by Tim Rowan | Jan 24, 2024 | Regulatory
Untitled Document
Analysis by Tim Rowan, Editor Emeritus
P
erennial Home Health enemy MedPAC angered a different group last week by releasing a status report on insurance companies participating in the Medicare Advantage program.1
The report details the way in which giant, for-profit, health insurance companies improperly increase per-customer payments by upcoding their health assessment at enrollment, and then slash costs by denying coverage for healthcare services that traditional Medicare would have honored. MedPAC was also critical of the practice of requiring prior authorizations, backed up by utilization review algorithms that are supposedly intended to “minimize furnishing unnecessary services” but which effectively increase denials for necessary care.
According to the report, MedPAC expects CMS to pay MA plans $88 billion in 2024.
On January 12, a meeting to discuss the report ended in what one reporter politely described as “a kerfuffle.” Other witnesses to the meeting chose to describe it as a shouting match.
“One member, Brian Miller, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, accused panel leadership of issuing a negative status report on MA plans’ market dominance, saying it had been ‘hijacked for partisan political aims to justify a rate cut to Medicare Advantage plans.’
“Miller said the analysis … ‘appears to be slanted to arrive at a foregone conclusion in order to set up and provide political cover’ just before the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services prepares its annual rate notice for MA plans, expected in coming weeks. ‘The chapter reads like attack journalism as opposed to balanced and thoughtful policy research.'”2
Report authors fired back, citing numerous ways MA plans generate higher revenue, including enrolling people who are relatively healthy, known as favorable selection. They then vigorously scan patients’ medical histories and charts to code for health factors that generate higher per-capita payments, known as coding intensity, often spending less on services. Coding intensity is also the difference between a risk score that a beneficiary would receive in an MA plan versus in fee-for-service. Though MA plans skew toward healthier enrollees, MedPAC found that MA risk scores are about 20.1% higher than scores would be for the same beneficiaries had they enrolled in Fee For Service Medicare.
Namath, Walker, Shatner and Brokers
Criticism of MA plan behavior did not only come from MedPAC commissioners and report authors. For example, Lynn Barr, MPH, founder of Caravan Health, which was acquired by CVS Health through its acquisition of Signify Health, exposed what the annual TV ads do not make clear, that their 800 numbers go to brokers, not to any one plan.
“This is not the big, lovely, glowing success that everybody says it is. And we continue to create policies that drive people into these plans. Medicare allows money paid to MA plans to be used for broker commissions as high as “$600 to recruit them, plus $300 a year every year that they stay in the MA plan.
“We have allowed MA to buy the market, and that is why MA is growing. It’s not because the quality’s so great. People don’t love the prior auth, people are leaving their plans a lot. Aside from Medicaid, Medicare is the least profitable payer for doctors. And at the same time, we give all this money to the plans. It’s unconscionable.”
Adding to the “kerfuffle” with a powerful anecdote, Stacie Dusetzina, PhD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, noted that even cancer patients often have trouble getting necessary care because of the plans’ limited networks. She referenced a January 7 NPR story3 about an MA enrollee who could not get the cancer care he needed from his MA plan, and could not get out of the plan without facing 20% in expensive copays. In all but four states, supplemental plans that could pick up the difference can reject patients with costly conditions.
“When you are 65 and aging into the program,” Dr. Dusetzina summarized, “you are healthy at that time and may not be thinking about your long-term needs. [If you did], it would push you to think harder about the specialty networks that you may or may not have access to when the MA plan is making your healthcare decisions.”
1 A 30-page slide presentation is available to the public at medpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/MedPAC-MA-status-report-Jan-2024.pdf. The complete report is available only to MedPAC commissioners. The charts on slides 26 and 27 show how MA plans learned to pad profits in 2018 and increased the practices exponentially since then.
2 Cheryl Clark, MedPage Today January 16, 2024 medpagetoday.com/special-reports/features/108275
3 npr.org/2024/01/07/1223353604/older-americans-say-they-feel-trapped-in-medicare-advantage-plans
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. 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
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.
