice consultant

The Hospice Outcome Patient Evaluation is a step closer to implementation.

After four years of considering options, the Technical Expert Panel (TEP) has finished its work that will inform future Hospice Quality Reporting Program results. The TEP considered quality measures to include in hospice’s future assessment tool and best choices for risk adjustment and exclusion.

The panel convened in 2019 “[we are] committed to improving the quality of care given to hospice patients,” says the 2022-2023 TEP Summary Report: Hospice Quality Reporting Program. The panel aimed to ensure that hospice quality measures are meaningful for hospice beneficiaries, transparent to hospice providers, and useful to consumers. They considered quality measures from both HOPE and claims data.

“From day one it was very clear Medicare wanted to make this a very different experience for hospice teams and make it a more valuable thing for consumers,” says Dr. Jeff McNally, Hospice Medical Director at Utah’s Intermountain Hospice,” describing his participation on the HQRP TEP. “I was actually encouraged and inspired by it,” he says. “It was the first time I had first-hand experience working with any kind of CMS entity.

“The reality is some clinicians in the field and leaders don’t have the best things to say about CMS,” he explains, but “whatever we were considering we always circled back to whether it would be burdensome to the clinical team and would it be valuable to consumers.”

The panel initially planned to meet multiple times in person, with two meetings per year and potential virtual meetings as needed. “Then COVID hit,” Dr. McNally says. “It slowed the process considerably. We never did meet again in person.”

The HQRP TEP met eight times over four years, virtually after the initial meeting. McNally described participants as coming to each meeting prepared with data and proposals for HOPE measures for which they would request input from panelists.”

From TEP recommendations early in their work, Abt Associates developed two outcome measures and two process measures in harmony with hospice’s central tenet to manage symptoms:

Process measures:
- Timely Reassessment of Pain Impact
- Timely Reassessment of Non-Pain Symptom Impact
Outcome measures:
- Timely Reduction of Pain Symptom Impact
- Timely Reduction of Non-Pain Symptom Impact

“The most important [recommendations] were some of the outcome measures about symptom management,” McNally explains. “What should we be helping agencies show that they’re doing well? And how do we do that? Deciding which ones, and how many symptom management measures to use and the most valuable way to show it in a fair way.”

During the past two years, TEP members prioritized which of the risk-adjustment factors suggested by Abt. Associates should apply to outcome measures and which exclusions should apply to both outcome and process measures.

The report describes risk adjustment as using statistics to exclude “confounding factors,” or elements that are outside of a hospice’s control, from calculations that could make a hospice’s performance appear either better or worse than it is. In essence, risk adjustment increases the fairness in outcome-measure calculations while exclusions do the same for both outcome and process measures.

For the outcome measures being considered, the report says that the “TEP broadly agreed that risk adjustment is very important because it accounts for external factors outside hospices’ control and more accurately reflects the quality of care provided.”

Judi Lund Person, Principal of LundPerson & Associates, LLC, agrees. “The discussion of risk-adjustment factors is vitally important to the success of upcoming process measure implementation,” says Lund Person.

Determining which risk-adjustment factors to bring to the table was not easy. “There were some nuance things that we hashed out to try and decide how to weigh some factors in risk adjustment” for outcome measures, McNally explains.

Exhibit 5 (below) summarizes the TEP’s rankings of risk adjustors suggested.

While the TEP’s priorities seem clear, the discussion concerning each risk adjustor was more complex. The TEP broadly agreed that the most important risk-adjustment factors are age and diagnosis. Some diseases are more difficult to manage than others, and patient condition tends to decline with age regardless of provider activity. Therefore, the TEP recommended that CMS adjust for these factors to ensure that common external factors do not adversely affect reported hospice care quality.

Here’s part of the nuance – the TEP also raised concerns that how well other patients with certain diseases or of certain age groups are treated might be valuable to some patients and their families seeking care for someone of the same age group or condition. Panelists fretted over possibly obscuring that information for consumers seeking hospice care by adjusting for those risk factors.

Living situation as a risk adjustor ranked as important to TEP members because hospices have no control over what level of assistance is available to patients. Similarly, site of service ranked high as a risk adjustor because, said some panelists, care is delivered very differently across settings, and patients and/or caregivers tend to provide higher hospice satisfaction ratings for hospices in home settings than for those in facilities,” according to the report.

Lund Person, who is also former Vice President of Regulatory and Compliance at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (NHPCO), notes that the TEP recognized living situation and site of service as “important” risk adjustment recommendations.

