by Tim Rowan | Jul 19, 2024 | Admin, Editorial, Medicare Advantage
by Tim Rowan, Editor Emeritus
UnitedHealth Making Home Health Visits
Payer or Competitor…that is the question. According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, and questioned by the insurance industry’s lobbying arm, AHIP, UnitedHealth Group has increased its revenue from the Medicare Trust Fund by $50 billion by “finding” additional health issues during home visits to its MA customers.
In a July 16 investor call, CEO Andrew Witty said UnitedHealth clinicians made more than 2.5 million home health visits to UnitedHealthcare MA members in 2023. Following these visits to more than 500,000 seniors, UnitedHealth upgraded over 300,000 of them to higher payment levels by uncovering health conditions the individual seniors did not know they had.
The WSJ investigation found that between 2018 and 2021, insurers received $50 billion for diagnoses they added to members’ charts. Many of these diagnoses were “questionable,” according to that investigation.
Though a UnitedHealth spokesperson called the analysis “inaccurate and biased,” former UnitedHealth employees told the Journal home visits are often used to add diagnoses. Clinicians say they use software during visits that offer suggestions as to what illnesses a patient might have.
CEO Witty maintained in the investor call that the practice is good for seniors. “UnitedHealth clinicians discovered more than 3 million gaps in care through home visits in 2023,” he reported, “and 75% of patients receive follow-up care in a clinic within 90 days of a home visit.”
He added that the United home visit program “helps patients live healthier lives and saves taxpayers money,” concluding. “…Medicare Advantage makes programs and results like this possible.”
The Journal concluded with the finding that few of these upgraded seniors are ever seen by a physician for their newly discovered health conditions.
Tim Rowan is a 30-year home care technology consultant who co-founded and served as Editor and principal writer of this publication for 25 years. He continues to occasionally contribute news and analysis articles under The Rowan Report’s new ownership. He also continues to work part-time as a Home Care recruiting and retention consultant. More information: RowanResources.com
Tim@RowanResources.com
©2024 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in Healthcare at Home: The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com
by Kristin Rowan | Jul 12, 2024 | Advocacy, CMS, Regulatory
“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
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.
“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.”
- 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
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.
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?”
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 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
by Tim Rowan | Jun 27, 2024 | CMS, Medicare Advantage
by Tim Rowan, Editor Emeritus
We have been keeping an eye on the Medicare Advantage business as the number of beneficiaries who switch exceeds fifty percent. In past reports, we have described the federal lawsuits that accuse MA insurance companies of illicitly padding revenues while illegally denying treatments that straight Medicare would have covered. (See MedPAC Exposes More Medicare Advantage Crimes – 3/20/24)
Until now, we haven’t gone into detail about those independent brokers with the continuous TV commercials every November. It turns out, they may be even more dishonest than the insurance companies themselves.
Perhaps the most famous of these brokers is the one that put Broadway Joe Namath in our living rooms a hundred times a day. The company started life as Health Insurance Innovations, owned by Chicago-based private equity firm Madison Dearborn Partners. After accusations of fraud, the company folded and re-emerged as Benefytt. When the same accusations returned, the owners shut that company down and came back as Blue Lantern Health.
According to Healthcare Uncovered, the firm filed for a state-level bankruptcy equivalent in Delaware last April, called “assignment for the benefit of creditors.” Blue Lantern’s website is down, as are MedicareCoverageHelpline.com and HealthInsurance.com, their signature assets. Nobody answers the 800 number Namath hocked for years.
The bankruptcy litigation revealed a database of 7 million seniors who had been bombarded by 17 million phone calls. The bankruptcy was apparently precipitated by the Federal Trade Commission, which forced Benefytt to pay $100 million to the people it had scammed by selling sham Obamacare plans, with checks distributed to victims in March. The Securities and Exchange Commission forced Health Insurance Innovations and the company’s co-founder Gavin Southwell to pay a $12 million settlement. Another close associate of the company, Steven Dorfman, was convicted of wire fraud in February.
Tolerance for the firm’s deceptive advertising scheme ended with changes to the Medicare Advantage rule in 2023 that took effect in 2024. Blue Lantern stated after the fines were imposed that the new rule was critical to the company’s downfall,
Previously, former HHS Security Alex Azar characterized the Namath ads as “real savings, real options” in Medicare Advantage, ignoring the studies showing that the MA program costs the Trust Fund not less but $140 billion more than original Medicare.
