CMS Announces Multi-Pronged Effort to Strengthen Direct Care Workforce

Admin

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Mar 6, 2024 | Admin, CMS, Regulatory

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.,

CMS recently issued guidance about how to build and maintain worker registries, i.e., management platforms, that make qualified health workers easy to find so that more individuals who receive Medicaid-covered home and community-based services (HCBS) can receive care in settings of their choice. Worker registries are designed to answer these questions: Who is qualified to provide HCBS in each state and how can Medicaid recipients find them?

On February 27, 2024, CMS announced several new initiatives and Resources from the Administration for Community Living’s (ACL) Direct Care Workforce (DCW) Strategies Center to address the shortage of workers who provide direct care to elderly and disabled clients. New initiatives include several types of assistance that are intended to help states strengthen their systems for recruiting, retaining, and developing direct care workers; and a national hub to connect states, stakeholders, and communities to best practices and other resources related to the direct care workforce.

Specifically, DCW Intensive Technical Assistance will facilitate collaboration among state agencies and with stakeholders to improve recruitment, retention, training, and professional development of direct care workers. The DCW Strategies Center will provide up to two hundred fifty hours of individualized technical assistance on a variety of issues for up to six teams involving multi-agency state teams.

A coach will be assigned to each team and have access to subject matter experts to support them in addressing states’ unique needs. Support provided through this initiative will be coordinated by a consortium led by ADvancing States in partnership with the National Association of State Directors of Developmental Disability Services and the National Association of State Medicaid Directors.

The DCW Peer-Learning Collaborative will bring representatives of four to six states into working groups focused on a particular topic. The DCW Strategies Center will host monthly virtual meetings focused on group learning to facilitate information sharing on best practices, innovative strategies, and demonstrated models for growing the direct care workforce. In addition, each participating state will receive up to seventy hours of individual technical assistance on a topic or issue important to each state. Each participating state is expected to accomplish at least one policy or program-related milestone as a result of participation in this initiative.

CMS also announced the official launch of the DCW Strategies Center website at https://acl.gov/dcwcenter. This website is intended to serve as the national hub for resources about best practices, promising strategies, upcoming events, webinars, and technical assistance opportunities to strengthen and expand local direct care workforces.

CMS acknowledges in the announcement that low wages, lack of benefits, limited opportunities for career growth, and other factors have resulted in a continuing shortage of critical workers. The shortage reached crisis levels, says CMS, during the COVID-19 pandemic and currently continues, with more than three-fourths of service providers that decline new clients and more than half of providers cutting services.

According to CMS, the problem described above must be addressed in order to help ensure that people who need assistance have options other than moving to a nursing home or other institutional setting.

Now is the time for providers of private duty or home care services and the associations that represent them to work intensively with state programs, especially Medicaid Programs, to maximize available assistance as described above.

No portion of this material may be reproduced in any form without the advance written permission of the author.

Cyberattack Interrupts Pharmacy Operations

Admin

by Kristin Rowan | Mar 6, 2024 | Admin, CMS, Regulatory, Vendor Watch

By Kristin Rowan, Editor

**March 6, 2024 Update** As the previously reported cyberattack on Change Healthcare continues, the US Department of Health and Human Services issued a statement on March 5, 2024 outlining immediate steps CMS is taking to assist providers. CMS is strongly encouraging Medicaid and CHIP plans to waive or relax prior authorization requirements. They’ve also urged providers to offer advance funding to providers.

According to feedback from NAHC members, the impact of this cyberattack on home health and hospice providers has remained minimal. However, for those experiencing delays in claims processing and payments, some providers are unable to meet payroll or pay for patient care items.

**February 29, 2024 UPDATE** We’ve just been contacted by a home care agency out of Charlotte, NC who told us, “For our home care agency we can’t submit claims for VA clients (ChangeHealthcare [sic] has been totally taken off line), and we aren’t having remittance records from Optum feed through ChangeHealthcare [sic] to Wellsky.”

February 28, 2024

The news broke last week that another cyberattack is impacting healthcare. This time, it is Change Healthcare, a division of UnitedHealth Group, that processes insurance claims and pharmacy requests for more than 340,000 physicians and 60,000 pharmacies. In response to this attack, UnitedHealth Group separated and isolated the effected systems, causing delays in claim payments and backlog pharmacy orders.

The attack was first reported on February 21, 2024 and the outage is still ongoing. Former FBI cyber official and current adviser for cybersecurity and risk at the American Hospital Association warns that the longer this outage persists, the worse it will get and it will start to impact patient care. UnitedHealth Group claims that fewer than 100 pharmacy orders and claims have been interrupted across its insurance and pharmacy plans. But, at least on health insurer is claiming a 40% drop in claims since the system went down.