“Identifying site of service will help to distinguish between care at home and care in a facility,” she says. Also vital, she continues, “is the recommendation from the TEP to consider length-of-stay as a risk-adjustment factor, including the differences between a 4-day length of stay and a 6-month length of stay.”

One TEP member cautioned that using payment sources, IV therapy, and risk of hospitalization as risk adjustors might tempt some hospices to use them to distort a hospices’ apparent care quality.

TEP members did not recommend using as risk adjustors gender, clinical symptoms, functional status and management of care needs. They did not discuss why they rejected gender, but several agreed that using clinical symptoms would not be of value because of their high correlation with diagnoses. Because hospice providers typically see hospice patients decline in ADL and IADL abilities, and hospice goals are focused on comfort rather than functional improvement, functional status was on the TEP’s “Do Not Include” as a risk adjustor list. And finally, one TEP member strongly opposed adjusting for patients’ medication management, supervision or safety assistance needs (management of care needs), explaining that “the public and CMS should hold hospices accountable for planning around oral medication, injectable medication management, and supervision and safety assistance,” the report says.

The TEP did suggest that using some risk adjustment factors as part of the HQRP could assist hospices internally with quality improvement while others would be more valuable to patients and families. For example, Patients and families would benefit from more straightforward risk adjustment that helps them select a hospice,” the report says, “including factors such as diagnosis. For publicly reported data used to select a hospice, the TEP suggested using demographic factors (including age but excluding gender), socioeconomic factors, living situation, and diagnoses.”

Dr. McNally hopes eventually to use HPRP data to promote Intermountain Hospice’s care. Intermountain Hospice is part of Intermountain Health, a health care provider with presence in multiple states. “You can’t take the current metrics to doctors’ offices and families to show anything meaningful,” he says. “It’d be great to have metrics we could take to our neurology docs and other docs,” he says. “I really think we provide better care and more options when patients stay within our system.

This article is the first in a series about implementation of HOPE. Next week, Beth Noyce shares details from the panel as it evaluated process measures.

# # #

©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

CMS Hospice Payment Rate FY 2025 Proposal

CMS

by Kristin Rowan | Apr 4, 2024 | CMS, Regulatory

By Kristin Rowan, Editor

On March 28, CMS issued a new proposed rule to update Medicare hospice payments. Here’s what we know.

The new proposed rule:

Would change the existing hospice wage index
Clarifies current policy related to the hospice “eletion statement” and the “ntoice of election”
Adds clarifying language around hospice certification
Includes a request for information to get comments on implementing a separate payment mechanism for high-intensity palliative care services
Proposes that Hospice Quality Reporting Program (HQRP) measures be collected through the Hospice Outcomes and Patient Evaluation (HOPE), adding two new measures
Also proposes changes to the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Hospice Survey

The new proposed rule includes a net 2.6% increase in payments over FY 2024. This includes a 3% market-based update, and a 0.4% cut for productivity. Submitting quality data is a requirement of the net pay. Hospices that do not submit quality data will be penalized 4%, netting a 1.4% decrease in payments. The propsed rule for 2025 is .5% lower than the 2024 hospice payment increase.

The National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (NHPCO) says the rate increase is good, but not high enough. NHPCO COO and Interim CEO, Ben Marcantonio said, “To continue providing the high level of care our patients and their families deserve, hospices require a payment rate that accurately reflects the current economic challenges. We know that hospice care has demonstrated $3.5 billion in annual savings for Medicare, which underscores the critical importance of investing in hospice to ensure continued beneficiary access to quality end-of-life care.”

Palliative Care

CMS is interested in feedback and proposals from hospice agencies for providing complex palliative treatments and high-intensity hospice care when that care negatively impacts hospices financially. CMS aims to care for high-cost patients through palliative care rather than acute care. The NHPCO agrees with the CMS proposal to fund palliative care separately from standard hospice or acute care. CMS will take feedback and proposals through May 28, 2024. Comments can be submitted electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, by following the “Submit a Comment” instructions. Comments can also be sent by regular or express mail. Addresses can be found in the full proposed rule. Follow the search instructions at http://www.regulations.gov to see all submitted comments.

The proposed rule can be viewed starting April 4, 2024 at the Federal Register at https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection.

# # #

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

Cost of Home Health Care Services Increased Nationwide

CMS

by Kristin Rowan | Mar 28, 2024 | CMS, Regulatory, Uncategorized

By Kristin Rowan, Editor

Illumifin, an insurance administration and claims solution provider for long term care (LTC) insurance, has released its 2023 Cost of Care study. The longitudinal study is now in its tenth year and includes national, state, and regional costs of services across skilled nursing, adult day care, home health care, and assisted living facilities.