Healthcare Uncovered concluded with this observation, “Further rules imposed since then by the Biden administration are putting even more pressure on Medicare Advantage lead generators, also called ‘third-party marketing organizations.’ (TPMOs) Beginning October 1 of this year, CMS will require that TPMOs get express consent from individuals before selling contact information to other marketers and brokers — a key loophole that enabled the growth of Blue Lantern and its predecessors.”
Don’t worry about Joe Namath’s retirement income though.
He has already landed a gig hawking hearing aids.
Tim Rowan is a 30-year home care technology consultant who co-founded and served as Editor and principal writer of this publication for 25 years. He continues to occasionally contribute news and analysis articles under The Rowan Report’s new ownership. He also continues to work part-time as a Home Care recruiting and retention consultant. More information: RowanResources.com
Tim@RowanResources.com
©2024 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in Healthcare at Home: The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com
by Kristin Rowan | Jun 13, 2024 | Clinical
by Kristin Rowan, Editor
The Home Health Value-Based Purchasing (HHVBP) Model began in 2016 as part of the Home Health Prospective Payment System (HH PPS) final rule. The original model aimed to:
- Incentivize better quality and more efficient care
- Study potential quality and efficiency measures
- Enhance the public reporting process
The original model had an average 4.6 percent improvement in Total Performance Scores (TPS). The model also saved Medicare $141 million annually, on average. There were no adverse risks with these savings.
Additionally, the model reduced the number of unplanned hospitalizations and stays at Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNF). This provided additional savings from lower inpatient and SNF spending.
The HHVBP model expanded in 2022. The model includes HHAs in all 50 states, D.C., and the U.S. territories. The model adjusts Medicare payments from the fee-for-service (FFS) model. Quality measures in a Performance Year impact adjustments in the Payment Year. These adjustments range from -5% to 5% and are based on quality measures relative to peer performance. HHA peers are pre-assigned cohorts with HHAs of similar size.
The expanded HHVBP model uses data from the Home Health Quality Reporting Program (HH QRP), Medicare claims, and HHCAHPS surveys. The expanded model does not require any additional data at this time.
Additional information on the quality measures, cohorts, guides, and recordings from CMS can be found here.
We will continue to follow this story and provide updates on the new expanded model as they come in.
# # #
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
by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | May 30, 2024 | Admin, Regulatory
by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has now joined the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and some state legislatures to target non-compete agreements. The general counsel for the NLRB argued in a recent memo that non-compete agreements violate the National Labor Relations Act because they interfere with employees’ right to engage in protected concerted activity. Two recent actions by the Board provide more information about efforts of the NLRB to limit use of non-compete agreements.
Juvly Aesthetics Non-Compete Agreement Settlement
In February of 2024, the regional office of the Board in Cincinnati approved a settlement agreement between Juvly Aesthetics and three former employees. The Board claimed that Juvly, an operator of medical clinics, violated the rights of employees through the use of confidentiality, non-disparagement, non-competition, non-solicitation and requirements to repay training expenses under certain conditions.
According to the NLRB, Juvly prohibited employees from discussing their rates of pay. The Company also required some employees to sign a non-compete agreement that was in effect for a period of twenty-four months for any competing medical practice within twenty miles of any location of the Company.
Juvly agreed to a settlement agreement that required:
- Payment of back pay to some employees
- Termination of unlawful policies and procedures
- Release of employees from unlawful agreements
- Posting of all of requirements of the settlement agreements for review by employees
In December, the NLRB Division of Advice issued guidance that evaluated the legality of these issues:
- Customer non-solicitation provisions do not violate the Act because they only prevent employees from soliciting existing customers for one year so that employees are likely not barred from other employment opportunities for more than one year.
- Confidentiality agreements do not violate the Act because they prohibit only disclosure of trade secrets, marketing plans, customer lists, and other proprietary information, as opposed to information that could involve employee activity regulated by the Act, such as wage information.
- Provisions requiring the return of company property do not violate the Act.
Providers are now clearly operating in an environment that prohibits employers from restricting employee activities that were fair game in the past. The specifics of efforts to limit the actions of employers remain unclear, but will likely be “fleshed out” in enforcement actions.
©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.
by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | May 23, 2024 | Clinical, Regulatory
by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.
Preferred Provider Agreements as Referral Source
In a highly competitive marketplace, home care providers of all types, including home health agencies, hospices, private duty/home care companies and home medical equipment (HME) suppliers are looking for a “leg up,” especially for patients with certain types of payors. Providers may be able to cement important referral sources using Preferred Provider Agreements. For example, a provider may wish to approach an assisted living facility (ALF) to see if it is interested in a preferred provider relationship. If so, then management of the ALF may want to sign a Preferred Provider Agreement in order to further a relationship with this provider.
