Medicare Advantage Predatory Marketing

CMS

by Kristin Rowan | Aug 16, 2024 | CMS, Editorial, Marketing, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Leading Associations Attempt to Curb Medicare Advantage Marketing Practices that Prey on the Unsuspecting

For some time now, we’ve been reporting on the marketing practices that Medicare Advantage uses to lure new members. And, it’s working, as more than 50% of eligible patients are now on Medicare Advantage plans. From federal lawsuits to fraud, to upcoding, Medicare Advantage has made headlines more often than almost any other topic in the industry in the last few years. A joint move last week by two national associations may bring the issue to a head once and for all.

The National PACE Association (NPA) and LeadingAge wrote to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) urging them to employ stricter oversight on Medicare Advantage marketing practices. The letter, dated July 25, 2024, cited the impact of these marketing tactics on adults served by Programs for All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE). They called the marketing “aggressive and misleading” and called upon CMS to protect PACE beneficiaries from harm.

One of the selling points in the marketing of Medicare Advantage is the supplemental benefits. Medicare Advantage plans are allocated nearly $64 billion dollars to pay for dental, vision, gym memberships, and other benefits that are not available with traditional Medicare. However, the government has no idea where this money is going, who is using it, and what it’s for. Limited available data suggests that a very low number of Medicare Advantage enrollees are using these supplemental benefits. The rest of the money just sits with the payers at taxpayer expense.

The false promise of cash benefits draw even more of this population away from traditional Medicare and into Medicare Advantage plans. Cash benefits from MA plans are only available to dual eligible members. What they don’t tell you, though, is that if you are dual eligible and you switch from Medicare to Medicare Advantage, you are subject to prior authorization rules, care denials, and smaller networks, meaning you may lose your physician when you switch plans. Some of those cash benefits are restricted to use in particular stores. For example, Aetna restricts the use of cash benefits to stores owned by CVS Health. If there isn’t a CVS Health near you, the cash benefits can’t be used.

PACE Programs

Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) are typically traditional Medicare and Medicaid joint programs that provide medical and social services in home and community-based care settings. The programs cover prescriptions, dental care, emergency services, home care, meals services, primary care providers, nurses, social workers, and more. The program’s goal is to keep patients at home or in their communities and get the health care they need. There is no out-of-pocket costs to these programs for dual eligible members. Medicare only members have a monthly premium and prescription drug (Part D) premium. There are no additional deductibles or copayments for any service or level of care.

Bait and Switch

The marketing messages from Medicare Advantage are pulling PACE eligible members into dual MA and Medicaid plans, which significantly reduce the level of care, access to care, and continuity of care. The MA/Medicaid programs also have higher out-of-pocket costs to members, despite having no monthly premium. Research shows that Medicare Advantage is targeting healthier individuals who will use the provided benefits less often and that when Medicare Advantage patients become sicker, they switch back to traditional Medicare plans if they can.

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.

PACE LeadingAge MA Reform The financial and health implications of uninformed disenrollment from PACE to conventional MA plans are significant. The needs of PACE beneficiaries, most of whom have multiple complex medical conditions, cognitive or functional impairments – or all three – are not comprehensively addressed by MA plans. The loss of PACE services is harmful and, in some cases, can be life-threatening.

Katie Smith Sloan

president and CEO, LeadingAge

Dire Need for Change

In their letter to CMS, NPA and LeadingAge called for the following changes to be made:

Require MA plans to explain, clearly and without embellishment, all out-of-pocket costs and network/coverage limitations. using easy to understand terms
When a member disenrolls from a PACE program, additional steps should be taken to ensure the disenrollment is voluntary and that the member is fully informed of the differences in coverage before leaving the PACE program.
Increased leniency in re-enrolling in PACE programs after leaving a Medicare Advantage program by allowing re-enrollment mid-month.
Require MA brokers, when providing comparative benefit information of their current coverage (e.g., PACE) to an alternate MA plan, to also inform them, in plain language, if the new plan does not cover or coordinate their Medicaid benefits; and any benefits the individual would “lose” under the new plan (e.g., transportation to groceries).

Pace LeadingAge MA Reform We share CMS’ stated desire that people have access to accurate and complete information when they make health care choices. We have numerous examples of vulnerable seniors being induced to enroll in MA plans without being fully-informed of what they are giving up when they enroll.

