Medicare Advantage Predatory Marketing

CMS

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 ReformThe 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 ReformWe 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, Editor
Kristin Rowan, Editor

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

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

Cat on a Hot Tin…Keyboard?

Admin

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

HIPAA Violation

HIPAA violation: Trent James Russell was convicted in federal Court on charges of obtaining another person’s health care information in violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Russell was employed by an organ transplant organization. As a transplant coordinator, he had access to electronic medical records at George Washington University Hospital in Washington, DC.

Justice Ginberg

In January of 2019, Russell accessed the medical records of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg even though Justice Ginsburg had not been referred as a possible organ donor. He took a screenshot of the records and then posted them on a message board called “4chan.” Ginsberg’s records quickly appeared on Twitter and YouTube, including her name and the exact dates and times when she received radiology, oncology, and surgical treatments at the Hospital between 2014 and 2018.

Hospital officials traced the search of Ginsburg’s records to one of Russell’s home computers. As soon as Russell was identified as a suspect, his access was denied by the Hospital. His request to have access restored was also denied. 

Tall Tales RBG

The Cat Made me Violate HIPAA Laws

Russell initially told federal agents that his “cats had run across his keyboard.” He later characterized this statement as a “nervous joke.” Russell said that he had no idea how his computer searched terms that produced the Justice’s records and that “everyone makes typos.”

Online users who viewed Ginsberg’s records promoted various antisemitic conspiracy theories. One theory was that Ginsburg had died in late 2018 and that democrats were hiding her death in order to deny President Trump an opportunity to appoint her replacement. A search of Russell’s computer also revealed a search for the term “dirty jew.”

An FBI agent said that she found an image on Russell’s hard drive that mimicked a poster for the film “Weekend at Bernie’s.” The caption said “Weekend at Ginsburg’s” and showed leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives propping Ginsburg up from both sides in a morbid play on how the movie characters covered up Bernie’s death so that they could use his beach house.

Ignorance of HIPAA Law is not a Defense

But, he didn’t even have that. The Chief Executive Officer of the transplant organization at the time the access occurred testified that coordinators like Russell had “no business being inside the chart” of patients who had not been referred to the organization. The CEO said that Russell was certainly aware of this prohibition because of numerous agreements he signed with his employer and the extensive training he received.

Lessons Learned

There are several important takeaways from this case. First, it is important to note that Russell had extensive training about the requirements of the HIPAA Privacy Rule. He also agreed to comply with these requirements. The temptation is great, but employees must be reminded not to succumb. In addition, practitioners should take note of the fact that Russell was criminally prosecuted. Since he was convicted, he faces up to twenty-two years in prison and fines in the tens of thousands of dollars. Serious business!

# # #

Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.
Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Elizabeth Hogue is an attorney in private practice with extensive experience in health care. She represents clients across the U.S., including professional associations, managed care providers, hospitals, long-term care facilities, home health agencies, durable medical equipment companies, and hospices.

©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

©2024 Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. All rights reserved.

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

NAHC NHPCO Town Hall

Advocacy

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

The Alliance

On June 18, 2024, the National Association for Home Care & Hospice (NAHC) and the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (NHPCO) announced they had met in Washington D.C. to formally sign an affiliation agreement between the two organizations. After 18 months of meetings, conversations, and compromises, the two groups announced their “Alliance” would be the leading authority of the care at home community.

Bill Dombi Ken Albert Town Hall Alliance

During the opening keynote address at the NAHC Financial Management Conference in July, Bill Dombi, President of NAHC and interim President of The Alliance, and Kenneth Albert, Chair of the Transition Board of Directors overseeing the merger, spoke about the progress they have made.

Albert spoke of the thoughtful consideration the board and members of both organizations have put into this change. They are focusing on the biggest concerns of home health and hospice providers both now and in the future. The unification will create one voice as they advocate for home health and hospice in Washington D.C.

New Leadership

Albert and Dombi shared the stage at the NAHC Financial Management Conference about the ongoing search for a CEO of the new organization. According to Albert, there were some candidates who were very excited about the role, but whom the board did not feel there was a great fit. Contrarily, there were candidates the board eagerly wanted to move forward with who declined to continue the process. According to Dombi, the search has gone outside care at home as they look for the right fit from qualified candidates from multiple industries. Both agreed that they felt the search was close to over and they should have an announcement about the new CEO, and possibly the new name, sometime in August of this year.

New Resources

The conjoined organization promises more than just new leadership. Currently under construction is a new logo and website to encompass both groups. Dombi alluded to new resources for providers, training for quality care, and other tools for the industry. While the organization’s name and leadership are forthcoming, the website is projected to launch sometime in the spring of 2025. 

Operating as One

Since the announcement of the merger last year, and even before the deal was inked, NAHC and NHPCO have already been integrating. Dombi told The Rowan Report in a previous interview that the two groups have already been lobbying together, working on policy together, and integrating the management of the two associations. 

The Last NHPCO Conference and the First Alliance Conference

September, 2024 marks the final standalone event for the NHPCO. The 2024 NHPCO Annual Leadership Conference runs September 16-18, with a pre-conference September 14-15 in Denver, CO. The conference will have on-demand access until December 31, 2024. NAHC members will receive member rates to the NHPCO conference. 

The “2024 Home Care and Hospice Conference and Expo” will be the last conference held solely by NAHC, but we are seeing quite a few hospice companies on the exhibitor list and expect this to be a sneak peek at future conferences. The national conference is scheduled for October 20-24, 2024 in Tampa, Florida. This will also mark the final conference for Bill Dombi as President. Dombi announced earlier this year that he will retire at the end of 2024.

NAHC NHPCO Alliance Town Hall
NAHC NHPCO Alliance Town Hall

Town Hall

With quite a few remaining unanswered questions about the future of the two organizations, NAHC and NHPCO hosted a virtual Town Hall on July 31, 2024. With more than 250 association members from both groups in attendance, Bill Dombi and Ben Marcantonio, interim-CEO for NHPCO, along with Kenneth Albert and Melinda Gruber, Vice Chair of the Transition Board of Directors.

Naming "The Alliance"

Albert mentioned that there has been some success using the term Alliance, but it is not a long term solution. The finalization of the name is awaiting some trademark issues to be ironed out and that announcement, which they had hoped to be able to make in July, is coming soon.