The study found that the average rate for a home health aide in 2023 was $30.62 per hour, a 5.2% increase over 2022. The average per-rate visit for a registered nurse was $147.72, a 1.6% decrease over the prior year. Assisted living facility rates are up .6 – 3.8% nationwide, while skilled nursing facility rates decreased .4 – 1.0%.

The full press release from Illumifin is here.

To access the full study, contact Jennifer Frost by email at jenniferfrost@illumifin.com.

As costs continue to rise, CMS will need to adjust its proposed per-episode base pay cut for FY 2025. We continue to report on the proposed cuts from CMS and MedPAC, who argue home health agencies are being overpaid, even as costs of supplies and hourly pay go up.

# # #

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

MedPAC Recommends More Pay Cuts

CMS

by Kristin Rowan | Mar 20, 2024 | CMS, Regulatory

By 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.

editor@homecaretechreport.com

CMS Issues Medicaid Guidance on Change Healthcare Hack

CMS

by Kristin Rowan | Mar 20, 2024 | CMS, Vendor Watch

From the NAHC News Desk,

March 19, 2024

On March 15th, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a Center Informational Bulletin (CIB) that provides guidance and flexibilities to mitigate the impacts on providers resulting from the Change Healthcare Hack. In the guidance, CMS advises state Medicaid agencies that certain requirements will not be enforced, until June 30th, to enable ongoing funds to flow to providers and to prevent disruption of access to Medicaid services, prevent associated negative health outcomes, and avoid solvency issues for providers.

The most important component of the guidance is the ability for states to make interim payments to providers to avoid operational disruptions. Federal law and regulation does not allow for “advance payments” in Medicaid fee-for-service systems, despite their availability in Medicaid managed care environments; however, states can make interim payments to providers subject to reconciliation with actual services delivered.

CMS stresses that such interim payments are not advanced payments or prepayments prior to services furnished by providers, but rather are payments for services furnished that are subject to final reconciliation once the state has access to individual claims data currently inaccessible due to the cybersecurity incident.

The flexibilities CMS discusses in the guidance include:

Modifying required timelines for public notice, public process, and Tribal consultation and to obtain an earlier effective date for certain kinds of SPAs than would otherwise be possible;
Use interim payment methodologies to pay providers without current period claims data, as long they are determined via current approved payment rates, limiting the interim payments to the amount expected for each specific provider based on recent history, and reconciling the interim payments with final payments based on the actual services provided once they can be properly identified. These could be effective retroactively to the date when claims payment processing was disrupted due to the cybersecurity incident and could last until June 30, 2024;
Suspend beneficiary cost sharing requirements described in their state plans when necessary to avoid service disruptions for Medicaid beneficiaries for services affected by the hack;

CMS also includes language urging Medicaid managed care plans to make prospective payments to impacted providers and reiterating that plans do not need prior CMS authority to make prospective payments to providers. CMS also indicates that plans can:

Suspend or modify prior authorization requirements;
Allow early prescription refills and/or extend the length of prescription refills;
Extend existing prior authorizations;
Suspend out-of-network requirements; and
Modify or update cost-sharing requirements to be consistent with any changes that are made in the Medicaid state plan.

The full guidance is available online at: https://www.medicaid.gov/sites/default/files/2024-03/cib031524.pdf.

MedPAC Exposes More Medicare Advantage Crimes

CMS

by Tim Rowan | Mar 20, 2024 | CMS, Editorial

by Tim Rowan, Editor Emeritus

This week, we look at the state of the healthcare industry, vis a vis payers that do not pay.

While Home Health and Hospice leaders talk at every gathering about refusing to accept Medicare Advantage clients, some large Integrated Healthcare Systems are actually doing it. Other hospitals are responding to difficult payers by laying off staff, or even closing. The HHS Office of Inspector General repeatedly fines insurance companies for upcoding to gain inflated, unjustified monthly payments. Meanwhile, insurance companies report record profits, with their MA divisions leading the way. The fines go into the “cost of doing business” column.

March, 2024, Becker’s Hospital Review: Bristol (Conn.) Health will eliminate 60 positions, 21 of which are currently occupied and will result in layoffs at Bristol Hospital. The hospital’s CEO, Kurt Barwis, told a local newspaper a lack of reimbursement from insurers left the hospital without a choice but to cut staff.

October, 2023, NPR: Since 2010, 150 rural hospitals have closed. Under CMS’s “Critical Access” designation, Medicare pays extra to those hospitals to compensate for low patient volumes. MA plans do not. Instead, they offer negotiated rates that are lower than what traditional Medicare would pay.