Source of the Attack

Initially, UnitedHealth Group blamed an unknown “nation state” for the cyberattack. The FBI found no evidence of this and has since named Blackcat ransomware gang culpable in the attack. Blackcat ransomware gang has attacked numerous hospitals and the FBI seized their website and servers in December, 2023. Blackcat accessed the Change Healthcare system through vulnerabilities in the ConnectWise ScreenConnect remote desktop and access software.

Implications

The American Hospital Association has urged all healthcare organizations that work with Optum, Change Healthcare, and UnitedHealth Group to weigh the risk of the connection to Change Healthcare against the possible clinical and business disruptions cased by severing that connection.

Health-ISAC anticipates additional cyberattack victims in the coming days. ConnectWise has alerted its users to the remote code execution flaw and has urged all users to update immediately to prevent attacks.

Point of View

This is not the only story this week about UnitedHealth Group. Backlogged pharmacy orders, healthcare claims, and payments, add further credence to the Antitrust probe filed this week by the Justice Department, investigating UnitedHealth and Optum. Should one healthcare group have this much influence over insurance, physicians, pharmacies, and home care?

# # #

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

Sources:

Fox. February 22, 2024. Change Healthcare Experiencing a Cyberattack. Retrieved from: https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/change-healthcare-experiencing-cyberattack

Fox. February 27, 2024. Change Healthcare Cyberattack Still Impacting Pharmacies, as H-ISAC Issues Alert. Retrieved from: https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/change-healthcare-cyberattack-still-impacting-pharmacies-h-isac-issues-alert

Pashankar & Tozzi. February 28, 2024. Change Healthcare Cyberattack is Still Disrupting Pharmacies, Other Providers. Retrieved from: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/change-healthcare-cyberattack-still-disrupting-211913516.html

Satter & Bing. February 26, 2024. US Pharmacy Outage Triggered by ‘Blackcat’ Ransomware at UnitedHealth unit, Sources Say. Retrieved from: https://www.reuters.com/technology/cybersecurity/cyber-security-outage-change-healthcare-continues-sixth-straight-day-2024-02-26/

Family Caregiver Tax Credit Bill

CMS

by Kristin Rowan | Feb 14, 2024 | CMS, Regulatory

By Kristin Rowan, Editor

Republican and Democratic leaders joined forces to introduce the Credit for Caring Act (S. 3702, H.R. 7165) in support of family caregivers across the country. Family caregivers are those who are caring for a family member but are not nurses or employees of any home care agency. They are not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid payments, nor is there an employer paying them for the endless hours of support they provide. Family caregivers are often under a lot of emotional and financial stress. Some have full-time jobs in addition to the care provide. Others are caring for more than one family member, sometimes in different homes.

The Credit for Caring Act, a bipartisan effort to recognize the personal cost to family caregivers with a $5,000 federal tax credit for eligible working family caregivers. As is generally the case with government intercession, the “eligible” part will exclude many family caregivers. From Congress.gov:

“This bill allows an eligible caregiver a tax credit of up to $5,000 for 30% of the cost of long-term care expenses that exceed $2,000 in a taxable year. The bill defines eligible caregiver as an individual who has earned income for the taxable year in excess of $7,500 and pays or incurs expenses for providing care to a spouse or other dependent relative with long-term care needs.”

The bill also includes the caveat that eligible caregivers must incur qualified expenses, limited to goods, services, and supports. The language excludes the time and energy a family caregiver expends, essentially limiting the tax credit to repayment of money paid out of pocket for care that should have been covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or private health insurance, but isn’t. The cost of a direct care giver is included in eligible expenses, but doesn’t consider the family caregiver to be one.

As I break down the math in my head, I come up with this:

A tax credit of $5,000 is received if the caregiver has spent $16,600 in the previous year (5,000/.3). This leaves a total out of pocket amount of $11,100. Supportive home care services average $30/hour. $16,660 is equivalent to 555 hours of non-medical home care. That’s roughly 10 hours per week or 1-1/2 hours per day. This doesn’t include the costs for DME, doctor visits, lost wages from time off work, medication, or any of the other eligible expenses included in the bill.