CEO Search Update

Gruber thanked the search committee and recruiting firm for their work on the CEO search. Gruber reiterated that they are nearing the final selection phase and after board approval, an announcement will be made. 

Website

Ben Marcantonio, current interim CEO of NHPCO and future CIO of The Alliance confirmed that the new website will allow access to both legacy websites (the current NAHC and NHPCO websites). The new website will have a preliminary version this fall with a fully completed version next spring.

Members of either organization will have full access to the preliminary version of the website this fall. Currently, members can only access information from their own organization, but Marcantonio stressed that if there is information you need, they can help you access it.

Integration

There are eleven committees working together to integrate the two associations. advocacy, programs, education, and HR are a few of these workgroups that each have two to three high priority goals that will most effectively bring about the integration of the two groups. Work plans are now in place to create significant integration by the end of the calendar year. 

Policy and Advocacy

Bill Dombi presented an updated on the joint policy and advocacy issues The Alliance is undertaking. “What stands out for the immediate term has been how the resources have been employed of the two legacy organizations under the banner of The Alliance, focusing on hospice and palliative care,” Dombi said, “In a matter of weeks we saw significant regulatory and legislative action taking place.”

Hospice

The Hospice Final Rule 2025 has undergone an intense review and indepth analysis by members of both teams. The rule will have “tremendous impact” under the Medicare hospice program.

According to Dombi, the two organizations have come together to jointly fund a research project for the Special Focus Program to understand the impact and targeting. Dombi is hopeful that U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer’s (D-OR) discussion draft will serve as a stepping stone for Hospice reform.

Home Health

The ongoing battle in Congress against CMS is gaining momentum. Dombi said there is a “tremendous amount of support” in Congress to role back the authority of CMS to institute rate changes and rate cuts under the Patient Driven Groupings Model (PDGM). “We have gained a seat at the table, which really helps,” Dombi said. We are continuing with litigation challenging Medicare’s validity of the regulation which has set all these rate cuts in motion.

Medicaid Home and Community-Based Services

The Final Rule modified in a positive way the 80/20 requirement. “We agree with the intentions of improving the status of direct care workers who positively impact so many lives. But in the absence of additional funding, it’s very very difficult to support this rule,” Dombi said. The modification stepped back from the more “draconian” interpretation, but The Alliance is not yet satisfied with the result. There is talk of a joint lawsuit challenging the validity of that rule.

Private Duty

The Private Duty Home Care world, one of the less regulated in the industry, is gaining a lot of attention from Fair Labor Standards as well as Non-Compete Laws. There is currently a joining of forces around solutions that will help Private Duty in the workforce arena, more specifically the Credit for Caring Act, which is gaining some traction, and would offer some financial support for family members who are paying for home care services directly.

The Alliance Needs You

Bill Dombi’s final statement in the Town Hall meeting centered on advocacy. He called for everyone who was in attendance and every member of both legacy organizations to join the fight. Everyone needs to part of that team of advocacy.

Final Thoughts

There is much more news to come out of these to associations as we near the end of 2024, and still more through the first quarter of 2025. The Rowan Report expects additional announcements to be made at both the NHPCO and NAHC annual conferences and we will be there to update everyone on the progress and statements coming out of those two meetings. 

# # #

Kristin Rowan, Editor
Kristin Rowan, Editor

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

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

2025 Hospice Final Rule

CMS

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

2025 Hospice Final Rule Update

On July 30, 2024, CMS issued its final rule for the 2025 Hospice Final Rule Update (CMS-1810-F), with updates to HQRP and HOPE. The rule also finalizes a proposal to change the statistical area delineations. This will impact the hospice wage index. The rule includes clarifications on the hospice election statement and notice of election as well as clarifying language around hospice admission and certification of terminal illness.

Wage Decrease for Some Hospices Assigned to a New Area

The change in area delineations will have a negative impact on some hospices. They will see a decrease in payments based on their new area. However, CMS emphasizes that, regardless of the area change, the maximum change is a 5% decrease from the 2024 wage index, as there is a 5% cap on any decrease to the wage index. 

2025 Hospice Final Rule Routine Annual Rate Setting Changes

Just one month after proposing additional deduction to the home health payment rate, the 2025 hospice final rule increases the base rate by 2.9%. This is an aggregate of a 3.4% inpatient hospital increase and a 0.5% productivity decrease. The quality data reporting requirement remains. Hospices that do not submit quality data would still see a 4% decrease in payment rates, yielding an aggregate 1.1% decrease. The payment update also includes an aggregate cap of $34,465.34 per individual per year.

Hospice Quality Reporting Program (HQRP)

The new rule includes two new process measures to HQRP:

    • Timely Follow-up for Pain Impact
    • Timely Follow-up for Non-Pain Symptom Impact 

These two measures are expected to begin in 2028 and address hopsice care delivery documentation on whether a follow-up visit occurred with 48 hours of the first assessment. The measures include visits where there was an impact of moderate to severe symptoms, both with and without pain.

Adoption and Implementation of HOPE

Hospice Outcomes and Patient Evaluation (HOPE) will replace the current Hospice Item Set (HIS) structure. The gradual roll-out will begin in FY 2025 and will collect data at different time points throughout a hospice stay. In contrast, HIS only collected data at admission and discharge.

New or expanded categories of HOPE relative to HIS include:

Hospice Payment Rule 2025

Changes to CAHPS Survey

CMS conducted an experiment in 2021 surrounding the Hospice CAHPS Survey. Based on those results, the final rule will implement these change to the survey:

    • The addition of a web-mail mode (email invitation to a web survey, with mail follow-up to non-responders).
    • A shortened and simplified survey.
    • Modifications to survey administration protocols to include a pre-notification letter and extension of the field period from 42 to 49 days.
    • The addition of a new, two-item Care Preferences measure.
    • Revisions to the existing Hospice Team Communication measure and the existing Getting Hospice Care Training measure.
    • The removal of three nursing home items and additional survey items impacted by other proposed changes in this rule.

Hospice Special Focus Program (SFP)

The SFP allows CMS to monitor those hospices that are identified as poor performers based on quality indicators from the CAHPS surveys. Additional oversight from CMS will “enable continuous improvement” for those hospices identified. The four measures used to determine poor performance are Help for Pain and Symptoms, Getting Timely Help, Willingness to Recommend this Hospice, and Overall Rating of this Hospice.

