CMS Proposes Policy Changes to Medicare C & D

CMS

by Rowan Report | Dec 13, 2023 | CMS, Regulatory

From the NAHC Newsroom

Public comments due January 5, 2024

CMS Policy Changes to Medicare C & D. On November 5, 2023, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued the Contract Year 2025 Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage Program, Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Program, Medicare Cost Plan Program, and Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly; Health Information Technology Standards and Implementation Specifications.

Key provisions in the CMS policy changes that are of interest to home health and hospice providers are detailed below.

Behavior Health

CMS aims to improve access to behavioral health care by adding certain behavioral health provider specialties to the MA network adequacy standards as a new facility-specialty type. The new facility-specialty type, ‘‘Outpatient Behavioral Health,’’ can include Marriage and Family Therapists (MFTs), Mental Health Counselors (MHCs), Opioid Treatment Program (OTP) providers, Community Mental Health Centers or other behavioral health and addiction medicine specialists and facilities.

Special Supplemental Benefits for the Chronically Ill (SSBCI)

CMS is proposing regulatory changes that would help ensure that SSBCI items and services offered are appropriate and improve or maintain the health or overall function of chronically ill enrollees. The MA organization must be able to demonstrate through relevant acceptable evidence that an item or service offered as SSBCI has a reasonable expectation of improving or to maintain the health or overall function of a chronically ill. The MA plan must follow its written policies based on objective criteria for determining an enrollee’s eligibility for an SSBCI when making such eligibility determinations. CMS is proposing to require that the MA plan document its denials of SSBCI eligibility rather than its approvals.

CMS will also modify and strengthen the current requirements for the SSBCI disclaimer that MA organizations offering SSBCI must use whenever SSBCI are mentioned. Additionally, CMS proposes to require MA plans to notify enrollees mid-year of the unused supplemental benefits available to them. The notice would list any supplemental benefits not utilized by the beneficiary during the first 6 months of the year.

Guardrails for Agent and Broker Compensation

CMS is proposing to generally prohibit contract terms between MA organizations and agents, brokers or other third party marketing organizations (TPMOs) that may interfere with the agent’s or broker’s ability to objectively assess and recommend the plan that best fits a beneficiary’s health care needs, CMS proposes to set a single compensation rate for all plans; revise the scope of items and services included within agent and broker compensation; and eliminate the regulatory framework which currently allows for separate payment to agents and brokers for administrative services. CMS also intends to make similar changes to the Part D agent broker compensation rules.

Health Equity and Utilization Management (UM)

CMS proposes to require that a member of the UM committee have expertise in health equity and that t the UM committee conduct an annual health equity analysis of the use of prior authorization. The analysis would examine the impact of prior authorization on enrollees with one or more of the following social risk factors (SRFs): receipt of the lowincome subsidy or being dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid (LIS/DE); or having a disability.

Right To Appeal an MA Plan’s Decision To Terminate Coverage for Non-Hospital Provider Services

Beneficiaries enrolled in Traditional Medicare and MA plans have the right to a fast-track appeal by an Independent Review Entity (IRE) when their covered skilled nursing facility (SNF), home health, or comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility (CORF) services are being terminated. Currently, Quality Improvement Organizations (QIO) act as the IRE and conduct these reviews. Under current regulations, MA enrollees do not have the same access to QIO review of a fast-track appeal as Traditional Medicare beneficiaries. CMS proposes to (1) require the QIO, instead of the MA plan, to review untimely fast-track appeals of an MA plan’s decision to terminate services in an HHA, CORF, or SNF; and (2) fully eliminate a provision that requires the forfeiture of an enrollee’s right to appeal a termination of services decision when they leave the facility. These proposals would bring MA regulations in line with the parallel reviews available to beneficiaries in Traditional Medicare and expand the rights of MA beneficiaries to access the fast-track appeals process.

Dual eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNP)
CMS proposes to increase the percentage of dually eligible managed care enrollees who receive Medicare and Medicaid services from the same organization.
CMS is also proposing to limit out-of-network cost sharing for D–SNP preferred provider organizations (PPOs) for specific services.

Further, CMS is proposing to lower the D–SNP look-alike threshold from 80 percent to 70 percent for plan year 2025 and 60 percent for plan year 2026. This proposal would help address the continued proliferation of MA plans that are serving high percentages of dually eligible individuals without meeting the requirements to be a D–SNP.