This article originally appeared at https://nahc.org/cms-proposes-policy-changes-to-medicare-part-c-and-part-d/. All rights reserved.
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
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
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
by Tim Rowan | Aug 9, 2023 | Editorial
analysis by Tim Rowan, Editor
It is good to occasionally remind ourselves that 2023 is the year enrollment in Medicare Advantage reached a full half of Medicare beneficiaries. Originally conceived as a plan to control spending, MA does seem to be achieving that goal.
At what cost, however?
The Medicare trust fund pays insurance companies participating in the MA program a per-patient-per-month fee based on the company’s own declaration of each customer’s health and likely future needs. With those monthly payments, MA companies provide care as needed. Or at least they are supposed to.
Frequently, since the program began, whistleblowers have told the government that employees are rewarded for increasing a patient’s risk-adjustment, the clinical assessment that is supposed to be scored by a physician but is often instead scored through data mining. That practice involves employees searching through patient records, looking for signs of health conditions that would raise their assessment, and thus their value to the insurer. In other words, a class of crime that would earn an HHA a hefty fine if they did it with their OASIS assessments.
Evidence has been mounting lately that these insurance companies not only fudge the numbers to gather more than they should from Medicare, but they also provide as little care as they can get away with. Our industry is familiar with the penny-pinching MA companies practice when authorizing in-home care. The problem is larger than that.
String of Recent Accusations
- The HHS Office of Inspector General issued a report revealing how Elevance, the company formerly known as Anthem, made $5.5 billion in profits in the first six months of this year, a 14.4% jump from the $4.8 billion in profits it made during the same period of 2022. The profits, OIG said, came mostly from denying care to Medicaid beneficiaries, care that their physicians had recommended.
- The largest insurer, with 27 percent of the market, UnitedHealth’s investors were distraught in June when it appeared the company was spending too much on patient care. Their fears were calmed, however, when United reported revenue of $56.3 billion for 2Q 2023, compared to $45.1 billion in the same quarter of 2022.
- Cigna is the target of a class action suit in California, in which it is accused of using an algorithm to deny care, overriding and sometimes ignoring physician recommendations.1
Last October, the New York Times summarized the problem with a list of recent government findings and accusations:
“Kaiser Permanente called doctors in during lunch and after work and urged them to add additional illnesses to the medical records of patients they hadn’t seen in weeks. Doctors who found enough new diagnoses could earn bottles of champagne, or a bonus in their paycheck.
“Elevance Health paid more to doctors who said their patients were sicker. And executives at UnitedHealth Group, the country’s largest insurer, told their workers to mine old medical records for more illnesses — and when they couldn’t find enough, sent them back to try again.
“Each of the strategies — which were described by the Justice Department in lawsuits against the companies — led to diagnoses of serious diseases that might have never existed. But the diagnoses had a lucrative side effect: They let the insurers collect more money from the federal government’s Medicare Advantage program.”
Comparison to Home Health and Hospice
Naturally, these examples reach into the hundreds of billions because MA covers hospital and physician claims, but the comparison to our sector is nevertheless valid.
Since payments to HHAs were first attached to patient assessments a quarter century ago, clinicians have gotten better and better at the task. OASIS assessments are more accurate and thorough than they used to be. Professional coders are more adept at identifying and sequencing appropriate diagnosis codes. AI-assisted tools entering the fray promise an enhanced level of accuracy. (See our product review of the most promising of these tools.)
From the beginning, more accurate assessments have always meant a 10 to 15 percent increase in an agency’s episodic payment over less accurate OASIS scores. Wary of being accused of upcoding, nurses have always been unnecessarily cautious with their intake assessments.
Upcoding Accusations
CMS has always responded to increasing accuracy with accusations of upcoding, even though the Medicare trust fund more often benefits from the above described undercoding habit. Regulatory adaptations have enshrined the fear of upcoding into an assumption that it will happen, with payments slashed in advance just in case it does.
When errors in assessments and claims are discovered by CMS contractors through sampling, the overpayment amount found in the sample is extrapolated to an agency’s entire patient census. The result has at times crossed the line into seven figures, with a payback demand that occasionally cripples the HHA.