According to CMS, the final rule includes changes to the Overall Rating of this Hospice measure. CMS states that these changes are not substantive and will not impact the SFP algorithm. “CMS adjusts measure scores for mode of survey administrations, so the introduction of a new mode should not impact measure scores.” 

NAHC previously submitted comments to CMS stating that some aspects of the Hospice Special Focus Program are flawed and need to be adjusted for accuracy and fairness. NAHC/NHPCO has created a research project to understand the impact and validity of the Hospice Special Focus Program.

2025 Hospice Final Rule Conditions of Participation and Payment Requirements

There are language discrepancies in existing hospice requirements for medical director and physician designee, physician member, and payment requirements for the certification of the terminal illness and admission to hospice care. Therefore, CMS is making technical changes to the CoPs by adding the physician mmever of the hospice IDG as someone who can review technical information and provide certification of life expectancy. 

# # #

Kristin Rowan, Editor
Kristin Rowan, Editor

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

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

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

CMS

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

Past Present Future Medicare Advantage

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.”
People voting

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, 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

Federal Regulations for Adult Protective Services

Regulatory

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Dept of Health & Human Services Final Rule

On May 7, 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a final rule establishing the first federal regulations for Adult Protective Services (APS). The regulations took effect on June 7, 2024. The entire rule is at https://acl.gov/apsrule.

One goal of the new regulations is to promote high quality APS that better meet the needs of adults who experience or are at risk of maltreatment and self-neglect. Another goal is to improve consistency in services among the states. 

APS services have historically been funded by state and local governments. There has been wide variation in APS services and practices between and even within states. New regulations, along with recent funding from HHS to state APS programs, now make it possible to improve consistency.

Adult Protective Services

The APS final rule:

    • Establishes a set of national minimum standards for the operation of APS programs that all state APS systems meet
    • Requires APS systems to ensure that planning and delivery of all services respect the fundamental right of adults to make their own life choices and that services are driven by the person receiving them
    • Establishes stronger protections for clients subject to, or at risk of, guardianship. Specifically, APS must consider guardianship only when there are not alternatives.
    • Requires responses within 24 hours of screening cases that are life-threatening or likely to cause irreparable harm or significant loss of income, assets, or resources
    • Requires APS to provide at least two ways, at least one of which must be online, to report maltreatment or self-neglect 24 hours per day, seven days per week
    • Requires robust conflict of interest policies to support ethical APS practice
    • Establishes definitions for key APS terms to improve information sharing, data collection, and program standardization
    • Promotes coordination and collaboration with state Medicaid agencies, long-term care ombudsmen, tribal APS, law enforcement, and other partners.

The Need for Adult Protective Services

Adult Protective Services

HHS points out that at least one in ten older adults who live in communities experience some form of maltreatment each year.

All providers have been involved in situations in which adult protective services are needed. Case managers/discharge planners in hospitals and long-term care facilities are especially likely to encounter and to be expected to assist with situations involving APS.

Providers of services to patients in their homes; including home health agencies, hospices, home medical equipment (HME) companies, and home care or private duty companies; are on the “front lines” with regard to identifying situations in which APS is needed. At least anecdotally, however, providers have received very little assistance and support from APS in situations of abuse and neglect.

Hopefully, providers can look forward to greater assistance in view of enhanced funding and standards.

# # #

Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.
Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Elizabeth Hogue is an attorney in private practice with extensive experience in health care. She represents clients across the U.S., including professional associations, managed care providers, hospitals, long-term care facilities, home health agencies, durable medical equipment companies, and hospices.

©2024 Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. All rights reserved.

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

BREAKING NEWS: Warren, Cassidy React to Supreme Court Ruling

CMS

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

The Background

Senators Warren and Cassidy react to the landmark decision by the Supreme Court in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. That decision effectively overturned the Chevron Doctrine, which gave deference to federal agency decisions in interpreting ambiguous statutes. Eliminating the Chevron Deference puts more responsibility on federal agencies to show reason behind their interpretations. Likewise, it requires Congress to be less ambiguous in its wording of statutes. This decision would impact CMS’s ability to create their own definitions of terms when calculating reimbursement rates, implementing rules.

Senator Elizabeth Warren Reacts

Warren Chevron Bill

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

Less than one month after the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case that overturned Chevron Deference, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) introduced a bill in the Senate that would override the Supreme Court’s decision and establish Chevron Deference as law.

“Giant corporations are using far-right, unelected judges to hijack our government and undermine the will of Congress,” Warren said. According to Warren, the pending legislation, “The Stop Corporate Capture Act”, will stop corporate interest groups from using their own interpretations of statutes over the judgment of Congress or expert agencies.

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) called the Supreme Court decision “an egregious power grab from the US Supreme Court.”

Warren asserts that the overturning of Chevron Deference would put more power in the hands of industry-backed lobbyists who already have more negotiating power than the general public. This assertion is contrary to the majority opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote, “Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.”

Increasing Congressional Authority

In addition to making Chevron Deference law, the Stop Corporate Capture Act would also:

Modernize and Reform the Regulatory Process

    • Streamline the White House’s review period for regulations, creating a 120-day time limit for review.
    • Authorize agencies to reinstate rules that are rescinded by Congress through the Congressional Review Act.
    • Reform agencies’ cost-benefit analysis to emphasize public benefits of a rule, including non-quantifiable benefits like promoting human dignity, securing child safety, and preventing discrimination.

Empower and Expand Public Participation in Rulemaking

    • Create an Office of the Public Advocate to help members of the public participate more effectively in regulatory proceedings.
    • Strengthen agency procedures for notifying the public about pending rulemakings.
    • Provide the public with greater authority to hold agencies accountable for unreasonable delays in completing rules. 
    • Require agencies to respond to citizen petitions for rulemaking that contain 100,000 or more signatures.