The National Association for Home Care and Hospice will continue to analyze the proposed rule, but supports CMS’ aim to protect Medicare beneficiaries by modifying policies and procedures that will improve programs under Part C and Part D.

Public comments are due January 5, 2024.

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

CMS

by Kristin Rowan | 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

Medicare Advantage Dominated November News

CMS

by Tim Rowan | Dec 6, 2023 | CMS, Regulatory

by Tim Rowan, Editor Emeritus

MA Plans Continue to Exaggerate Patient Conditions for Profit

Medicare Advantage for Profit

As we reported in October (More MA Plans Caught Inflating Patient Assessments, 10/11/23), insurance companies operating Medicare Advantage plans routinely pad the patient assessments that set their monthly revenue from the Medicare Trust Fund. Worse, CMS bowed to industry pressure earlier this year and agreed not to extrapolate the amount of the fraudulent payments, as it does with Home Health and Hospice overpayments (Government Lets Health Plans That Ripped Off Medicare Keep the Money, 2/22/23).

Now, we hear that the HHS OIG has totaled its 2023 audits and announced it found over $213 million in padded Medicare Advantage overpayments so far this year. In its latest semiannual report, covering fraudulent patient assessments between April and September, the OIG said it recovered $82.7 million. Total recoveries would have been higher except for that CMS ruling that prevents the agency from extrapolating payments before contract year 2018.

Will SEC Allow Cigna/Humana Marriage?

Early last month, Bloomberg broke the news that Cigna was in talks to sell its Medicare Advantage business to Health Care Service Corporation, the parent company of BCBS in Illinois, Texas, New Mexico, Montana and Oklahoma. Should that sale be approved, it would remove an obstacle to Cigna’s rumored desire to merge with Humana.

Though approval is uncertain — the SEC has squashed more than one similar attempt under both the current and former Presidents — it would create what Axios called “another Titan” that would rival UnitedHealth Group and CVS Health in size. CVS acquired Aetna in 2018. It would also combine two Pharmacy Benefit Managers, giving the new entity control of a third of the market, which would be equal to the market share owned today by CVS.

In 2017, a proposed merger between Cigna and Elevance Health, formerly Anthem, was struck down in court. A proposed merger between Humana and Aetna was also canceled in a federal court the same year. Large, powerful insurers, and the PBMs they own, have come under increased scrutiny from federal regulators.

The Biden administration has already launched a warning shot, indicating it will be scrutinizing private equity acquisitions in health care. In September, the Federal Trade Commission sued private equity firm Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe after it bought up nearly all of the anesthesiology practices in Texas and then, with competition removed, began to jack up prices. FTC chair Lina Khan made it clear the suit was intended to send a message to all consolidation attempts that might harm patients.

United to Change Prior Authorization Policy

According to a November 27 policy update from UnitedHealthcare (UHC), the payer is updating its Home Health prior authorization and concurrent review process for services that are delegated to Home & Community Care, the payer’s home care division.

The updated policy, which are set to take effect January 1, will affect United’s Medicare Advantage and Dual Special Needs plans in 37 states, a UnitedHealthcare news release stated.

In Summary

Start of care visits still do not require prior authorization.
Providers must notify Home & Community Care of the initiation of home care services. UHC encourages providing notice within five days after the start of a care visit to help avoid potential payment delays.
Before the 30th day, providers must request prior authorization for days 30 to 60, by discipline, and provide documentation to Home & Community Care.
For each subsequent 60-day period, providers must request prior authorization, by discipline, and provide documentation to Home & Community Care during the 56- to 60-day recertification window.

UHC says it will respond to questions about the prior authorization approval process at HHinfo@optum.com

In related news, in its annual investor conference call, the company projected “revenues of $400 billion to $403 billion, net earnings of $26.20 to $26.70 per share and adjusted net earnings of $27.50 to $28.00 per share” for 2024. Cash flows from operations are expected to range from $30 billion to $31 billion.

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

©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

OIG Crackdown on Employees Ineligible to Work for Medicare

CMS

by Tim Rowan | Nov 15, 2023 | CMS, Editorial, Regulatory

Dear Friends,

I have some news that may be upsetting. Frankly, that is my intention, to frighten you into action.