This is getting us one step closer to paying for supportive in-home care and palliative care services, but I don’t think it goes far enough. An under-served, under-paid population who makes $7,500 per year cannot afford $16,000 in out-of-pocket expenses in order to qualify for the maximum tax credit. Once this bill is (hopefully) passed, we should move on to including additional services in the Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement model. The Rowan Report joins NAHC in its support of the Credit for Caring Act and urges you to reach out to your representatives to urge them to support the passing of the bill.

# # #

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

Read the article and statement from NAHC here

Read the full text of the bills: H.R. 3321 and S. 3702

Find your Senator here

Find your Representative here

NAHC Fights for Home Health on Capitol Hill

Admin

by Kristin Rowan | Jan 31, 2024 | Admin, CMS, Regulatory

By Kristin Rowan, Editor

The National Association for Home Care and Hospice joined other advocacy groups this month on Capitol Hill to fight against the looming pay cuts from CMS. Some members of Congress joined the fight for “common sense policies” to expand access to care in the home for Americans.

Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE-3), who spoke at the event, decried moves against home health, saying “there are cuts looming that are not based on reality” and “we want to make sure reimbursement policies are reflective of the actual realities.” Smith is also the representative who introduce the “Homecare for Seniors Act,” H.R. 1795, which would allow the use of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to be used for home care.

Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL-7) has a personal connection to home care and spoke about how her mother cared for her father through a series of strokes he suffered. She expressed strong opinions about payment reductions that could see home health lose as much as $20 billion dollars over the next ten years. Sewell called the idea “frightening” and said, “I am a big fan of making sure that my constituents have access to quality, affordable health care.”

The Medicare program has admitted that home health is not just a bringing of great care and not just a more cost effective way to provide care, but is a service that provides dynamic value. Care in the home has decreased overall costs by $3.2 billion dollars just in the small segment of value-based payment model test cases. Patients who receive care in the home are re-admitted to the hospital 37% less frequently than those who do not and are 43% less likely to die than patients who do not receive care at home. Still, CMS is looking at additional pay cuts which bring the total payment reduction down 13.72% since 2019. The costs of everything else have increased in that time. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the average cost of living has increased 22% since 2019. NAHC President Bill Dombi said, “Where we’re headed in 2024 is that half of all home health agencies will be operating in the red with the cuts facing them in the Medicare program. It’s not a recipe for continued access to care.”

Dombi, along with many others, is predicting that 50 percent of agencies will be operating in the red after the next round of payment reductions and that without a reversal of these pay cuts we could see the end of care at home altogether with a collapse of the home health payment system.

The advocacy event on Capitol Hill helped raise awareness of the plight of care at home among some policymakers, but more help and advocacy is needed. Please, take a few minutes to click the link below and tell your members of Congress to support the Preserving Access to Home Health Act of 2023.

# # #

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

Please GO HERE to tell your members of Congress to support the Preserving Access to Home Health Act of 2023

Call to Action: Advocacy Is Everyone’s Responsibility

CMS

by Tim Rowan | Jan 24, 2024 | CMS, Regulatory

by Tim Rowan, Editor Emeritus

T

he battle for stable Home Health reimbursement rates continues full speed ahead on Capitol Hill, but the advocacy organizations engaged on the front lines of that battle are losing ground. The Partnership for Quality Home Healthcare and the National Association for Home Care and Hospice have deployed weapons from educating Congressional staffers to suing CMS. Those traditional methods appear to be insufficient, as the specter of draconian rate cuts casts a larger and larger shadow.

Missing from the conflict is the only effective weapon, flooding lawmakers with messages from their constituents.

According to Joanne Cunningham, CEO of the Partnership, the time is now to bring that weapon to the front. She told over 600 attendees at this week’s Home Care 100 event in Scottsdale that she and Bill Dombi have done everything they can up to now, adding that the only way to stop $3.5 to $5 billion in Medicare cuts is for every person of voting age whose livelihood depends on Home Health care to call or write their House Member and Senators.

CMS Payment rate cuts<br />
Joanne Cunningham

STEP ONE: A "Must-Pass" Bill

“Preserving Access to Home Health Act of 2023,” is a pair of bi-partisan bills introduced into the House and Senate in the summer of 2023. (S.2137/H.R. 5159) They would prevent CMS from making new cuts to the PDGM payment system, both now and in the future, by blocking annual “recalculations” that traditionally use flawed formulae.

The bills would require MedPAC to perform more comprehensive calculations before it makes recommendations to Congress. Currently, the Commission only considers revenue and profit margins from traditional Medicare. They determine that Home Health margins are too high without looking at the small-to-negative margins providers accrue from Medicare Advantage, Medicaid, the VA, and private insurance. Medicare profit margins make it possible for HHAs to care for patients with stingier payers. Reducing those margins too far, which MedPAC recommends every year, would remove access to care for millions of beneficiaries.