Problems with Preferred Provider Agreements
The anti-kickback statute may apply if providers involved in referral arrangements receive any type of federal or state funds, including, but not limited to, payments for services provided from Medicaid waiver programs, managed Medicaid programs, the Tri-Care Program, the VA, or any other state or federal programs. The anti-kickback statute generally says that anyone who either offers to give or actually gives anyone anything in order to induce referrals has engaged in criminal conduct. There are, however, several exceptions to this statute that may be applicable.
How to Assess Your Preferred Provider Agreements
Providers should ask two crucial questions about the application of the anti-kickback statute to referral arrangements:
- Is there a kickback or rebate?
- If so, is there an exception or “safe harbor” that permits the arrangement even though it would otherwise violate the statute?
kickback or rebate occurs when a provider receives referrals from another provider and something flows back to the referral source from the provider who received referrals. If there is a kickback or rebate, providers must automatically ask the second question listed above. If they fail to utilize applicable exceptions, they may miss out on useful marketing strategies that are likely to result in numerous referrals.
With regard to Preferred Provider Agreements, however, it is important to note that they can be structured so that no money or anything of value changes hands between providers and the other party involved. If so, there is no kickback or rebate.
Patient Choice
The parties to Preferred Provider Agreements must also make certain that they honor patients’ choices of providers. There are a number of sources of patients’ right to freedom of choice of providers applicable to preferred provider arrangements, including:
- Court decisions or the common law says that all patients – regardless of payor source, type of care rendered, or types of providers involved – have the right to control the care they receive and who provides it.
- A federal statute that guarantees all Medicare and Medicaid patients the right to freedom of choice of providers. This statute may be applicable if either party receives reimbursement from the Medicare or Medicaid Programs.
When patients express preferences for certain providers, however, their choices must be honored despite the existence of Preferred Provider Agreements. The agreement of the parties to honor patients’ choices should be included in Preferred Provider Agreements.
Final Thoughts
The market to provide services to patients in their homes is expanding, but the competition for referrals among providers seems to be extremely fierce. Providers are well advised to utilize Preferred Provider Agreements to help them to increase and/or maintain referrals in order to help ensure profitability.
©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.
by Rowan Report | Apr 26, 2024 | Admin, Clinical, CMS, Regulatory
by Johnathan Eaves, Senior Director of Communications, Axxess
Treating Medicare patients comes with a level of nuance that is important to understand to ensure that organizations remain compliant and patients receive appropriate care. Standards for quality care and payment can sometimes be dictated by Medicare’s payment policies and at other times be decided by the Conditions of Participation. There is an important difference between these two governing principles that providers should understand to ensure compliance.
Care at home industry veteran and Axxess Senior Vice President of Clinical Services Arlene Maxim RN, HCS-C, offered insights into the differences between Medicare’s policy and its Conditions of Participation during a recent webinar.
Explaining the Difference
Maxim pointed out that the differences between policy and the conditional requirements comes down to what can be billed and what are the quality standards for the services provided.
“The Conditions of Participation are dealing primarily with quality, whereas Medicare policy is related to payment,” said Maxim. And while there is a difference, that doesn’t mean both aren’t important and must always be followed.
“If Medicare policies are not followed, you are audited and if you do not have documentation to support those policies, you’re not going to get paid,” said Maxim “Oftentimes, with PDGM, staff members are not getting past that first 30 days. They’re not understanding what they need to do to keep that patient who continues to qualify for services on for longer.”
Maxim says that the problem is often that clinicians do not understand Medicare policy. “Every piece of documentation we submit to the Medicare program for review [needs to be] as pristine as we can possibly get it,” she said.
Assessment and Documentation
Proper assessment and documentation is something Maxim feels is critical in ensuring quality care, meeting Medicare requirements, and receiving payment for services.
“Complete and detailed documentation is going to be the key for agency payment by the Medicare program,” Maxim said.
Maxim pointed out certain services covered under Medicare policy may include observation and assessment, management and evaluation of a care plan, maintenance therapy, teaching and training activities, administration of medications, wound care, ostomy care, rehab nursing, venipuncture, skilled nursing visits, and more.
She also cautioned that agencies need to be prudent with the funds they receive from Medicare, viewing them as a potential “short-term, interest-free loan” until undergoing any audit. Until their documentation is reviewed and approved, there are no guarantees.