In August, a Home Health provider in New York paid an $$866,339.25 fine for violating the “Civil Monetary Penalties Law.”* The Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant Program had employed an individual, in connection with the New York State Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program (CDPAP), who was excluded from participation in the New York Medicaid program and was not eligible to furnish services under the CDPAP.

Georgia provider Agape Hospice Care paid $250,993.97 in penalties, the specific amount it had paid in salary and benefits to two unlicensed nurses.

If this law is unfamiliar to you, it is the requirement that you may not employ any individuals who are not eligible to work within the Medicare system.*

This is only one example of a new OIG crackdown!

Bridges MN, a non-profit with services to the disabled, was fined $150,171.96 for employing a single excluded individual.
Vicki Roy Home Health Service paid a $38,000 fine for employing one excluded caregiver.
Providence Health System-Southern California, doing business as Providence Little Company of Mary Medical Centers, which includes two hospitals, agreed to pay $141,562 in connection with the employment of an excluded emergency services technician from Aug. 8, 2016, to June 5, 2019. (Note that this person was employed for nearly three years without the health system knowing, as they are required to know, that he or she was excluded.)
Joseph Health Personal Care Services, doing business as Nurse Next Door, agreed to pay $32,244 in connection with the employment of an excluded constant care attendant from Nov. 2, 2017, to Aug. 8, 2019.

My friends, the list goes on and on, and these are just the Home Health agencies:

Serenity Home Healthcare Services Agreed to Pay $146,000
Professional Home Health Care 2: $77,000
Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant Program: $866,000
Visiting Angels of Rhode Island: $158,000

I learned of at least 25 other healthcare providers that were fined under this law. Clearly, the HHS OIG is on the warpath. This is not a regulation you are wise to ignore.

That is why I write you today. I have found an affordable service that performs monthly OIG exclusion screening for you. Doing it yourself would require a dedicated FTE and hours of painstaking work.

I would be honored if you would accept my introduction to the company that provides this service. If the fines I listed above grabbed your attention, you can see that a service of this type is like an insurance policy that costs a fraction of the disaster it can prevent.

The company is called Carosh Compliance Services. The monthly service is called “OIG Express.” I know and trust the founding CEO, Roger Shindell. To contact Roger and learn more about this necessary service, use this link: https://oig.hhs.gov/faqs/exclusions-faq/
Sincerely,

Tim Rowan
Editor Emeritus
The Rowan Report
Tim@RowanResources.com

CMS Issues Final Rule for 2024 with Drastic Pay Cut

CMS

by Kristin Rowan | 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

editor@homecaretechreport.com

CMS News

CMS

by Rowan Report | Oct 11, 2023 | CMS, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

NOW AVAILABLE IN iQIES – Preview Reports and Star Rating Preview Reports for the January 2024 Refresh

CMS just published updated measure for Home Health Outcome Information Set (Oasis) and all HH QRP claims-based measures. These updated measures are no based on the standard number of quarter.

For additional information, please see the HH Quality Reporting Training webpage and the Home Health Data Submission Deadlines webpage.

©2023 by Rowan Consulting Associates, Inc., Colorado Springs, CO. This article originally appeared in Home Care Technology: The Rowan Report. Click here to subscribe. It may be freely reproduced provided this copyright statement remains intact. editor@homecaretechreport.com

EEOC Sues Licensed Home Care Agency for Discrimination

CMS

by Tim Rowan | Aug 23, 2023 | CMS, Regulatory

by Tim Rowan, Editor

Home Care Agency Removed Black and Hispanic Home Health Aides from Assignments to Accommodate Racial Preferences of Clients, Federal Agency Charges

There is a question that appears on social media chat pages with great regularity. What does a home care agency do when a client places it in a difficult legal position? The family of a Spanish-speaking grandmother asks for a Spanish-speaking caregiver. An elderly white gentleman insists on a white, English-speaking caregiver.

For agencies across the country, the only reasonable answer to this question is, “I don’t like my choices.” Those choices are to either offend, likely lose, a client, or risk violating Equal Employment Opportunity laws. It is common knowledge that home care clients have ample options should they become disillusioned with their current agency. In this situation, an agency has to choose between confronting a client’s racial bias and risk losing the client, or accommodating a client and losing a federal lawsuit. In other words, here we have the very definition of “no-win.”