Increase Transparency and Protect Independent Expertise in Rulemaking

    • Require all rulemaking participants to disclose industry-funded research or other related conflicts of interest.
    • Require any submitted scientific or other technical research that raises a specified corporate conflict of interest be made available for independent public review. 
    • Bring transparency to the White House regulatory review process by requiring disclosure of changes to draft rules during that process and the source of those changes.
    • Require agency officials to provide justification when the regulatory review process ends with a rule being withdrawn.  
    • Establish financial penalties for corporate special interests that knowingly submit false information during the rulemaking process. 

Senator Bill Cassidy Responds

At the same time that Warren introduced her bill overriding Loper v. Raimondo, Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) introduced the “Upholding Standards of Accountability (USA) Act of 2024.” Cassidy’s bill takes the removal of the Chevron Deference further than simply overturning the previous ruling. According to the description, the USA Act imposes additional accountability in agency rulemaking. 

Senator Cassidy is the ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee. He stated, “For decades, the executive branch has exploited Chevron deference to increase its power beyond what Congress intended, all while skirting congressional oversight. Now, with Chevron deference overturned, Congress must work to rein in the executive branch and hold it accountable to the people and their elected representatives.”

Cassidy Chevron Bill

Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA)

Decreasing Agency Authority

The direct impact of the Supreme Court decision is that federal agencies do not get preferential treatment when interpreting a statute. Cassidy’s bill requires the head of any federal agency signing a major rule to testify before the committee of jurisdiction within 30 days of the rule’s publication.

Additionally, the bill would:

    • Require each person nominated to a Senate-confirmed position to testify before the committee of jurisdiction prior to Senate confirmation; 
    • Improve cost-benefit analyses by requiring federal agencies to conduct retrospective reviews of such analyses for major rulemakings within five years of each rule’s effective date; 
    • Clarify that federal agencies are permitted to communicate with Congress at all times regarding proposed rules; and  
    • Require timely, substantive responses to congressional oversight from federal agencies. 

Cassidy Challenges Existing Rules

Immediately after the Loper v Raimondo decision, Sen. Cassidy sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona asserting that the Education Department has established rules outside of the authority given to it by Congress. He specifically alluded to the new Title IX rule. Cassidy asked Cardona, “How will the department change its current practice to enforce the laws as Congress writes them, and not to improperly legislate via agency action?”

Given Cassidy’s position in the Senate HELP Committee and his previous statements on medical debt, the multitude of bills he introduced on transparency, accountability, and decreasing authority, this is likely not Cassidy’s last attempt to challenge agency rules.

Likely Outcomes

Senator Warren's Bill

There are ten co-sponsors of Warren’s bill and a long list of endorsing organizations. Despite that, experts say the bill has only a slim chance of passing in an election year in the Senate, where Democrats currently have a narrow majority control. The bill is even less likely to pass in the Republican controlled House of Representatives. 

Senator Cassidy's Bill

Similar to Warren’s bill, Cassidy’s bill has a low likelihood of passing. The Democrat majority in the Senate may dismiss the bill before it ever reaches the house. In 2023, the 118th Congress passed only 34 bills, the lowest number in decades. With only a few months remaining for the Congress, and the focus turning to a new Democratic nominee, passing this, or any other, bill seems improbable.

Final Thoughts

Regardless of your political affiliation, the overturning of the Chevron Deference is good news for home health, hospice, and palliative care. This ruling puts more pressure on CMS to justify its reasoning for certain decisions it has made. Senator Warren’s bill threatens the advantage given to the home health industry related to NAHC’s senate and house bills and pending lawsuits. Senator Cassidy’s bill ensures federal agency oversight and requires CMS to rationalize their decisions and prove budget-neutrality.

We will continue following these and other Chevron Deference related stories.

# # #

Kristin Rowan, Editor
Kristin Rowan, Editor

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

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

Kickbacks for Referrals are Costly…and Illegal

Admin

by Elizabeth E Hogue, Esq.

Kickback on Kickbacks

Three home health agencies and their parent company in Cincinnati, Ohio, must pay $4,496,330 to resolve alleged violations of the federal False Claims Act by providing kickbacks to assisted living facilities in exchange for referrals of Medicare patients. The settlement resolves allegations that, between 2013 and 2022, the companies provided lease payments and other valuable benefits; including wellness health services, sports tickets, and meals; to numerous ALFs and their residents. The companies then billed Medicare for the services provided to patients referred by the ALFs.

Referrals from ALFs

Getting more referrals from ALF’s and retirement communities seems to be a crucial piece of the puzzle for all types of providers. As the number of years in which they have been in business increases, ALF’s and retirement communities are more eager to assist their residents to “age in place.” This means that they often view availability of services from post-acute providers as essential to allow them to achieve this goal. 

While providers compete aggressively in the marketplace, they cannot, however, lose sight of the fact that the healthcare industry is highly regulated. With ever-increasing emphasis on fraud and abuse compliance, providers cannot afford to violate the law.

Kickbacks for Referrals

How can providers get more referrals from ALF’S and retirement communities? What are the potential legal pitfalls that providers must avoid? 

The most effective way to maximize referrals from these sources may be to take a multi-pronged approach that includes:

Assigning at least one coordinator/liaison to each referral source on at least a part-time basis

Use of coordinators/liaisons at ALF’s and retirement communities raises issues related to violation of the federal anti-kickback statute. This statute generally prohibits providers from either offering to give or actually giving anything to referral sources in order to induce referrals. Consequently, liaisons and coordinators must be scrupulous about avoiding the provision of free services to ALF’s and retirement communities and/or their residents. Possible violations include “staffing” an office with an RN who responds to requests from residents in their apartments or has “office hours” to address health conditions of residents.

Renting space for coordinators/liaisons to occupy so that providers have a frequent or continuous presence on the premises of referral sources to better serve patients

Renting space from referral sources also involves potential kickbacks, so providers must meet the requirements of the space rental exception or safe harbor. In order to do so, providers must enter into a written lease with the facility/community for a term of least one year. The lease must include the number of square feet providers are renting. Rent must be set in advance at fair market value and cannot take into account either the volume or value of referrals received. Finally, providers may rent only the amount of space that is commercially reasonable or that they actually need.  

The OIG has provided significant guidance about these requirements, which providers must master before they establish these types of relationships. Common pitfalls for providers is insistence by ALFs that providers must rent an entire apartment, whether or not they need it, and must pay an amount equal to the residents’ monthly rent, which includes food and other services. 