Shawn Bloom

president and CEO, National PACE Association

The Rowan Report reached out to LeadingAge to see if CMS has responded to their letter.

Updates will be provided when we have them.

# # #

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

Sources:

https://prospect.org/health/2024-05-30-medicare-advantage-64-billion-supplemental-benefits/

https://leadingage.org/associations-urge-tougher-enforcement-of-anti-predatory-medicare-advantage-marketing-practices/

MA Past, Present, and Possible Future: Nothing Good to Report

CMS

by Tim Rowan | Jul 26, 2024 | CMS, Editorial, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory

by Tim Rowan, Editor Emeritus

Past

For at least the last five years, every Home Health conference this reporter has attended has featured at least one keynote speaker or expert panelist complaining about sparse and shrinking payments from Medicare Advantage plans. As thousands of seasonal TV ads convince more and more Medicare beneficiaries to enroll in what insurance company executive-turned-whistleblower Wendell Potter called “neither Medicare nor an advantage,” the calls from Home Health executives to turn away MA members, following the lead of many hospitals, have grown louder and more frequent.

Originally designed to extend the lifespan of the Medicare Trust Fund by bringing managed care practices to the federal healthcare program for seniors and disabled, Medicare Advantage has failed to do so. As long ago as 2021, an exposé by Fred Schulte in Kaiser Family Foundation Health News found that MA costs to taxpayers began to explode in 2018 and today equal 119 percent of what traditional Medicare should cost. We looked at more recent studies and found similar reports.

From the Experts

Referencing a study by Richard Kronick, a former federal health policy researcher and a professor at the University of California-San Diego, Schulte 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. A third of that overpayment occurred in 2018 and 2019.”

Since Kronick’s 2021 report, more beneficiaries have opted in to Medicare Advantage. So far, just over half have switched from straight Medicare, with or without a supplement, and that number may reach 100 percent if those who profit most from the option have their way.

Present

In recent months, we have investigated and reported on the insurance industry’s practice of exaggerating MA member health conditions and denying care that traditional Medicare would have covered, collecting from both ends of the CMS trough. We have also mentioned several federal and state lawsuits piling up against insurance companies for both of those practices. One of our sources, The Center for Economic and Policy Research, said this in the Executive Summary of its detailed, September 2023 study:

Profiting at the Expense of Seniors: The Financialization of Home Health Care

“The nonpartisan Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) estimates that upcoding by MA plans that make enrollees appear to be sicker than they are costs CMS 106 percent of what traditional Medicare costs; adding in the quality bonus payments brings it to 108 percent. MA plans also enroll healthier Medicare beneficiaries, increasing their operating surplus by another 11 percent, making the payments to MA plans 19 percent higher than the payments to traditional Medicare.

CMS’s announced goal for traditional Medicare beneficiaries is to move all of them to Accountable Care Organizations, which use the valued-based payment model, or other similar care arrangements, by 2030. CMS’s leading model to accomplish this shift is ACO REACH — a gentler, kinder version of the Trump administration’s backdoor enrollment of traditional Medicare beneficiaries in a capitated payment model.”

The Center for Economic Policy Research

Future

Depending on results in the unpredictable world of politics later this year, CMS may or may not see its shift to value-based ACO models come to fruition. Kaiser News‘ Schulte examined the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025,” the conservative think tank’s blueprint for any possible future Republican administration, and found an entire section on the Department of Health and Human Services.

Within its “Mandate for Leadership,” the authors identify Medicare and Medicaid as “the principal drivers of our $31 trillion national debt.” While admitting that Medicare and Medicaid “help many,” the authors assert that the programs “operate as runaway entitlements that stifle medical innovation, encourage fraud, and impede cost containment, in addition to which their fiscal future is in peril.”

Rebuttal

Commenting on the Heritage Foundation’s claim, researcher Sonali Kolhatkar, writing for “OtherWords.org,” counters that this opinion is often used to justify ending social programs, but actual CMS data indicates that per person Medicare spending has plateaued for more than a decade and represents one of the greatest reductions to the federal debt. Even with 10,000 to 11,000 Boomers reaching Medicare eligibility every day, total per beneficiary expenditures have stopped climbing, hovering around $12,000 per year since 2010. Before reaching that 2010 plateau, per beneficiary spending had steadily risen from $2,000 at the program’s 1965 inception.