With a recent action, the EEOC has put our entire industry on notice which option it expects. On July 31, the federal agency issued a public news release announcing it has filed a lawsuit against a New York agency. Four Seasons Home Care is a licensed personal care agency under a corporate umbrella with sister companies that offer Nursing and Rehabilitation, Certified Home Health, a Dialysis Center, Pharmacy, and an Adult Health Day Care Center. The company was faced with this common dilemma and made a choice of which the EEOC disapproved.

Reaction to the announcement, reprinted verbatim below, has already begun to appear on social media sites, including LinkedIn and home care groups on Facebook. One eloquent comment came from the CEO of an organization that serves an elderly client base made up of elderly people, mostly first-generation, who come from dozens of other countries and speak dozens of languages.

He pointed out that, in a diverse market like New York, it is common for patients and clients to express preference for an aide who can relate to their culture and speak their language. He even mentioned data that shows a connection between culture match and care effectiveness. The reason there has been a push to achieve diversity in the caregiving community expressly for the purpose of culture matching.

What stood out to this writer is that some of the language violates a journalistic rule, specifically the one against revealing the author’s bias within an otherwise facts-only story. In the second paragraph, the phrasing “including by removing Black and Hispanic” caregivers implies that the entire lawsuit is about disadvantaging these two groups. By looking beyond any implied meaning and parsing the language as written, one can see that removing these two specific ethnic groups is part of the accusation, but the writer offers no clue as to whether “part of” means 10 percent or 90 percent of the people discriminated against were Black and Hispanic.

Without this knowledge, one is led to assume that the entire accusation is that Four Seasons discriminated against Black and Hispanic caregivers. However, it is just as possible, based on the vague term “including,” that other ethnic groups were also victims of discrimination. It is just as possible that some Black and Hispanic caregivers were recipients of bonus work hours when assigned to clients who requested a caregiver with their cultural or language backgrounds. Sadly, the bottom line is that the language of the news release does not actually say what it appears to say. We will have to wait for the case to arrive in court to know what percentage of Four Seasons policy discriminated against minorities and what percentage help them.

Complete Announcement From EEOC

NEW YORK — ACARE HHC Inc., doing business as Four Seasons Licensed Home Health Care Agency, a Brooklyn-based company that provides its clients with home health aides, violated federal law by removing aides from their work assignments due to their race and national origin to accommodate client preferences, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Four Seasons routinely would accede to racial preferences of patients in making home health aide assignments, including by removing Black and Hispanic home health aides based on clients’ race and national origin-based requests. Those aides would be transferred to a new assignment or, if no other assignment were available, lose their employment completely.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race and national origin.

The EEOC filed suit, (EEOC v. ACARE HHC d/b/a Four Seasons Licensed Home Health Care, 23-cv-5760), in the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through the agency’s conciliation process. The EEOC seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages for the affected employees, and injunctive relief to remedy and prevent future discrimination based on employees’ race and national origin.

“Making work assignment decisions based on an employee’s race or national origin is against the law, including when these decisions are grounded in preferences of the employer’s clients,” said Jeffrey Burstein, regional attorney for the EEOC’s New York District Office.

“It is long past the day when employers comply with the discriminatory requests of its clients or customers, to the detriment of its Black and Hispanic workers,” said Timothy Riera, acting director of the New York District Office.

The EEOC’s New York District Office is responsible for processing discrimination charges, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, northern New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

More information about race discrimination can be found at eeoc.gov/racecolor-discrimination. More information about national origin discrimination can be found at eeoc.gov/national-origin-discrimination.

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.

# # #

©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

Supreme Court Takes Action About Knowledge Required to Prove False Claims

CMS

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Jul 12, 2023 | CMS, Regulatory

by Elizabeth Hogue, Esq.

For providers to be liable under the federal False Claims Act, enforcers must prove that they knowingly submitted false claims. The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued an opinion in United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu, Inc. [No. 21-1326 (U.S. June 1, 2023)], which defines what “knowingly” means. The Court decided that providers act knowingly depending on their “culpable state of mind” when they submitted alleged false claims; not what providers may have thought after submitting them. The requirement to prove knowledge, or “scienter,” said the Court, refers to providers’ knowledge and subjective beliefs; not to what objectively reasonable persons may have known or believed.