“Medicare is an insurance and it’s not free,” said Maxim. “Medicare policy provides us with a list of covered items. If experiencing an audit, and if the documentation is not there to cover the covered service, you’re not in compliance with that Medicare policy and you will not be paid for the services.”
Communicating With Physicians
Maxim further emphasized the importance of frequent contact with physicians, adherence to care plans, and ensuring that care plans are simple with individualized plans and goals that are achievable.
“You want to make sure that you have orders that physicians are actually going to read and to determine that they make sense and they’re going to sign off on them,” said Maxim.
“Keep your plan of care simple.”
# # #
Axxess Home Health, a cloud-based home health software, streamlines operations for every department while improving patient outcomes.
© 2024 Axxess. For reprint permission, please contact The Rowan Report: kristin@therowanreport.com
by Rowan Report | Apr 26, 2024 | CMS, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory
By Beth Noyce, RN, BSJMC, BCHH-C, COQS
CHAP-certified home health & hospice consultant
This is part 3 of the 3 in the series, outlining the discussions and implications in adopting new outcome and process measures for Hospice care. The final segment addresses future process and outcome measures that the board discussed, but did not yet implement. Read Part 1 on Outcome Measures and Part 2 on Process Measures.
The TEP discussed potential future process and outcome measure concepts that Abt Associates presented to the panel as well.
The process measures included:
- Education for Medication Management
- Wound Management Addressed in Plan of Care
- Transfer of Health Information to Subsequent Provider
- Transfer of Health Information to Patient/Family Caregiver
Hope-based outcome measures were:
- Patient Preferences Followed throughout Hospice Stay
- Hospitalization of Persons with Do-Not-Hospitalize Order
Developing education for medication management as a process measure was a popular concept, and the top priority of the recommended measures with the TEP as they “broadly agreed that CMS should develop this measure,” the report says, citing “a significant need for training in medication management for patients and their caregivers.” They recommended that the measure weigh more heavily when care is provided in a home setting than in a facility setting because hospices are unable to control facility training and hiring practices. One panelist commented that including the phrase “during today’s visit” in the measure is important.
Whether CMS should further develop the process measure addressing wound management in the plan of care was less straight-forward, as panelists provided varied feedback. They generally agreed that this measure is important, as having a record of wound management addressed in the plan of care can hold the staff accountable for treating the wounds. But some members recommended measuring wound management with outcome measures rather than process measures. One panelist cited potential problems from patients’ deterioration over time and another noted that the time frame of this measure is important, and encouraged recording the process of getting care in place once a wound is identified. The panel agreed CMS should carefully define the measure’s specifications.
Because standard practice for most agencies is, when a patient is discharged live, to transfer health information to the subsequent provider and to the patient and family or caregiver, TEP members expressed that the two measures were likely to “top out,” meaning they would almost always be marked “Yes,” making them of no value in differentiating between hospice providers. The group generally discouraged developing these process measures.
The group strongly rejected any merit in developing two outcome measures concerning Patient Preferences Followed Throughout Hospice Stay and Hospitalization of Persons with Do-Not-
Hospitalize Order. The report says “Multiple TEP members described situations in which patients who had preferred not to be hospitalized changed their minds when a crisis occurred. Patients’ preferences and unexpected crises are usually out of the hospice’s control. Although it is still important for hospices to ask patients about their preferences as part of patient-centered care, the TEP did not believe these two items would be practical measures of a hospice’s care quality.”
Dr. McNally expects that Abt. Associates will apply the HQEP TEP’s suggestions to the HOPE tool.
“Oh yeah, they did it,” he says. “Abt would come to a specific meeting with information, data, suggestions, and specific information about how these things would be measured. We’d give feedback. Then they’d come back to the next meeting having incorporated our suggestions,” he explains. “All of us felt very much heard and responded to. It didn’t feel in the least bit perfunctory.”
Whatever specific measures are eventually included in the HOPE tool, Lund Person sees value in its implementation. “Hospice providers have had a woeful lack of outcome measures for hospice patients, which has made the evaluation of quality hospice care based only on process measures and the family’s evaluation of hospice care in the CAHPS® Hospice Survey, she explains. “Implementing HOPE will begin to identify outcome measures that can be compared between providers.”
Lund Person warns of potential challenges as well. “The selection of risk adjustment and stratification must be carefully done to minimize bias and maximize effectiveness of measures,” she says. “In addition, hospice providers have been awaiting the release of the HOPE tool with significant anxiety about content and administrative burden.”
Dr. McNally is confident the HOPE tool will be a healthy change for hospices.