Medicare Advantage for All

Project 2025 proposes making Medicare Advantage the default enrollment option rather than a choice beneficiaries can opt into. With 100 percent of seniors on MA plans, already historic insurance profits will skyrocket further. But will Medicare beneficiaries benefit as well?

The Center for Economic and Policy Research cites multiple lawsuits that have proven eight of the ten largest MA plans routinely add chronic conditions – some non-existent – to patient assessments at enrollment…or later. We reported recently that UnitedHealth Group, operator of the largest MA plan, recently began sending nurses into homes to search for additional health conditions that would raise company payments from the trust fund. The report we quoted included evidence that these home visit upcodes do not lead to any treatments. The Center added that MA’s “heavily restricted networks damage one’s choice of provider along with introducing dangerous delays and denials of necessary care.”

As we have mentioned before, Medicare Advantage is neither Medicare nor an Advantage.

Medicaid also Attacked

Project 2025 also proposes restrictions on Medicaid eligibility by imposing work requirements. The blueprint sees the program for low-income Americans as a “cumbersome, complicated, and unaffordable burden on nearly every state.” Their plan includes bringing private insurance companies in to “manage” care.

A June, 2024 report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concluded that the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid helped millions of Americans who would otherwise be uninsured, and that its enabling and encouragement of preventive care actually saved money in state budgets. Last month’s report asserted “the people who gained coverage have grown healthier and more financially secure, while long-standing racial inequities in health outcomes, coverage, and access to care have shrunk.”

Project 2025 authors make no mention of a KFF News report from April 2023 that said most Medicaid-eligible people are already working. Nor does it take into account a Government Accountability Office report to Congress October 2020 and again in 2023 that determined that hourly wages in many large companies are low enough to keep even full-time workers eligible for Medicaid and SNAP. Walmart and McDonalds, to name two, land in the top five in almost every state for having Medicaid-eligible workers.

EVEN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL IS CRITICAL

Under the front page Headline “Medicare paid $50 billion to insurers for untreated ills,” a detailed WSJ investigation highlighted a number of findings, including:

“The questionable diagnoses included some for potentially deadly illnesses, such as AIDS, for which patients received no subsequent care, and for conditions people couldn’t possibly have, the analysis showed. Often, neither the patients nor their doctors had any idea.”
“Instead of saving taxpayers money, Medicare Advantage has added tens of billions of dollars in costs, researchers and some government officials have said.”
“Medicare Advantage has cost the government an extra $591 billion over the past 18 years, compared with what Medicare would have cost without the help of the private plans, according to a March report of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, or MedPAC, a nonpartisan agency that advises Congress. Adjusted for inflation, that amounts to $4,300 per U.S. tax filer.”
“The Journal reviewed the Medicare data under an agreement with the federal government. The data doesn’t include patients’ names, but covers details of doctor visits, hospital stays, prescriptions and other care.”

Now it is in the Hands of Voters

Home Health, Hospice, and Home Care owners, management, and workers will be voting in November. Consideration of what four years under a Project 2025-friendly administration will mean to businesses dependent on Medicare and Medicare will weigh heavily on their minds as they enter their polling booths.

# # #

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

Payer or Competitor?

Admin

by Tim Rowan | Jul 19, 2024 | Admin, Editorial, Medicare Advantage

by Tim Rowan, Editor Emeritus

UnitedHealth Making Home Health Visits

Payer or Competitor…that is the question. According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, and questioned by the insurance industry’s lobbying arm, AHIP, UnitedHealth Group has increased its revenue from the Medicare Trust Fund by $50 billion by “finding” additional health issues during home visits to its MA customers.

In a July 16 investor call, CEO Andrew Witty said UnitedHealth clinicians made more than 2.5 million home health visits to UnitedHealthcare MA members in 2023. Following these visits to more than 500,000 seniors, UnitedHealth upgraded over 300,000 of them to higher payment levels by uncovering health conditions the individual seniors did not know they had.

The WSJ investigation found that between 2018 and 2021, insurers received $50 billion for diagnoses they added to members’ charts. Many of these diagnoses were “questionable,” according to that investigation.

Questionable Visits

Though a UnitedHealth spokesperson called the analysis “inaccurate and biased,” former UnitedHealth employees told the Journal home visits are often used to add diagnoses. Clinicians say they use software during visits that offer suggestions as to what illnesses a patient might have.