On June 30, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued orders that revive two whistleblower lawsuits based on the opinion described above. Specifically citing the above decision, the Court granted whistleblower Troy Olbausen’s request to hear his case. The Court then vacated an Eleventh Circuit decision that dismissed Olhausen’s whistleblower lawsuit.

The Eleventh Circuit previously dismissed Olhausen’s suit against Arriva Medical because he could not prove that the defendants had knowledge of their submission of false claims in view of their objectively reasonable interpretation of the Medicare rules in question. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration based on its decision in Schuttte v. SuperValu, above [Olhausen v. Arriva Med., LLC, No. 22-374 (U.D. June 30, 2023)].

Likewise, on June 30, 2023, the Supreme Court sent a case back to the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of the Schutte case.

These actions make it clear that the new standard set by the Supreme Court in the Schutte case will make a difference in cases based on the federal False Claims Act. The Court said in the Schutte case:

“Both the text and the common law also point to what the defendant thought when submitting the false claim – not what the defendant may have thought after submitting it…As such, the focus is not, as respondents would have it, on post hoc interpretations that might have rendered their claims accurate. It is instead on what the defendant knew when presenting the claims…Culpability is generally measured against the knowledge of the actor at the time of the challenged conduct.”

The Court also said:

“Under the FCA, petitioners may establish scienter by showing that respondents:

actually knew that their reported prices were not their ‘usual and customary’ prices when they reported those prices;
were aware of a substantial risk that their higher, retail prices were not their ‘usual and customary’ prices and intentionally avoided learning whether their reports were accurate, or
were aware of such a substantial and unjustifiable risk but submitted the claims anyway…

If petitioners can make that showing, then it does not matter whether some other, objectively reasonable interpretation of ‘usual and customary’ would point to respondents’ higher prices. For scienter, it is enough if respondents believed that their claims were not accurate.”

Proving that providers submitted false claims just got tougher for enforcers.

See Ms. Hogue’s earlier report on this SCOTUS case in our June 7 edition: homecaretechreport.com/article/3587

CMS News: New Rule Cracks Down on Medicare Advantage Upcoding

CMS

by Tim Rowan | Feb 1, 2023 | CMS, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

by Tim Rowan, Editor

CMS Rule to Protect Medicare

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, finalized the policies for the Medicare Advantage “Risk Adjustment Data Validation” program, which is CMS’s primary audit and oversight tool of MA program payments.

Under this program, CMS identifies improper risk adjustment payments made to Medicare Advantage Organizations in instances where medical diagnoses submitted for payment were not supported in the beneficiary’s medical record. The commonsense policies finalized in the RADV final rule (CMS-4185-F) will help CMS ensure that people with Medicare are able to access the benefits and services they need, including in Medicare Advantage, while responsibly protecting the fiscal sustainability of Medicare and aligning CMS’s oversight of both Traditional Medicare and MA programs.

In Other Words, Fraud

As required by law, CMS’s payments to MAOs are adjusted based on the health status of enrollees, as determined through medical diagnoses reported by MAOs. Studies and audits done separately by CMS and the HHS Office of Inspector General have shown that Medicare Advantage enrollees’ medical records do not always support the diagnoses reported by MAOs, which leads to billions of dollars in overpayments to plans and increased costs to the Medicare program as well as taxpayers.

No Overpayments Collected Since 2007

“Protecting Medicare is one of my highest responsibilities as Secretary, and this commonsense rule is a critical accountability measure that strengthens the Medicare Advantage program. CMS has a responsibility to recover overpayments across all of its programs, and improper payments made to Medicare Advantage plans are no exception. For years, federal watchdogs and outside experts have identified the Medicare Advantage program as one of the top management and performance challenges facing HHS, and today we are taking long overdue steps to conduct audits and recoup funds. These steps will make Medicare and the Medicare Advantage program stronger.”

Xavier Becerra

Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services

“CMS is committed to protecting people with Medicare and being a responsible steward of taxpayer dollars,” said CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure. “By establishing our approach to RADV audits through this regulation, we are protecting access to Medicare both now and for future generations. We have considered significant stakeholder feedback and developed a balanced approach to ensure appropriate oversight of the Medicare Advantage program that aligns with our oversight of Traditional Medicare.”