Entering into Preferred Provider Agreements

Preferred Provider Agreements may be verbal or in writing. There may be significant value in reducing these preferred provider relationships to writing. These types of relationships raise issues related to patients’ right to freedom of choice of providers. The common law or court decisions require providers of all types to honor patients’ right to freedom of choice. There are also federal statutes that guarantee this right to Medicare and Medicaid patients. In addition, states sometimes address these issues in applicable statutes and regulations. For this reason, providers should not attempt to use standard or “sample” Agreements, but must adhere to requirements in all of the states in which they use these types of Agreements.

Providing a full range of screenings and educational events for and about common chronic illnesses or community awareness activities

ALF’s and retirement communities often ask providers to conduct educational events and basic screenings for common chronic conditions. Generally, providers may do so if they walk a relatively fine line between engaging in community awareness activities and providing free skilled services to residents that exceed $15.00 in value at a time. At a minimum, such activities must be conducted consistent with a detailed policy and procedure that governs the provision of such services, so that providers do not violate the anti-kickback statute.

No kickbacks for referrals

Establishing relationships with ALF’s and retirement communities may result in numerous referrals to post-acute providers. Such relationships should be based on standard documents and comprehensive policies, as described above, in order to ensure compliance. Legal representation is essential for the development and implementation of these documents due to the complexity of the issues involved. 

Enforcement actions like those described above are avoidable.

Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.
Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Elizabeth Hogue is an attorney in private practice with extensive experience in health care. She represents clients across the U.S., including professional associations, managed care providers, hospitals, long-term care facilities, home health agencies, durable medical equipment companies, and hospices.

©2024 Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. All rights reserved.

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

HIPAA Violations

Clinical

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Mom Needs More Fiber?

Imagine that a celebrity receives care where you work and curiosity gets the better of you, or someone you know is admitted and you would love to know the details. It’s oh so very tempting! So, you access records of care provided to patients that you have no legitimate need to view. The HIPAA police are on it! Because let’s not forget that the HIPAA Privacy Rule is a criminal statute.

An emergency room physician, for example, pled guilty to illegally obtaining the personal health information of multiple individuals. He was convicted of one count of wrongfully obtaining individually identifiable health information under false pretenses. The physician received a resident physician license and participated in an emergency medicine residency program at a university hospital. He worked in the emergency room of two hospitals in the university system.

The doctor used his access as a resident physician to the hospitals’ electronic health record to access the records of two patients without their knowledge or consent. He was never the patients’ physician. The patients were not receiving care in the emergency rooms where the doctor worked at the time he accessed the records.

HIPAA Violations Oops

The doctor also admitted that he sent a photograph to someone else of one of the patients wearing a hospital gown in which the patient’s rectum was hanging out of the patient’s body. And now for the “best” part: the doctor also admitted that he falsely wrote in a letter that he sent the picture of the patient with a prolapsed rectum to his mother to remind her of the importance of fiber intake! 

Do you remember the comedian, Flip Wilson, who repeatedly claimed that the devil made him do it? When it comes to accessing patients’ medical records in violation of HIPAA, you must “put the devil behind you!” Protecting patients’ private health information is serious business – serious criminal business. Be vigilant! 

By the same token, providers must also always remember that the HIPAA Privacy Rule isn’t just about protecting health information; it’s also about giving appropriate access to it. In the zeal to protect information, it anecdotally seems that practitioners have lost sight of the fact that access to information is at least as important as protection of information. In fact, the Office for Civil Rights, the federal enforcer of HIPAA violations, has focused on denial of access in enforcement actions for the past several years. 

Remember that, however tempting the information you would like to have may be, temptation pales in comparison to jail time!

# # #

Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.
Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Elizabeth Hogue is an attorney in private practice with extensive experience in health care. She represents clients across the U.S., including professional associations, managed care providers, hospitals, long-term care facilities, home health agencies, durable medical equipment companies, and hospices.

©2024 Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. All rights reserved.

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

Chevron Deference Derailed

Advocacy

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Chevron Deference

“A government agency must conform to any clear legislative statements when interpreting and applying a law, but courts will give the agency deference in ambiguous situations as long as its interpretation is reasonable.”

This statement followed the unanimous (minus the three who did not take part in the decision) U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council. The case is known for establishing the extent to which a federal court should defer to a government agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statement when constructing statutes.

Breaking Down Chevron Deference

For those of you who don’t have a law degree, here’s what that means:

  • When a statutory term (required by law) is not explicitly defined and explained by Congress, there is room for interpretation
  • When a government agency interprets that statutory term, the interpretation may come under question
  • As long as the interpretation is not arbitrary (random), capricious (impulsive or unpredictable), or contrary to the statute (opposite the intent when put into practice), federal courts should give more weight to the government agency’s interpretation than to any other interpretation

Implications

At the time, the Supreme Court argued that if Congress leaves a term open to interpretation, it is either stated openness to interpretation, or an implied openness to interpretation. If a statute is implicity open, the intent of Congress is to allow a government agency to create provisions and regulations from that statute as they see fit. 

No one foresaw the impact this ruling would have on commerce and regulation in the U.S. To date, the Chevron Doctrine has been cited nearly 18,000 times in federal court decisions. The application of a statute based on agency interpretation could no longer be questioned or changed by judicial review.

Chevron Deference in Home Health

Since the advent of the PDGM model, CMS has calculated payment rates based on its interpretation of budget neutrality. The National Association for Home Care and Hospice has disputed the validity of both the interpretation of budget neutrality and the formulas used to calculate it.

Last year’s 2024 CMS Proposed Rule cut payment rates even further with a 2.890% Budget Neutrality permanent payment rate adjustment and a temporary rate adjustment to account for alleged overpayments from 2020-2022.

The lawsuit filed against CMS in response to the 2024 Final Rule was dismissed. NAHC began pursuing an administrative review with CMS. However, CMS has already stated that their final position is that budget neutrality has been calculated within the law. 

NAHC Comment: 2023 CMS Rule

“That proposal also fails logically in that it puts care access in severe jeopardy in applying a budget neutrality reconciliation methodology that takes PDGM-induced behavior changes to assess what otherwise would have been expended by Medicare in the absence of PDGM. In doing so, CMS fully fails to meet its obligation to ensure that the transition to a new payment model is budget neutral.”