CEO Witty maintained in the investor call that the practice is good for seniors. “UnitedHealth clinicians discovered more than 3 million gaps in care through home visits in 2023,” he reported, “and 75% of patients receive follow-up care in a clinic within 90 days of a home visit.”

He added that the United home visit program “helps patients live healthier lives and saves taxpayers money,” concluding. “…Medicare Advantage makes programs and results like this possible.”

The Journal concluded with the finding that few of these upgraded seniors are ever seen by a physician for their newly discovered health conditions.

# # #

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

When Social Media Goes Too Far

Admin

by Kristin Rowan | Jun 13, 2024 | Admin, Editorial, Marketing, Privacy and Security

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Access to Information: Pro & Con

The advent of social media has allowed millions upon millions of users worldwide to connect with distant friends and family, meet new people, and share information among followers. From Six Degrees in 1997 to BlueSky in 2023, social media has evolved over time. Some say social media has brought us closer together and created more opportunities for small business marketing and branding. Others argue it has replaced human interaction and created overuse of mobile devices, addictions to “likes”, and a host of fake news and propaganda. Whatever your particular outlook on social media, it’s probably here to stay.

Having a profile on a social media platform (or several as most people have), allows friends, family, and colleagues to connect quickly and easily. This easy access to user information can be great for social networking and branding. Recently, however, the social media platforms have started gathering the information from your profile to enhance the paid marketing campaigns you see in “Sponsored” posts. If you’ve never noticed it before, pay attention to how often a sponsored post appears on your social media feed that happens to match a recent browser search, email, or, scarily enough, conversation, you are part of.

Social Media Access to Outside Information

We’ve all seen the warning pop-ups on websites that read “This site uses cookies.” Cookies store your browser information and history, page visits, keyword searches, and other information. This information is accessible to other websites. This is why Amazon sends you an email for sale items you recently searched for, even if you didn’t search on Amazon. Most of us know we have the option to allow only necessary cookies and to opt out of everything else. However, most people rarely take this extra step. Rather than selecting from a list of allowable cookies, the default action is to “allow all.” We are just one click away from continuing our browsing, reading, or shopping.

PHI Information Accessed by Social Media

We accept that when we allow cookies, our information will be shared. However, when you share personal information with your doctor, you assume that information is not subject to the cookie preferences, even if the information is uploaded digitally. The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), in fact, requires that this information not be shared. Ron Prosky that the Palm Beach Health Network, the largest health care network in Palm Beach County, Florida, did just that. Palm Beach Health Network allegedly used Meta’s pixel code in their website, allowing Facebook to target patients with personalized ads based on their medical condition and other sensitive information.

Similar lawsuits alleged the same action against Atrium Health in North Carolina and against Kaiser Permanente, both in April of 2024. Kaiser Permanente claimed an “accidental breach” after knowingly using website trackers from Microsoft, Meta, and Google. Kaiser alleged they were unaware that the website trackers would send private information. Website trackers gather information that includes the user’s name and IP address. This information does not necessarily violate HIPAA laws. However, because the “cookies” attach to the IP address, they follow the user around the web. This makes it fairly easy for the data to infer a diagnosis or illness and use that to market to patients.

A Word of Caution for Agencies Using Tracking Data

If your website is set up to track users through partner codes from Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, or any other tech provider, you may be inadvertently sharing protected patient data with any of these companies.

If you are tracking landing page and link clicks through Google Analytics, you may be sharing sensitive data. Here is an easy to follow article to prevent sharing Personally Identifiable Information (PII).

A Word of Caution for all Social Media and Internet Users

The digital world is one in which we all live. Whether you are engaging with social media content, shopping in an app, or browsing online, protect your personal information.

Opt out of cookies whenever possible. If it’s not possible, limit access to only necessary cookies and don’t allow your information to be sold. Only use websites that are secure. Delete your browser history or use incognito mode as often as possible.

# # #

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

Is the Covid Boost for Telehealth Over?

Clinical

by Tim Rowan | Apr 11, 2024 | Clinical, Editorial, Telehealth

by Tim Rowan, Editor Emeritus

In 2020, doctors flooded telehealth companies with requests for help caring for patients reluctant to leave home to come to their appointments. Following suit, many Home Health agencies that had never considered investing in home telehealth before, opened up their wallets to acquire equipment, from simple wearables to high-end, HIPAA-compliant video systems.