Compare this practice to the gift given to MA companies that we revealed in these pages last February: “Government Lets Health Plans That Ripped Off Medicare Keep the Money” In researching that story, we found that CMS typically postpones its duty to audit the risk adjustment figures that MA plans submit annually. After getting more than a decade behind, they decided to write off overpayments to MA plans prior to 2018 and start auditing from that year forward.
As an additional gift they said they would demand repayments only on the amounts turned up in their sample dataset, without extrapolating to each MA’s total patient population as they do with HHAs.
What can one conclude from this comparison? Possibly that CMS is very good at policing millions of dollars but gets overwhelmed and gives up with amounts in the billions.
Tim Rowan is a 30-year home care technology consultant who co-founded and served as Editor and principal writer of this publication for 25 years. He continues to occasionally contribute news and analysis articles under The Rowan Report’s new ownership. He also continues to work part-time as a Home Care recruiting and retention consultant. More information: RowanResources.com
Tim@RowanResources.com
©2024 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in Healthcare at Home: The Rowan Report.homecaretechreport.com One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@homecaretechreport.com
1 https://sharylattkisson.com/2023/08/class-action-suit-filed-against-cigna-over-alleged-use-of-algorithm-to-review-reject-patient-claims/
by Tim Rowan | Feb 1, 2023 | CMS, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
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
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)
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.
by Tim Rowan | Sep 16, 2020 | CMS, Regulatory
Bi-Partisan Congressional Committees Demand CMS Administrator Repay Misspent Funds
his month, two House committees and two Senate committees published a report of a joint investigation into Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma’s spending of taxpayer funds. The complete 56-page report is available in our “Partner News” section in the footer of our web site. For convenience, we reprint highlights from the report’s Executive Summary here.
The House Committee on Energy and Commerce, House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Senate Committee on Finance Minority, and Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Minority (the Committees) conducted a year-long investigation into Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Seema Verma’s use of taxpayer funds to retain communications consultants with strong Republican political ties.
The Committees’ investigation shows that Administrator Verma and her top aides abused the federal contracting process to stock CMS with handpicked Republican consultants who billed the government hourly rates of up to $380. In less than two years, Administrator Verma’s consultants charged CMS nearly $6 million for work that included boosting her public profile and personal brand, serving as her preferred communications advisors, arranging private meetings for her with media personalities and other high-profile individuals, and routinely traveling with her to events across the country. By retaining these consultants, Administrator Verma misused funds appropriated by Congress, wasting taxpayer dollars intended to support federal health care programs.
The evidence obtained by the Committees expands on the findings of a recent audit conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) and demonstrates that Administrator Verma’s expenditures potentially exceeded the scope of CMS’s authority under the applicable appropriations. Congress appropriated taxpayer funds to CMS to ensure that Americans have access to and are aware of opportunities to enroll in federal health care programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act. Congress did not intend for Administrator Verma or other senior CMS officials to use taxpayer dollars to stockpile CMS with handpicked consultants or promote Administrator Verma’s public profile and personal brand. Given the reckless disregard she has shown for the public’s trust, Administrator Verma should reimburse the taxpayers for these inappropriate expenditures.
During the course of the investigation, the Committees obtained tens of thousands of pages of documents from HHS and private parties, conducted interviews and briefings with employees and executives from two of the consulting firms used by CMS, and collected additional information from databases, court records, and press reports, among other sources. The Committees’ investigation shows:
-
- Administrator Verma and her top aides misused federal contracts CMS held with consulting firms to bring handpicked Republican communications consultants into CMS operations.
-
- Administrator Verma and her top aides built a shadow operation that sidelined CMS’s Office of Communications in favor of the handpicked consultants.
-
- Consultants — particularly Pam Stevens — worked to promote Administrator Verma’s public profile and personal brand beyond her role as CMS Administrator, while also expanding the Administrator’s network.
- Administrator Verma’s consultants charged CMS nearly $6 million in less than two years.