STEP TWO: Educating Congress

Ms. Cunningham emphasized that elected officials, as well as bureaucrats who write the regulations to implement the “will of Congress,” have yet to understand the impact in-home care has on overall healthcare spending and access to care. “We have to get bureaucrats to look at our data,” she said. “We know we save the trust fund more than we take from it, and we know that we are turning patients away because we cannot pay enough to attract clinicians in sufficient numbers. We have to educate them all.” She offered a few concrete suggestions.

What Works Best

- Data, data, data. The most effective policy argument starts with independent analysis from outside the industry.
- Tell stories. Elected officials and their staffers respond to real-life experiences of people within their districts and states. A group from Inhabit Health, for example, sat Congressional staffers down and told them about individual patients who had been kept out of hospitals and EDs, about great care they had received. They added summaries of their typical patients as well.
- Listen. Staffers will challenge your assertions and ask hard questions. They will help you identify your ‘Achilles Heels.’ See this as helpful preparation for meeting the Member or Senator.
- See them at home. Cunningham underscored the importance of making appointments and meeting with House members and Senators away from DC, for two reasons.
  - “A lot of people approach a Member on the way out of a church they both attend. What they don’t realize is that they are one of ten who will do the same thing between the church door and his car, from ten different industries. You just become ‘part of the clutter’ and are quickly forgotten.”
  - Back home advocacy is the most important thing you can do; it is even better than going to DC. Their main interest is re-election and they respond to messages from constituents. The purpose of advocacy is to cut through the noise. At home, you can say, “Hey, I know you; you’re my neighbor; listen to me!”
- Repetition is key. When you write a letter, it goes on a list. Staffers count up how many constituents have written about each issue. The best strategy is to make them feel pressure from back home. Marshall all the political pressure you can, but fill it with data.

Case in Point

Ms. Cunningham told about leading a group of Home Health providers from Oregon to meet with Senator Ron Wyden in his home office. To make their case for Home Health reimbursement support, they showed him their books, which proved that MedPAC is wrong about Home Health profit margins. They changed his mind. She said that meeting was so powerful and successful, it has become a model for working with other states.

STEP THREE: Expose Medicare Advantage

The Partnership’s goal is to ensure alignment of the MA home health benefit with traditional Medicare – as all Medicare beneficiaries are all entitled to the same home health benefit, regardless of the payor.

“MedPAC met during the first week of January to discuss Medicare Advantage. The meeting, which included a focus on the methodology of payments, was contentious at times.” Cunningham said. “In its January 12 report to Congress, The Medicare Advantage Program: Status Report, MedPAC forecast that CMS will overpay MA plans as much as $88 billion in 2024, based on prior year behavior.”

Higher coding organizations have a competitive advantage because they receive larger payments for enrolling the same beneficiaries as other organizations, and they can offer more extra benefits and attract new enrollees simply because of their coding efforts

Andrew Johnson, PhD

Principal Policy Analyst, MedPAC

MA’s focus on extras such as Silver Sneakers, vision care, and basic dental care, along with low or zero premiums added to the Medicare Part B premium that all beneficiaries pay, are what MA plans emphasize in their annual barrage of TV commercials. Never mentioned on TV or in direct mail brochures are two practices that impact many times more dollars than gym memberships and low premiums. The undeserved $88 billion mentioned in the MedPAC report comes from exaggerating initial assessments of plan enrollees. Payments from Medicare to a plan hinge on patient acuity. When improperly padded, acuity robs the trust fund and pads insurance company profits.

The second downplayed practice is on the care side of the equation. The largest MA plans have often been found to deny procedures that traditional Medicare standards would have covered. When they do pay for care, especially Home Healthcare, they pay rates below traditional Medicare rates, often lower than provider costs. Cunningham concluded her comments with a description of the Partnership’s efforts to bring pressure from MedPAC and the HHS OIG to force MA plans to comply with regulatory requirements. “We are all of one mind regarding MA. I think we are going to see practices change.”

About PQHH

The Partnership for Quality Home Healthcare was established in 2010 to work in partnership with government officials to ensure access to quality home healthcare services for all Americans. Representing community- and hospital-based home healthcare agencies nationwide, the Partnership is dedicated to developing innovative reforms to improve the program integrity, quality, and efficiency of home healthcare for our nation’s seniors.
pqhh.org

# # #

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

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

©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

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.

# # #

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

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

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

CMS 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.

# # #

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 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.