In addition to the need to provide care at a safe distance, many HHA leaders knew the added service would attract the attention of hospitals desperate to discharge recovering Covid victims as well as non-Covid patients. Some HHAs established relationships with hospitals they had not had before, given the chance to demonstration Home Health’s unique advantages over extended hospital stays and discharges to institutions such as SNFs that had become virtual death sentences during the height of the pandemic.

All Things Must Pass

With the introduction and widespread free availability of Covid mRNA vaccines, the death rate graph line began to tilt downward. Then came the discovery that the SARS-CoV-2 and its variants are transmitted through the air and not through unwashed surfaces. People stopped disinfecting their counter tops after unloading groceries. And they started in-person doctor visits again. Patients returned to allowing nurses into their homes.

In regions where vaccination and booster rates were high, hospitals found themselves with more and more empty beds. They took down tented treatment centers in their parking lots and sent refrigerated trailers back to trucking companies. Desperation referrals to Home Health tapered off, as did the need for virtual visits.

Isaac Newton said every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If that holds true in the healthcare business as it does in physics, the reaction to Covid easing is seen in Remote Patient Monitoring tech companies. According to Fierce Healthcare, the New York Stock Exchange told one RPM company, Amwell, formerly known as “American Well,” to raise its stock price or be delisted. Fierce added detail about the company’s woes:

“Despite decimating its workforce at the end of 2023 to cut expenses, the company still projects a 2024 loss between $160 million and $155 million amid incremental revenue growth. The company’s market cap was a stone’s throw from $6 billion at the height of its valuation, when shares were trading for more than $42 each. Amwell shares were trading at $0.72 as of market close on April 5, giving the company a current market cap of about $208.6 million.

Another market leader fared no better, Fierce Healthcare found. “Telehealth giant Teledoc, which has been in operation for 20 years, has struggled in the stock market and is facing headwinds as the virtual care market has become crowded with digital health players. Shares dropped 22 percent in February as the company missed fourth-quarter revenue estimates and offered a downbeat forecast for the rest of the year.”

Teledoc’s 15-year CEO, Jason Gorevic, resigned last week after the company reported a net loss of $220 million for 2023, following 2022’s historic loss of $13.7 billion, mostly from a write-off related to the plummeting value of its ill-advised Livongo acquisition. According to Fierce Healthcare, Teladoc shelled out $18.5 billion for the digital chronic condition management company, a record in digital health.

Gorevic’s rationale that the telehealth field has become too crowded may not be far off. Last July, Becker’s Hospital Review published an industry survey titled “280+ Telehealth Companies to Know.” The list included a half dozen names we recognized from past Home Health conferences, including Health Recovery Solutions, AMC, Vivify, and FoneMed.

Do Hospital Woes Translate Down to Home Health?

Making comparisons between telemedicine companies that focus on hospitals and physicians and those who focus on post-acute providers is hampered by the fact that few in our sector are publicly traded and do not share their numbers. UnitedHealth, which acquired Vivify in 2019 and assigned it to its Optum division, does not separately report Vivify revenue.

Health Recovery Solutions, one of the best-known names in post-acute RPM, is privately held by its founding CEO and seven investors. Its most recent influx of $800,000 occurred in January, 2022, making it impossible to determine whether it was motivated by investor confidence or the need for cash as Covid began its decline.

Analysis

This publication has promoted the advantages of remote patient monitoring for its entire 25-year existence. We have covered startups and established tech companies offering every technology from PERS to Zo monitors to automated phone calls, in-home cameras and microphones. We have followed the evolution of two-way communications and vital sign detectors from tabletop devices to tablets and smartphones. We have even tested a few robots. We have seen HHAs experience great success, and we have seen devices collecting dust on shelves.

Throughout, we have maintained that, when selected, implemented, and deployed properly, monitoring patients 24/7 instead of once or twice a week can improve patient outcomes, boost agency reputation, and, more often than not, produce a healthy ROI. The end of the latest pandemic may mean the end of demand for Remote Patient Monitoring systems, but that would be unfortunate.