December, 2023, Becker’s Financial Management: 13 additional hospital systems cut ties with Medicare Advantage plans since October.

What is going on?

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, believes it has learned the answer. In its March 15, 2024 report to Congress, the Commission called for a “major overhaul” of Medicare Advantage policies. It says it found that the program, designed to lower costs and extend the lifespan of the Medicare trust fund, does not save money but costs the fund more than if all beneficiaries were on traditional Medicare, $83 billion more in 2024.

Calling it, too politely, “coding intensity,” MedPAC concurs with the OIG that MA plans routinely exaggerate patient conditions. The report claims it will amount to MA clients appearing to need 20% more healthcare than fee-for-service beneficiaries, when they do not. Padded coding, MedPAC says, will increase Medicare premiums by $13 billion in 2024.

“A major overhaul of MA policies is urgently needed for several reasons,” the commission wrote in its report. MedPAC cited several problems that need to be addressed, including the disparity in costs between beneficiaries in fee-for-service Medicare and MA, a lack of information on the use and value of supplemental benefits, and challenges setting benchmark payment rates.

A proposal currently making its way through Congress would reduce supplemental payments to insurers, who threaten to raise premiums and cut benefits if their inflated benchmark payments are lowered. Celebrity Endorsements of Medicare Advantage

“If payments to MA plans were lowered, plans might reduce the supplemental benefits they offer,” MedPAC wrote in its report. “However, because plans use these benefits to attract enrollees, they might respond instead by modifying other aspects of their bids.” The barrage of TV ads, featuring aging celebrities, have been found to be deceptive and too often backed by shady front companies representing brokers, not insurance companies. The brokerage company behind the Joe Namath ads, for example, has reorganized and changed its name three times.

Pushback from AHIP, the insurance industry lobbying organization, has been as expected. “MedPAC’s estimates are based on ‘speculative assumptions’ and ‘overlook basic facts about who Medicare Advantage serves and the value the program provides.'”

MedPAC asserts that its estimates are based on history, not speculation.

Healthcare Providers Beg to Differ

A lack of payments from Medicare Advantage plans is one reason the Connecticut hospital is laying off staff, the Hartford Courant reported March 14. CEO Kurt Barwis told the newspaper Medicare Advantage plans have been denying claims more frequently while delaying payments for the claims they do approve. “Our primary care is to take care of patients, their single focus is shareholder value and profits,” Mr. Barwis told the Courant. “The Medicare Advantage abuse is outrageous.”

The strategy insurance companies deploy to avoid providing care, Barwis continued, is excessive prior authorizations, coupled with delayed payments. This obstacle to care is directly in opposition to CMS policy. MA divisions of large insurers respond that they are private insurance and allowed to impose their own treatment approval policies. MedPAC says this claim is incorrect.

Richard Kronick, a former federal health policy researcher and a professor at the University of California-San Diego, said his analysis of newly released Medicare Advantage billing data estimates that Medicare overpaid the private health plans by more than $106 billion from 2010 through 2019 because of the way the private plans charge for sicker patients. Kronick added that there is “little evidence” that MA enrollees are sicker than the average senior, though risk scores in 2019 were 19 percent higher in MA plans than in original Medicare. That gap continues to widen.

Where does this excess taxpayer money go?

2023 Medicare Advantage business division profits and 2022 CEO compensation reported by publicly traded companies:

UnitedHealth Group: $22.4 B (Andrew Witty $20,865,106)
Aetna (CVS): $8.3 B (Karen Lynch $21,317,055)
Elevance Health (Anthem): $6 B (Gail Boudreaux $20,931,081)
Cigna: $5.1 B (David Cordani $20,965,504)
Centene: $2.7 B (Sarah London $13,246,447)
Humana: $2.5 B (Bruce Broussard $17,198,844)

We found one curious outlier. Molina Health, with annual revenue 10 percent of UnitedHealth Group’s income and 2.16 percent of the market, paid its CEO $22,131,256 in 2022.

Download the entire MedPAC 2024 report here. Chapter 7 is the Home Health section. A summary of MedPACs recommendations begins the chapter thus, “For calendar year 2025, the Congress should reduce the 2024 Medicare base payment rates for home health agencies by 7 percent.”