The RADV final rule reflects CMS’s consideration of extensive public comments and robust stakeholder engagement after the release of the 2018 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The finalized policies will also allow CMS to continue to focus its audits on those MAOs identified as being at the highest risk for improper payments. The RADV final rule can be accessed at the Federal Register.

Pre-Implementation Performance Report

The January 2023 Pre-Implementation Performance Report is now available to download from the Internet Quality Improvement Evaluation System (iQIES).

Instructions on how to access the PIPR are available below and on the Expanded HHVBP Model webpage under “Model Reports.”

Background

To support home health agencies during this first performance year, CMS issued PIPRs in November 2022 and January 2023 to all active HHAs. The PIPR provides HHAs with data on their quality measure performance used in the expanded HHVBP Model, in comparison to HHAs nationally within peer cohorts, in advance of the first Interim Performance Reports (IPRs) in July 2023. The PIPRs do not contain calendar year (CY) 2023 data. The January 2023 PIPR includes a new tab containing preliminary achievement thresholds and benchmarks by volume-based cohort.

Need Help Understanding Your PIPR?

To assist HHAs in understanding the purpose, content, and use of the PIPRs, the HHVBP Technical Assistance Team created an on-demand video and downloadable resource, “Introduction to the Pre-Implementation Performance Report,” available on the Expanded HHVBP Model webpage. The video is also available on the Expanded HHVBP Model YouTube channel.

Additionally, the December 2022 edition of the “Expanded HHVBP Model Frequently Asked Questions” includes questions regarding the PIPR. If you do not see an answer to your specific question, please email the HHVBP Model Help Desk at HHVBPquestions@lewin.com.

If you experience an issue with accessing resources on the Expanded HHVBP Model webpage, first try refreshing the webpage. If that does not work, please try closing and reopening the browser. If you continue to experience issues, please try clearing the cache/cookies—links to instructions are below.

Locating the PIPR in iQIES

Log into iQIES at iqies.cms.gov.
Select the My Reports option from the Reports
From the My Reports page, select the HHA Provider Preview Reports
Select the HHVBP file to view the desired report. To quickly locate the most recently published report, select the down arrow adjacent to the Created Date label at the top of the table. This will order the reports in the folder from newest to oldest.
Select the file name link and the contents of the file will display.

Help Desk Information

Should you experience difficulty locating the HHVBP file or with downloading, please contact the iQIES Help desk staff by email at iQIES@cms.hhs.gov or by phone at (800) 339-9313.

For questions about the content of the expanded HHVBP Model reports, please contact the HHVBP Help Desk staff by email at HHVBPquestions@lewin.com.

*Please include your name, agency name, and the CCN when contacting the help desks.

# # #

©2023 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com

Insurance Industry Insider Instructs Providers

CMS

by Tim Rowan | Sep 16, 2020 | CMS, Editorial

Insurance Industry Insider Instructs Providers

September 16, 2020

by Wendell Potter

(Adapted with permission from an article posted on the author’s Twitter feed. –Editor)

Wendell Potter My former colleagues in the health insurance industry claim they are waiving all costs of testing and treatment for COVID-19. This is a lie.

I will explain the reality that this promise does not apply to everyone, in fact to a fraction of covered lives, and there is no enforcement mechanism to ensure that it will. Here is the truth: When insurers and the Trump administration say insurers are “doing their part” to end the pandemic, they are counting on Americans to be fooled by industry lingo, to believe that COVID-19 health expenses are covered. When I worked as VP of PR for Cigna, I would have gotten a bonus for achieving this deception.

In reality, this is world-class propaganda on display. To see how the industry is pulling the wool over our eyes, go to the website of its trade group, AHIP (America’s Health Insurance Plans). It is, intentionally, close to impossible to follow what each insurance company is actually doing.

A secret: The main purpose of insurers’ web sites and documents is to provide a space to crow about their “charitable” donations, which are a tiny percentage of their revenues. I know firsthand! One of my roles at Cigna was to head the company’s meagerly-endowed foundation.