Tim Rowan, Editor Emeritus Tim Rowan is a 30-year home care technology consultant who co-founded and served as Editor and principal writer of this publication for 25 years. He continues to occasionally contribute news and analysis articles under The Rowan Report’s new ownership. He also continues to work part-time as a Home Care recruiting and retention consultant. More information: RowanResources.com or Tim@RowanResources.com

©2024 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in Healthcare at Home: The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com

SNF Abuses Could be Selling Point for In-Home Care Providers

Clinical

by Tim Rowan | Apr 4, 2024 | Clinical, Editorial

by Tim Rowan, Editor Emeritus

For as long as I can remember, Home Health and Home Care owners and advocates, including their national and state associations, have struggled to develop concrete data to prove what we all know to be true: In-home care is a great deal for payers, both public and private. Underpaying our sector in a misguided attempt to reduce costs results in paying more in the long run. Buying more in-home care translates into lower overall cost.

This is one part of the story, and we continually search for the proof our sector so desperately needs. But there is another aspect to the Home Health, Home Care advantage that must not be overlooked as we focus on payer finances.

Patient care and safety

One need look no further than our post-acute care neighbor, Skilled Nursing Facilities, to understand how much better off elderly citizens are when in-home caregivers and clinicians enabled them to stay in their own homes and avoid institutionalized care. A new, peer-reviewed study titles “Profits Over Patients” was published in the online collective The Conversation. If unfamiliar, think of it as The Huffington Post for scholars and researchers.

In the exposé, investigators Sean Campbell and Charlene Harrington reveal that for-profit organizations have been infiltrated by Wall Street investors and other venture capitalists, seeking quick turnarounds and handsome profits. Founders and other SNF owners gladly accept generous offers to be acquired or partner with investors who immediately begin to impose cost-cutting measures and maximize profits. The probe, which paired an academic expert with an investigative reporter, discovered a number of startling findings:

“The investigation revealed an industry that places a premium on cost cutting and big profits, with low staffing and poor quality, often to the detriment of patient well-being. Operating under weak and poorly enforced regulations with financially insignificant penalties, the for-profit sector fosters an environment where corners are frequently cut, compromising the quality of care and endangering patient health.”

Campbell and Harrington also looked at the ineffectiveness of state inspectors, who have limited ability to impose meaningful fines for violations. One startling example in the report is that of a Louisville SNF. The care was found to be “abysmal” when Kentucky inspectors filed their survey report.

“Residents wandered the halls in a facility that can house up to 250 people, yelling at each other and stealing blankets. One resident beat a roommate with a stick, causing bruising and skin tears. Another was found in bed with a broken finger and a bloody forehead gash. That person was allowed to roam and enter the beds of other residents. In another ase, there was sexual touching in the dayroom between residents, according to the [surveyor’s] report.

“Meals were served from filthy meal carts on plastic foam trays, and residents struggled to cut their food with dull plastic cutlery. Broken tiles lined showers, and a mysterious black gunk marred the floors.

“Overall, there was a critical lack of training, lack of staff, and lack of supervision.”

The report said state inspectors found 29 deficiencies, including six that put residents in immediate jeopardy of serious harm and three where actual harm was found. The fine imposed was $319,000 — more than 29 times the average for a nursing home. Payments from Medicare and Medicaid were suspended. The investors and owners chalked the fine up to a normal cost of doing business and, five months later, inspectors found six additional deficiencies “of immediate jeopardy,” the highest level.

The parent company of the Kentucky SNF, Infinity Healthcare Management, owns 58 facilities across five states. Since 2021, Infinity has been hit with nearly $10 million in fines, more than 4.5 times the national average.

Cut staff, save money, hide money

The investigation revealed an industry that places a premium on cost cutting and big profits, with low staffing and poor quality, endangering patient health. “Meanwhile,” the authors assert, “owners make the facilities look less profitable by siphoning money from the homes through byzantine networks of interconnected corporation

s. Federal regulators have neglected the problem as each year likely billions of dollars are funneled out of nursing homes through related parties and into owners’ pockets.”

The report points out that problems of this magnitude are found far less often in small, single-location facilities and in national chains and franchises. The sweet sport for abuse seems to be in the mid-range, for-profit organizations that have been taken over by far-away investors. Sadly, 72 percent of the SNF’s in this category are for-profit. “While such chains account for about 39 percent of all facilities, they operate 11 of the 15 most-fined facilities.