  1. NAHC Comment Source

Chevron Deference Repealed

In a landmark ruling on Friday, June 28. 2024, the Supreme Court removed the power of federal agencies to interpret laws and ruled that the courts should rely on their own intrepretation of ambiguous laws. Justice Elena Kagan, who dissented the ruling, predicts this change “will cause a massive shock to the legal system.”

Chief Justice John Roberts explained in his opinion that the Chevron Deference is inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA is a federal law which contains instructions for courts to review actions by federal agencies. According to Roberts, the APA directs courts to decide legal questions using their own judgment. Therefore, he noted, agency interpretations of statutes are not entitled to deference. “…it remains the responsibility of the court to decide whether the law means what the agency says,” concluded Roberts.

NAHC to Refile Lawsuit after Chevron Deference Repeal

2024 Final Rule

In April, 2024, the lawsuit filed against CMS regarding the methodology for calculating budget neutrality was dismissed. Now, NAHC can refile the lawsuit and force CMS to justify its decision to enact repeated reimbursement cuts for home health.

In an interview on Wednesday, Bill Dombi told The Rowan Report, “This improves the chances of success for our lawsuit. CMS is going to have to support their regulatory interpretations going forward. Congress is going to have to offer more detail in its legislative language, leaving less to being open to interpretation.” Regarding the PDGM lawsuit, CMS argued that the law was clear and the agency’s interpretation was valid. The overturning of Chevron Deference allows the possibility of arguing that CMS’s interpretation of the law is flawed. 

80/20 Rule

Dombi also explained that the Ensuring Access to Medicaid Services rule, also known as the 80/20 rule, was “drawn out of a whole cloth.” Previously, there were limited avenues available to challenge this rule. The repeal of Chevron Deference significantly improves the ability to challenge the 80/20 rule. The argument now, Dombi told The Rowan Report, is “Does CMS even have the authority to do this?”

More to Come

The Rowan Report anticipates more news coming out of Washington D.C. and the NAHC office regarding the 2024 pay cuts and the 80/20 rule. We will provide ongoing updates and information as it becomes available.

# # #

Kristin Rowan, Editor
Kristin Rowan, Editor

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

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

Department of Labor Changes Exemption and Overtime Thresholds

Admin

by Tim Rowan, Editor Emeritus

Overtime and exemption thresholds impact employers trying to balance cost-effective policies with employee fairness. As such, they keep a close eye on rules they must follow that come down from the U.S. Department of Labor. When those rules change, remaining compliant requires a company HR leader to adapt those policies. One of those times is at hand.

 

Exemption and Overtime Thresholds for Hourly and Salaried Earners

Effective last week, July 1, the annual salary threshold for overtime exemption increased from $35,568 to $43,888. The DoL’s final rule does not stop there but sets another increase on January 1, 2025, to $58,656 per year or $1,128 per week. Salaries below those thresholds cannot be declared “exempt,” meaning they must be paid overtime rates for hours worked over eight per day and forty per week.

 

Executive Salaries also Affected

In addition to overtime and exemption thresholds, the new rule increases the highly compensated employee threshold twice as well. On July 1, the annual salary threshold increased from $107,432 to $132,964. That annual threshold will increase again on January 1 to $151,164.

Going forward, the DOL will increase all thresholds every three years starting July 1, 2027, relying on up-to-date wage data.

We learned these DoL rule details from Angelo Spinola, Executive Director and lead home care attorney with Polsinelli, a national law firm. 

Federal Overtime Rule

Angelo Spinola Comments

“Home care providers that have been making adjustments to comply with the July 1 deadline may have heard about a recent case out of Texas blocking the July 1 increases. While the Texas court did use a partial injunction blocking the July 1 increase, it only applies to Texas government employees. It does not affect any private employers.”

He recommended that all home health and home care employers continue to make changes as planned to comply with the July 1 increases. Spinola stated that his statements are for informational purposes only and are not intended to be legal advice. His comments quoted here should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances, possible changes to applicable laws, rules and regulations and other legal issues.

Spinola Concludes

“There are still challenges pending that could affect the January 1, 2025 increases, however, those decisions are not expected for several months, and it is too soon to predict whether that deadline will be affected. We will continue to monitor these cases and provide any updates that may have an effect on the home care industry.”

Angelo Spinola can be reached via email at onlinesolutions@polsinelli.com

NAHC Comments on Exemption and Overtime Thresholds

“The long-awaited U.S. Department of Labor rule regulating minimum salaries levels to qualify for exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act was issued today. We strongly advise the home care community to gain a comprehensive understanding of the rule and institute steps for timely compliance. While the changes may have limited impact on most home care companies, noncompliance comes with serious penalties.” – NAHC President Bill Dombi

# # #

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

Disincentives for Information Blocking

Partner News

From the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 24, 2024

Contact: HHS Press Office
202-690-6343
media@hhs.gov

HHS Finalizes Rule Establishing Disincentives for Health Care Providers That Have Committed Information Blocking

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) today released a final rule that establishes disincentives for health care providers that have committed information blocking. This final rule exercises the Secretary’s authority under the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act) to establish “disincentives” for health care providers who engage in practices that the health care providers knew were unreasonable and were likely to interfere with, prevent, or materially discourage the access, exchange, or use of electronic health information (EHI), except as required by law or covered by a regulatory exception.

“This final rule is designed to ensure we always have access to our own health information and that our care teams have the benefit of this information to guide their decisions. With this action, HHS is taking a critical step toward a health care system where people and their health providers have access to their electronic health information,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra. “When health information can be appropriately accessed and exchanged, care is more coordinated and efficient, allowing the health care system to better serve patients. But we must always take the necessary actions to ensure patient privacy and preferences are protected – and that’s exactly what this rule does.”