-
- After CMS issued a stop-work order in April 2019, consulting firm Porter Novelli continued working for CMS under other task orders to pitch profile pieces on Administrator Verma to media outlets, including lifestyle magazines targeted in Pam Stevens’s Executive Visibility Proposal.
- OIG issued an audit on July 16, 2020 (OIG Audit) containing findings consistent with the Committees’ investigation and concluding that CMS violated federal contracting requirements. The OIG Audit, which was requested by the Committees, found:
-
- Administrator Verma and senior CMS officials allowed consultant Marcus Barlow to perform inherently governmental functions, such as making managerial decisions and directing CMS employees, thereby violating the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).
-
- CMS improperly administered certain contracts it held with consulting firms as personal services contracts. In doing so, CMS officials exerted a level of control over the consultants’ work that created an improper employer-employee relationship, exceeding what was permissible under the contracts.
- CMS did not comply with the FAR and other federal requirements in managing contract deliverables, approving the use of a subcontractor, maintaining complete working files, and paying questionable
©2020 by Rowan Consulting Associates, Inc., Colorado Springs, CO. This article originally appeared in Home Care Technology: The Rowan Report. Click here to subscribe. It may be freely reproduced provided this copyright statement remains intact. editor@homecaretechreport.com
by Tim Rowan | Sep 9, 2020 | CMS
New Training, New HH Compare
Home Health Quality Reporting Training
September 01, 2020
Introduction to the Home Health Quality Reporting Program Web-Based Training
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is offering a web-based training course for those who are new to the Home Health Quality Reporting Program. This course is designed to provide a general overview of the program as well as a variety of links and resources for additional information. Specific topics include:
Lesson 1: What is the Home Health Quality Reporting Program (HH QRP)?
Lesson 2: The Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS)
Lesson 3: OASIS Data Submission
Lesson 4: HH QRP Resources
CLICK HERE to access the training
Submit technical questions or feedback to: PAC Training mailbox.
Submit content-related questions to: HH Quality Reporting Program Help Desk
Home Health Compare merged with all other “Compare” databases
On September 3, CMS launched Care Compare, a streamlined redesign of eight existing CMS healthcare compare tools available on Medicare.gov. Care Compare provides a single user-friendly interface that patients and caregivers can use to make informed decisions about healthcare based on cost, quality of care, volume of services, and other data. With just one click, patients can find information that is easy to understand about doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care services instead of searching through multiple tools.
For more than 20 years, Medicare’s online compare tools have served as the cornerstone for publicizing quality care information for patients, caregivers, consumers, and the healthcare community. Today’s announcement builds on the eMedicare initiative that first launched by the Trump Administration in 2018 to deliver simple tools and information to current and future Medicare beneficiaries.
Drawing on lessons learned through research and stakeholder feedback, Care Compare includes features and functionalities that appeal to consumers. By offering a user-friendly interface and a simple design that is optimized for mobile and tablet use, it is easier than ever to find information that is important to patients when shopping for healthcare. Enhancements for mobile use will give practical benefits like accessing the tool using a smartphone can initiate phone calls to providers simply by clicking on the provider’s phone number.
Currently, someone who is planning to have bypass surgery would need to visit Hospital Compare, Nursing Home Compare, and Home Health Compare individually to research providers for the different phases of their surgery and rehabilitation. Now, those patients can start their search at Care Compare to find and compare providers that meet their healthcare needs that includes information about quality measures presented similarly and clearly across all provider types and care settings.
Patients will also find helpful hints and guides throughout Care Compare. For example, when searching for a nursing home, patients have the ability to utilize a checklist with common questions and considerations when selecting a nursing home. While the measures and data used for Care Compare have not changed, the way information is displayed is now different. During a transition period, consumers and other stakeholders will be able to use the original eight compare tools while CMS continues to gather feedback and considers additional improvements to the tool. As new information about quality and cost are added to the compare tools, Care Compare will be updated to reflect that information.
©2020 by Rowan Consulting Associates, Inc., Colorado Springs, CO. This article originally appeared in Home Care Technology: The Rowan Report. Click here to subscribe. It may be freely reproduced provided this copyright statement remains intact. editor@homecaretechreport.com