Relevance

A frequent message at Home Healthcare conferences in recent years has been the renewed interest in our sector from big money investors. While quick profits and the enticement of early retirement might bring Home Health and Home Care owners to the negotiating table, this exposé may be a reason to take a breath and think it through. Most of you who nurtured your company from startup to attractive acquisition target did so as much out of compassion as entrepreneurship. Would you not wonder, from your perch on the sun deck of a cruise ship, whether your legacy is being dragged in the mud and your patients and employees reduced to a Wall Street cost column?

Read the entire report here.

Tim Rowan is a 30-year home care technology consultant who co-founded and served as Editor and principal writer of this publication for 25 years. He continues to occasionally contribute news and analysis articles under The Rowan Report’s new ownership. He also continues to work part-time as a Home Care recruiting and retention consultant. More information: RowanResources.com or Tim@RowanResources.com

©2024 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in Healthcare at Home: The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com

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

Could Jimmy Carter’s Hospice Care Lead to Covered Palliative Care Services?

Clinical

by Kristin Rowan | Feb 21, 2024 | Clinical, Editorial

By Kristin Rowan, Editor

The news this week has been filled with stories about former president Jimmy Carter, 99, who entered hospice care last year. His wife, Rosalynn Carter was in hospice care for only a few days before she passed away in November. Advocates and hospice providers are hoping that Carter’s length of care in hospice will help increase awareness of what hospice care really is.

Hospice care is a misunderstood service. Many people equate hospice care with dying. While it is true that patients are only eligible for hospice care if they have a life-ending illness with no hope of cure, hospice care involves a lot more than easing a patient through the end-of-life transition. Physical symptoms are eased with medicine and the patient’s emotional well-being is supported as well. Just as importantly, the family’s emotional needs are met through hospice care.

The Carter family’s high profile has shed some much needed light on hospice care in general. The vast difference in length of care between the former first lady (three days) and the former president (one year and counting) has also highlighted the degree to which hospice care can be administered.

The hope for many, in light of the public coverage of Carter’s hospice care, is a change in long-term care coverage to cover the gap between hospital care and hospice care. Medicare does not have a long-term care benefit, so patients either go without this needed care or pay for it out of pocket. Detractors argue that new taxes would have to be levied in order to fund this type of care, making the change politically difficult.

I would argue that long-term care benefits could be used to pay for step-down care instead of hospice care and would not need a separate budget. After all, isn’t that what palliative care aims to do? Home health care aids in recover and hospice care maintains quality of life during end-of-life care. Palliative care is the bridge that spans the two, when a patient is not going to recover, but isn’t ready or eligible for hospice care. Adding Medicare and Medicaid coverage for palliative would lower the overall cost of hospice care and add much-needed service for the patients that fall between the gap.

# # #

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

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

Should Insurance Companies Own Home Health Agencies?

Editorial

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

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

UnitedHealth Group Makes Bid to Buy Amedisys after Acquiring LHC Group

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

Optum Outbids Option Care Health

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

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

UnitedHealth Expanding Service Options

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

New Merger Faces Federal Scrutiny

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

Optum Remains Optimistic

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

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

Opinion

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

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

Oversight

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

Medicare Advantage

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

# # #

Kristin Rowan has been working at Healthcare at Home: The Rowan Report since 2008. She has a master’s degree in business administration and marketing and runs Girard Marketing Group, a multi-faceted boutique marketing firm specializing in event planning, sales, and marketing strategy. She has recently taken on the role of Editor of The Rowan Report and will add her voice to current Home Care topics as well as marketing tips for home care agencies. Connect with Kristin directly kristin@girardmarketinggroup.com or www.girardmarketinggroup.com

©2024 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in Healthcare at Home: The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com

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

Medicare Dollars Flow Freely to MA Plans

Editorial

by Tim Rowan | Aug 9, 2023 | Editorial

analysis by Tim Rowan, Editor

It is good to occasionally remind ourselves that 2023 is the year enrollment in Medicare Advantage reached a full half of Medicare beneficiaries. Originally conceived as a plan to control spending, MA does seem to be achieving that goal.

At what cost, however?

The Medicare trust fund pays insurance companies participating in the MA program a per-patient-per-month fee based on the company’s own declaration of each customer’s health and likely future needs. With those monthly payments, MA companies provide care as needed. Or at least they are supposed to.