An example: To see how they mislead regarding actual COVID-19 costs, let’s examine the hidden caveat in one company’s claim. Aetna says it

“will waive co-pays for all diagnostic testing related to COVID-19… That includes all member costs associated with diagnostic testing for Commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid lines of business. Self-insured plan sponsors will be able to opt-out at their discretion. Aetna is also offering zero co-pay telemedicine visits for any reason, and extending [additional benefits] to all fully insured members.” ¹

Notice the catch? They mention “self-insured” plan sponsors. Nearly 80% of Aetna’s health plan members are in these types of plans. If you get your coverage through your employer, you likely are one of them. Aetna does not consider these people “fully insured.” Therefore, their promises may only apply to 20 percent of their members.

Of course, most folks probably have no idea whether they are in a “fully insured” or “self-insured” plan, but it makes a world of difference, especially during this pandemic. And believe me, these companies are thrilled by your confusion. It could save them millions.

Maybe we should expect private insurers to be dishonest by now, or rely on government watchdogs to take care of us. That is the other problem. There is no watchdog at any level of government monitoring this deceptive practice. In other words, there are no consequences to insurer deceit. And they know it. Again, I know it because I used to be one of them.

The answer? All insurers should be required to state exactly what percentage of their members actually benefit from their “promise” to fully cover COVID-19 testing and treatment. And Congress should look into this ASAP. It would be a great chance for Representative Katie Porter (D-CA) to embarrass the insurers yet again.²

Wendell Potter is a former insurance industry PR executive and the author of “Deadly Spin: An Insurance Company Insider Speaks Out on How Corporate PR Is Killing Health Care and Deceiving Americans” and “Nation on the Take: How Big Money Corrupts Our Democracy and What We Can Do About It,” both published by Bloomsbury Press. He is the founder of Tarbell™ a non-partisan news publication of To Be Fair, Inc., an IRS-approved 501(c)3 non-profit organization. He also serves as senior analyst at the Center for Public Integrity, one of the nation’s oldest non-partisan, nonprofit investigative news organizations, and is a contributor to The Huffington Post and healthinsurance.org. His work has also appeared in Newsweek, The Nation and The Guardian.

Bi-Partisan Congressional Committees Demand CMS Administrator Repay Misspent Funds

CMS

by Tim Rowan | Sep 16, 2020 | CMS, Regulatory

Bi-Partisan Congressional Committees Demand CMS Administrator Repay Misspent Funds

his month, two House committees and two Senate committees published a report of a joint investigation into Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma’s spending of taxpayer funds. The complete 56-page report is available in our “Partner News” section in the footer of our web site. For convenience, we reprint highlights from the report’s Executive Summary here.

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce, House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Senate Committee on Finance Minority, and Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Minority (the Committees) conducted a year-long investigation into Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Seema Verma’s use of taxpayer funds to retain communications consultants with strong Republican political ties.

The Committees’ investigation shows that Administrator Verma and her top aides abused the federal contracting process to stock CMS with handpicked Republican consultants who billed the government hourly rates of up to $380. In less than two years, Administrator Verma’s consultants charged CMS nearly $6 million for work that included boosting her public profile and personal brand, serving as her preferred communications advisors, arranging private meetings for her with media personalities and other high-profile individuals, and routinely traveling with her to events across the country. By retaining these consultants, Administrator Verma misused funds appropriated by Congress, wasting taxpayer dollars intended to support federal health care programs.

The evidence obtained by the Committees expands on the findings of a recent audit conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) and demonstrates that Administrator Verma’s expenditures potentially exceeded the scope of CMS’s authority under the applicable appropriations. Congress appropriated taxpayer funds to CMS to ensure that Americans have access to and are aware of opportunities to enroll in federal health care programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act. Congress did not intend for Administrator Verma or other senior CMS officials to use taxpayer dollars to stockpile CMS with handpicked consultants or promote Administrator Verma’s public profile and personal brand. Given the reckless disregard she has shown for the public’s trust, Administrator Verma should reimburse the taxpayers for these inappropriate expenditures.

During the course of the investigation, the Committees obtained tens of thousands of pages of documents from HHS and private parties, conducted interviews and briefings with employees and executives from two of the consulting firms used by CMS, and collected additional information from databases, court records, and press reports, among other sources. The Committees’ investigation shows:

- Administrator Verma and her top aides misused federal contracts CMS held with consulting firms to bring handpicked Republican communications consultants into CMS operations.

- Administrator Verma and her top aides built a shadow operation that sidelined CMS’s Office of Communications in favor of the handpicked consultants.