# # #

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
Tim@RowanResources.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. editor@homecaretechreport.com

Access to Care at Home in Underserved Communities

CMS

by Kristin Rowan | Mar 13, 2024 | CMS

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

The U.S. House Ways and Means Committee held a hearing on March 12, 2024 to address the need for access to care-at-home services in rural and underserved communities. The advisory board heard from several witnesses including two care at home patients, a medical doctor, the founder and CEO of Cadence, and a professor of Health Care Policy and Medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Committee Chairman Jason Smith (MO) said, in his opening statement, “Where someone lives, works or raises a family should not be a barrier to getting top of the line health care. One of our priorities on this Committee is helping every American get health care in their community.”

With the Medicare telehealth and Hospital at Home programs scheduled to expire at the end of this year, Smith is urging the committee to see the profound impact that lack of access to healthcare would have on patients in rural and underserved communities. He want on to say that the “tired approaches…have not made a meaningful impact for enough patients.”

Cutting edge technology and new approaches to make Americans healthier and increase access to care in rural areas are needed. Smith recommends examining provider reimbursement and adding patient and taxpayer protections to “ensure access, demonstrate value, and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.”

Read Chairman Smith’s opening statement here. Watch the witness statements at the hearing here.

The American Telemedicine Association and ATA Action expressed appreciation to the Committee in a press release issued just after the hearing. “We are grateful to the House Committee on Ways and Means for examining the opportunities in moving care into the home in order to benefit patients, particularly those in rural and underserved communities,” said Kyle Zebley, Senior Vice President, Public Policy, the ATA and Executive Director, ATA Action.

Read the full press release from the American Telemedicine Association and ATA Action 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 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

Onslaught of Audits Worries Hospice Providers

Clinical

by Kristin Rowan | Mar 13, 2024 | Clinical, CMS

By Kristin Rowan, Editor

March 12, 2024, the National Association for Home Care and Hospice (NAHC), Leading Age, the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (NHPCO), and the National Partnership for Healthcare and Hospice Innovation (NPHI), published their findings from a 2023 survey on regulation. These findings were presented to Congress and CMS earlier this year. The organizations surveyed 133 respondents, who noted regulatory issues as the top concern for providers. Of particular concern was the audits that have been increasing steadily for years. Audit

More than half of respondents said they have undergone simultaneous audits, usually the TPE and SMRC audits. 52.9% of respondents said they had multiple audits within six months of each other, conducted by different contractors, and more than half of those said they had to submit the same charts for each audit.

Hospice Auditor Issues

The findings indicate some issues with the training, knowledge, and integrity of auditors. Many respondents indicated having received denials of physician visits, documented separately from face-to-face visits, simply because they occurred on the same day. Some reported denials due to the absence of an IDG meeting even when no IDG meeting was required. Multiple respondents said the denial reasoning was copied and pasted from past denials and/or that the auditor did not seem to have read the documentation that was sent.

Auditing Inconsistencies

The report findings indicate that there are often delays in receiving audit results, sometimes up to 18 months. Some RAC audits had listed available dates for findings, but the findings were not actually available for several months after the listed date. Respondents also indicated that instructions from the auditors were presented using terminology that was not consistent with standard operating procedures in a hospice environment (read: auditors are using hospital lingo and expecting hospices to understand it).

Technical billing issues, when payments are denied not due ineligibility, but because of missing or incorrect information, can be corrected and then processed and paid. However, several respondents indicated that different MACs give different information on how process corrections for election statements and election addendums.

Gross Miscalculations

This was reported in the survey only once, but, as with any survey, extrapolating the data to the whole population, one must assume it has happened more than once: A hospice provider had a claim denied while under a CERT audit. The denial was due to the auditor decided that the patient was not terminally ill, even though the patient expired during the audit.

Recommendations for CMS

The organizations have some recommendations for changes:

- CMS should re-focus its audit contractors on patterns and practices characteristic of providers that aim to minimize or avoid therapeutic care and supportive services that are required under the hospice benefit and fully reimbursed through the per diem payment.

- CMS should require substantive education and training for all auditors that is consistent with the education given to providers to minimize inconsistencies.

- CMS should increase transparency of audit contractor activity, including the number and types of audits being conducted, audit recovery amounts, results of audits by specific audit contractors, including reversal rates, top denial reasons and compliance with required timeframes for notification and review.

- CMS should implement an informal mechanism to enable MACs and hospice providers to resolve technical claims denials prior to engaging in the formal appeal process.
- CMS should require audit contractor medical reviewers to have an equivalent level of expertise and training in hospice care as the hospice medical director who certified a patient’s terminal illness.

According to a statement from NAHC, in 2023, the organizations have submitted 34 recommendations to CMS. To date, half of them have been implemented. They will continue to work with CMS toward enhanced transparency, equitable auditing, and targeting genuine fraud, waste, and abuse.

# # #

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. editor@homecaretechreport.com