Frequently, since the program began, whistleblowers have told the government that employees are rewarded for increasing a patient’s risk-adjustment, the clinical assessment that is supposed to be scored by a physician but is often instead scored through data mining. That practice involves employees searching through patient records, looking for signs of health conditions that would raise their assessment, and thus their value to the insurer. In other words, a class of crime that would earn an HHA a hefty fine if they did it with their OASIS assessments.

Evidence has been mounting lately that these insurance companies not only fudge the numbers to gather more than they should from Medicare, but they also provide as little care as they can get away with. Our industry is familiar with the penny-pinching MA companies practice when authorizing in-home care. The problem is larger than that.

String of Recent Accusations

The HHS Office of Inspector General issued a report revealing how Elevance, the company formerly known as Anthem, made $5.5 billion in profits in the first six months of this year, a 14.4% jump from the $4.8 billion in profits it made during the same period of 2022. The profits, OIG said, came mostly from denying care to Medicaid beneficiaries, care that their physicians had recommended.
The largest insurer, with 27 percent of the market, UnitedHealth’s investors were distraught in June when it appeared the company was spending too much on patient care. Their fears were calmed, however, when United reported revenue of $56.3 billion for 2Q 2023, compared to $45.1 billion in the same quarter of 2022.
Cigna is the target of a class action suit in California, in which it is accused of using an algorithm to deny care, overriding and sometimes ignoring physician recommendations.¹

Last October, the New York Times summarized the problem with a list of recent government findings and accusations:

“Kaiser Permanente called doctors in during lunch and after work and urged them to add additional illnesses to the medical records of patients they hadn’t seen in weeks. Doctors who found enough new diagnoses could earn bottles of champagne, or a bonus in their paycheck.

“Elevance Health paid more to doctors who said their patients were sicker. And executives at UnitedHealth Group, the country’s largest insurer, told their workers to mine old medical records for more illnesses — and when they couldn’t find enough, sent them back to try again.

“Each of the strategies — which were described by the Justice Department in lawsuits against the companies — led to diagnoses of serious diseases that might have never existed. But the diagnoses had a lucrative side effect: They let the insurers collect more money from the federal government’s Medicare Advantage program.”

Comparison to Home Health and Hospice

Naturally, these examples reach into the hundreds of billions because MA covers hospital and physician claims, but the comparison to our sector is nevertheless valid.

Since payments to HHAs were first attached to patient assessments a quarter century ago, clinicians have gotten better and better at the task. OASIS assessments are more accurate and thorough than they used to be. Professional coders are more adept at identifying and sequencing appropriate diagnosis codes. AI-assisted tools entering the fray promise an enhanced level of accuracy. (See our product review of the most promising of these tools.)

From the beginning, more accurate assessments have always meant a 10 to 15 percent increase in an agency’s episodic payment over less accurate OASIS scores. Wary of being accused of upcoding, nurses have always been unnecessarily cautious with their intake assessments.

Upcoding Accusations

CMS has always responded to increasing accuracy with accusations of upcoding, even though the Medicare trust fund more often benefits from the above described undercoding habit. Regulatory adaptations have enshrined the fear of upcoding into an assumption that it will happen, with payments slashed in advance just in case it does.

When errors in assessments and claims are discovered by CMS contractors through sampling, the overpayment amount found in the sample is extrapolated to an agency’s entire patient census. The result has at times crossed the line into seven figures, with a payback demand that occasionally cripples the HHA.

Compare this practice to the gift given to MA companies that we revealed in these pages last February: “Government Lets Health Plans That Ripped Off Medicare Keep the Money” In researching that story, we found that CMS typically postpones its duty to audit the risk adjustment figures that MA plans submit annually. After getting more than a decade behind, they decided to write off overpayments to MA plans prior to 2018 and start auditing from that year forward.

As an additional gift they said they would demand repayments only on the amounts turned up in their sample dataset, without extrapolating to each MA’s total patient population as they do with HHAs.

What can one conclude from this comparison? Possibly that CMS is very good at policing millions of dollars but gets overwhelmed and gives up with amounts in the billions.

Tim Rowan, Editor Emeritus 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

¹ https://sharylattkisson.com/2023/08/class-action-suit-filed-against-cigna-over-alleged-use-of-algorithm-to-review-reject-patient-claims/

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.