HHS has established the following disincentives for health care providers found by the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) to have committed information blocking and referred by OIG to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS): 

  • Under the Medicare Promoting Interoperability Program, an eligible hospital or critical access hospital (CAH) that has committed information blocking and is referred to CMS by OIG will not be a meaningful electronic health record (EHR) user during the calendar year of the EHR reporting period in which OIG refers its determination to CMS.  If the eligible hospital is not a meaningful EHR user, the eligible hospital will not be able to earn three quarters of the annual market basket increase they would have been able to earn for successful program participation; for CAHs, payment will be reduced to 100 percent of reasonable costs instead of 101 percent. This disincentive will be effective 30 days after publication of the final rule.
  • Under the Promoting Interoperability performance category of the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), a MIPS eligible clinician (including a group practice) who has committed information blocking will not be a meaningful EHR user during the calendar year of the performance period in which OIG refers its determination to CMS. If the MIPS eligible clinician is not a meaningful EHR user, then they will receive a zero score in the MIPS Promoting Interoperability performance category. The MIPS Promoting Interoperability performance category score is typically a quarter of an individual MIPS eligible clinician’s or group’s total final score in a performance period/MIPS payment year, unless an exception applies and the MIPS eligible clinician is not required to report measures for the performance category. CMS has modified its policy for this disincentive to clarify that if an individual eligible clinician is found to have committed information blocking and is referred to CMS, the disincentive under the MIPS Promoting Interoperability performance category will only apply to the individual, even if they report as part of a group. This disincentive will be effective 30 days after publication of the final rule.
  • Under the Medicare Shared Savings Program, a health care provider that is an Accountable Care Organization (ACO), ACO participant, or ACO provider or supplier who has committed information blocking may be ineligible to participate in the program for a period of at least one year. Consequently, the health care provider may not receive revenue that they might otherwise have earned through the Shared Savings Program. CMS also finalized in this rule that it will consider the relevant facts and circumstances (e.g. time since the information blocking conduct, the health care provider’s diligence in identifying and correcting the problem, whether the provider was previously subject to a disincentive in another program, etc.) before applying a disincentive under the Shared Savings Program. This disincentive will be effective 30 days after publication of the final rule; however, any disincentive under the Shared Savings Program would be imposed after January 1, 2025.
  • Additional disincentives may be established through future rulemaking.

This HHS final rule complements OIG’s final rule from June 2023 that established penalties for information blocking actors other than health care providers, as identified in the Cures Act (health information technology (IT) developers of certified health IT or other entities offering certified health IT, health information exchanges, and health information networks). If OIG determines that any of these individuals or entities committed information blocking, they may be subject to a civil monetary penalty of up to $1 million per violation.

The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) and CMS will host a joint information session about the final rule on June 26, 2024 at 2pm ET. More information can be found at healthit.gov/informationblocking and via ONC’s X account, @ONC_HealthIT.

# # #

All HHS press releases, fact sheets and other news materials are available at https://www.hhs.gov/news.
Like HHS on Facebook, follow HHS on Twitter @HHSgov, and sign up for HHS Email Updates.
Last revised: 

The Future of Care at Home

Admin

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

Home Nurses are joining unions. The advent and unionization of Hospital-at-Home (H@H) is changing the care at home landscape. Large hospital systems across the country have engaged in H@H studies and launched H@H programs, providing hospital-level ambulatory services in their communities. As H@H continues to take a foothold in the healthcare landscape, what do those changes mean for care at home?

Hospital at Home Popularity

Most of the existing H@H programs are operating under a CMS waiver. A few of the H@H programs use a private pay model. The CMS waiver needs to be extended in order to continue the programs. As many H@H organizations are pushing for CMS to extend the waiver, they are looking to patients for advocacy.

A recent survey by Vivalink showed that 84% of U.S. individuals over the age of 40 are interested in H@H monitoring after a hospital visit so they can return home sooner. 77% of respondents said they would trust a recommendation that included at-home monitoring. Respondents who had been hospitalized three or more times in the past 12 months were more interested in H@H programs than those who had been hospitalized less.

Massachusetts Ambulatory Nurses Unionize

On May 20, 2024, 33 ambulatory nurses from Martha’s Vineyard Hospital (MVH) filed with the National Labor Board to join a union that is already active within the hospital, the Massachusetts Nurses Association (MNA). The MNA currently represents 23,000 hospital workers from 85 healthcare facilities across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The hospital denied the request to join the union. The group of ambulatory nurses joined MVH through an acquisition of a physician’s group. Therefore, those nurses were not recognized under the existing collective bargaining agreement.

Hospital-at-Home Nurses at Mass General Unionize

The Hospital-at-Home nurses at Mass General Brigham (MGB) have unionized in the hopes of influencing the future of in-home acute care. They are also hoping this will encourage more people working in home healthcare to join unions. In the last seven months of 2023, almost half of all registered nurses working in home health care and non medical care at home left their jobs within a year. One registered nurse from MGB said she hopes HaH nurse unions become more common as HaH expands across the country.

The clinicians in the MGB home care segment are hoping to follow the H@H group into unionization soon. The home care segment, which includes home health, palliative, and other care at home services, are currently voting on whether to unionize.

Hospital-at-home nurses unionize at Mass Gen

Among the listed reasons for considering unionization are changes in expectations on productivity, and wages. Some of the more recent changes at MGB were rolled out across the company and did not take into consideration the territories and limitations that care at home clinicians have. More than 400 clinicians are in the care at home side of MGB and they have all received ballots to vote on unionization.

Home Health Unionization

hospital-at-home changing home health unions

The nature of care at home clinicians is disparate. Therefore, it is difficult to organize them into one cohesive group. Recently, though, more home health workers are looking to service workers and healthcare workers unions for better pay, better working conditions, and more buy-in on the day-to-day operations of the agency.

Opponents of unionization among home health clinicians argue that pay rates are largely set by CMS reimbursement rates. Employers may want to raise rates but are unable to do say because they accept Medicare and Medicaid. Home health unions could force employers to pay more than the set CMS rates.

CMS Response to Union Backlash

Otherwise known as the 80/20 rule, CMS responds to agencies worried about unionization with a mandate to pay their workers 80% of total Medicaid payments. Some agency owners say the proposed rule ignores the low reimbursement rates and further burdens agencies that are barely making a profit now. It is unlikely that CMS will see the unionization of home health clinicians as a reason to increase reimbursement rates. Experts advise agencies to start working on contract negotiations within the VBPM, to engage in risk-sharing and cost-benefit analyses with all parties within the VBPM. For example, Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) is Medicare reimbursable, but not through home health use. However, a home health agency can share the benefits of RPM when it is billed through an approved provider for Medicare reimbursement. These strategies can lower overall care costs, increasing the share of reimbursement flowing to HHAs.