- Consultants — particularly Pam Stevens — worked to promote Administrator Verma’s public profile and personal brand beyond her role as CMS Administrator, while also expanding the Administrator’s network.
- Administrator Verma’s consultants charged CMS nearly $6 million in less than two years.

- After CMS issued a stop-work order in April 2019, consulting firm Porter Novelli continued working for CMS under other task orders to pitch profile pieces on Administrator Verma to media outlets, including lifestyle magazines targeted in Pam Stevens’s Executive Visibility Proposal.

OIG issued an audit on July 16, 2020 (OIG Audit) containing findings consistent with the Committees’ investigation and concluding that CMS violated federal contracting requirements. The OIG Audit, which was requested by the Committees, found:
- - Administrator Verma and senior CMS officials allowed consultant Marcus Barlow to perform inherently governmental functions, such as making managerial decisions and directing CMS employees, thereby violating the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).
- - CMS improperly administered certain contracts it held with consulting firms as personal services contracts. In doing so, CMS officials exerted a level of control over the consultants’ work that created an improper employer-employee relationship, exceeding what was permissible under the contracts.
- CMS did not comply with the FAR and other federal requirements in managing contract deliverables, approving the use of a subcontractor, maintaining complete working files, and paying questionable

©2020 by Rowan Consulting Associates, Inc., Colorado Springs, CO. This article originally appeared in Home Care Technology: The Rowan Report. Click here to subscribe. It may be freely reproduced provided this copyright statement remains intact. editor@homecaretechreport.com

New Training, New HH Compare

CMS

by Tim Rowan | Sep 9, 2020 | CMS

New Training, New HH Compare

Home Health Quality Reporting Training

September 01, 2020

Introduction to the Home Health Quality Reporting Program Web-Based Training

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is offering a web-based training course for those who are new to the Home Health Quality Reporting Program. This course is designed to provide a general overview of the program as well as a variety of links and resources for additional information. Specific topics include:

Lesson 1: What is the Home Health Quality Reporting Program (HH QRP)?

Lesson 2: The Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS)

Lesson 3: OASIS Data Submission

Lesson 4: HH QRP Resources

CLICK HERE to access the training

Submit technical questions or feedback to: PAC Training mailbox.
Submit content-related questions to: HH Quality Reporting Program Help Desk

Home Health Compare merged with all other “Compare” databases

On September 3, CMS launched Care Compare, a streamlined redesign of eight existing CMS healthcare compare tools available on Medicare.gov. Care Compare provides a single user-friendly interface that patients and caregivers can use to make informed decisions about healthcare based on cost, quality of care, volume of services, and other data. With just one click, patients can find information that is easy to understand about doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care services instead of searching through multiple tools.

For more than 20 years, Medicare’s online compare tools have served as the cornerstone for publicizing quality care information for patients, caregivers, consumers, and the healthcare community. Today’s announcement builds on the eMedicare initiative that first launched by the Trump Administration in 2018 to deliver simple tools and information to current and future Medicare beneficiaries.

Drawing on lessons learned through research and stakeholder feedback, Care Compare includes features and functionalities that appeal to consumers. By offering a user-friendly interface and a simple design that is optimized for mobile and tablet use, it is easier than ever to find information that is important to patients when shopping for healthcare. Enhancements for mobile use will give practical benefits like accessing the tool using a smartphone can initiate phone calls to providers simply by clicking on the provider’s phone number.

Currently, someone who is planning to have bypass surgery would need to visit Hospital Compare, Nursing Home Compare, and Home Health Compare individually to research providers for the different phases of their surgery and rehabilitation. Now, those patients can start their search at Care Compare to find and compare providers that meet their healthcare needs that includes information about quality measures presented similarly and clearly across all provider types and care settings.

Patients will also find helpful hints and guides throughout Care Compare. For example, when searching for a nursing home, patients have the ability to utilize a checklist with common questions and considerations when selecting a nursing home. While the measures and data used for Care Compare have not changed, the way information is displayed is now different. During a transition period, consumers and other stakeholders will be able to use the original eight compare tools while CMS continues to gather feedback and considers additional improvements to the tool. As new information about quality and cost are added to the compare tools, Care Compare will be updated to reflect that information.

Next Entries »