Maximize VBPM with Technology

Technologies available today include RPM, generative AI for data analytics, automated scheduling, and apps for secure communication, among others. Technology can lower overhead costs, allow you to eliminate some FTEs, and provide added value to providers during contract negotiations. If you don’t already have a robust tech-stack, look at some of our most recent product reviews, or contact The Rowan Report for more information about technology adoption consultations.

# # #

Kristin Rowan, Editor
Kristin Rowan, Editor

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

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

BREAKING NEWS – CMS Proposed Rule for 2025

CMS

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

CMS Proposed Rule for 2025

Citing “budget neutrality adjustments”, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) June 26 issued its proposed rule for 2025 for the home health prospective payment system. Here are the highlights:

  • Overall net reduction in home health payments by $280 million dollars
  • Market basket update of 3.0%
  • Productivity adjustment of -0.5%
  • Base payment rate reduction of 4.067% due to PDGM
  • Update fixed dollar loss for outlier payments
  • Update LUPA thresholds, functional impairment levels, and comorbidity adjustment subgroups
CMS Proposed Rule CY 2025

We did the math. This is an overall reduction in payment by 3.6%. This come after multiple years of similar adjustments that reduced the overall payment rates.

Included in the proposal is an additional adjustment to the fixed-dollar loss amount for high-cost outliers. This will reduce payments another 0.6%.

As we focus primarily on the payment reductions, CMS is looking at additional data. CMS provides a detailed account of the requirements for behavior assumptions and actual changes, as outlined in earlier rules. Using CY 2023 claims, and the methodology from the CY 2023 final rule, CMS believes they paid more under the PDGM system than they would have under the old system, leading to the deduction in base payment rate.

HHA Conditions of Participation

In addition to the payment cuts, CMS is also proposing an update to the Conditions of Participation. This new standard would require HHAs to develop, apply, and maintain a policy for accepting new patients into service.

According to the proposal, CMS is not moving to add or modify any quality measures from the Quality Reporting Program. They do, however, propose to modify some patient assessment items related to health-related social needs. This would require HHAs to collect and report data related to living situation, food, and utilities. This proposed modification would be implemented beginning with the calendar year 2027 QRP.

COVID-19 Reporting

Also included in the CY 2025 proposal is a revision to the infection prevention and control requirements for long-term care facilities. The revision calls for an extension on reporting some of the Covid-19 data elements to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It also requires influenza and RSV reporting beginning January 1, 2025.

Additional Items

CMS also used data from OASIS-D and OASIS-E, making adjustments for missing and altered data from the two different information sets. The proposed rule includes a new methodology to address the issue of varying data sets from OASIS-D to OASIS-E.

LUPA add-ons are meant to establish equitable compensation for all home health services. CMS is proposing an occupational therapy (OT) specific LUPA add-on factor, rather than continuing to use the PT add-on factor for OT.

Payment groups under the PDGM model use an associated case-mix weight and LUPA threshold, specific to each of the 432 payment groups. CMS is proposing a recalibration of the case-mix weights, including funtional levels and comorbidity adjustment subgroups.

Request for Information: CMS is seeking feedback on Future Performance Measure Concepts for the expanded HHVBP Model. New proposed measure include care activities like bathing and dressing, which are not currently included in the function measures. Additional potential measures include family caregiver status and claims-based falls with major injuries.

Feedback

The American Hospital Association has expressed “serious concerns” about the payment rate adjustments in the proposed rule. “We urge the agency to adequately resource HH providers as they are a critical part of the care continuum,” AHA wrote. “We are particularly concerned about the substantial size of the agency’s proposed budget neutrality adjustment, a cut of 5.653%, and again call on CMS to withdraw it.” The AHA has asked CMS to revise its accounting methodology to more accurately account for changes in the payment system and care delivery due to PDGM.

President of the National Association for Home Care and Hospice (NAHC), Bill Dombi, today released a statement:

“The 2025 proposed version of Medicare home health payment rates shows the ongoing and predictable rate reductions impacting home health agencies since the beginning of the new payment model in 2020. That decline is solely due to a fatally flawed budget neutrality methodology that CMS employed to arrive at the rate adjustments,” stated NAHC President William A. Dombi.

“While this means that Medicare spending on home health services will continue to decline as costs continue rise, the more important element is that care access and utilization continues to decline at significant levels. When Congress set Medicare payment reform in motion starting in 2020, it was not planned or even expected that the outcome would be that nearly 500,000 Medicare beneficiaries would be able to access care or that those who could find care would get fewer services,” he added.

“Congress must step in immediately to put an end to this dismantling of the Medicare home health benefit. The value of home health services is not only undeniable; it has been proven by CMS in its analysis and expansion of the highly successful Home Health Value Purchasing demonstration project. We call on Congress to correct what CMS has done and prevent the growing 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 2025 rate cuts must not take effect” Dombi added.

Comments

CMS has issued a fact sheet with more details on their assumptions and calculations. You can access the fact sheet here. The proposed rule can be downloaded here.

CMS will accept comments on the proposed rule through August 26th.

# # #

Kristin Rowan, Editor
Kristin Rowan, Editor

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

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

NAHC and NHPCO Sign Affiliation Agreement

Admin

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

BREAKING NEWS

In a joint statement on June 18, 2024, NAHC and NHPCO announced that the Board Chairs and CEOs of each organization met in Washington. During this meeting, they formally signed the affiliation agreement. This is a union of the two largest advocate organizations for care at home providers. They hope to unify the voice of the care at home community. The combined resources of the organizations will provide education, expert advice, and increased advocacy for policies that help deliver the best care to those who need it most.

After 18 months of discussions, meetings, and challenges, the two organizations have agreed on terms for the combining of the two groups.

 

“The affiliation of NAHC and NHPCO is a historic event,” said NAHC President and CEO William A. Dombi. “Unifying the voice of health care at home has been a longstanding goal of NAHC, as it is the essence of the original formation of NAHC in 1982. Combining our two organizations will significantly strengthen that voice for the benefit of our members and the patients they serve.”

Read the full press release from NAHC and NHPCO here.

# # #

Kristin Rowan, Editor
Kristin Rowan, Editor

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

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