“A lot of my role as a medical director and hospice physician is supporting our nurses,” he says. “They do 95% of the work. I really would like to see this not be burdensome for our hospice nurses. I’m looking forward to seeing what the [HOPE tool] beta testing translates to in our own hospice world.” He added “What I would hope to see is that the tool feels user-friendly to the hospice team, the people who have to use it, and that it also provides useful information to patients and families.”
NAHC’s Wehri says that standardizing processes through the HOPE tool is the key foundational element for the hospice industry. “High quality care is driven by reducing variance through standardized processes, Wehri writes. “Also, CMS will have a better idea of how the type of population a hospice serves impacts some of the clinical care.” This small glimpse into hospice variances that CMS does not currently have could be very helpful in future policy and payment decisions, according to Wehri. “What CMS finds in terms of differences between hospices and their care for patients may be a bit of a surprise to CMS,” she says. “I hope they are pleasantly surprised with the overall quality of care that is revealed.”
# # #
Beth Noyce provides education, consulting, mentoring, compliance assessments and auditing services to home health and hospice agencies and their clinicians in several states. She also now provides patient and family guidance concerning hospice and home health services. Beth loves teaching and helping others succeed. She also makes available recordings of much of her education for her clients’ convenience.
©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
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 | Sep 13, 2023 | Editorial, M&A, Regulatory
UnitedHealth Group Makes Bid to Buy Amedisys after Acquiring LHC Group
Amedisys is one of the leading providers of home health, hospice, and other healthcare at home services. It operates more than 500 locations in 37 states and the District of Columbia. After acquiring Contessa Health in 2021 for $250 million, Amedisys added hospital-at-home, SNF-at-home, and palliative care to its list of services.
Optum Outbids Option Care Health
In May of this year, Option Care Health and Amedisys issued joint statements announcing a merger of the two companies in an all stock-option bid. Option Care Health provides home and alternate site infusion services, while Amedisys provides home health, hospice, and high-acuity care. The merger was valued at $3.6 billion. It would have increased stockholder value, increased access to care across the United States, and created a network of more than 16,000 health care professionals, according to the joint statement.1
By June 26th, Option Care Health confirmed the termination of the merger and a $106 million termination payment from Amedisys, after Amedisys accepted an all-cash bid from UnitedHealth Group.2
UnitedHealth Expanding Service Options
UnitedHealth Group acquired LHC Group earlier this year for $5.4 billion.3 That acquisition folded LHC Group into UnitedHealth Group’s Optum. The acquisition came after increased demands for home care services. UnitedHealth Group considered this a move toward value-based care. The Federal Trade Commission stalled the merger with requests for additional details in mid-2022. Despite the FTC probe and a shareholder lawsuit, the deal was ultimately approved and the LHC Group delisted its stock on February 22.4
New Merger Faces Federal Scrutiny
Optum and Amedysis expected concerns over anti-trust issues surrounding the merger, according to a joint statement from the two groups. The Department of Justice recently asked for more information.5 The request will push back the timeline for the merger. Amedisys believes there is little geographic overlap between Amedisys and LHC Group and that the scrutiny is a result of other UnitedHealth Group acquisitions.
In a press release about the merger, Optum CEO Patrick Conway, M.D. said, “Amedisys’ commitment to quality and care innovation within the home, and the patient-first culture of its people, combined with Optum’s deep value-based care expertise can drive meaningful improvement in the health outcomes and experiences of more patients at lower costs, leading to continued growth.”6
Even with the recent acquisitions and mergers, if this deal with Amedisys proceeds, Optum will have only a 10% market share across the U.S. For this reason, as well as the demand for home care far exceeding the supply, Optum believes this merger will be approved.
Should a company that brokers health insurance also be allowed to be the provider of care? In this author’s experience, job-based healthcare insurance does not come with many options. There may be different levels of care to fit your budget, but the insurance company is already chosen by the employer. This means that employees and their families choose to have health insurance or not but cannot choose the insurance company.
Home Care, Hospice, Post-Acute Care, Palliative Care, and other in-home services are very personal. The company you choose and the care provider you get have to fit your needs and personality and there is a high level of trust needed to allow a stranger into your home when you are in a vulnerable state. If the insurance company is also providing the care, the option to find a care provider that suits the level of trust needed almost disappears.
In 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order for more vigorous oversight of the healthcare market. Mergers and acquisitions are being scrutinized more heavily to preclude monopolies of care. The FTC and DOJ, in response to this executive order, have proposed updates to antitrust guidelines that will make healthcare mergers and acquisitions more difficult.7
Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage has now reached 50%, making insurance companies more involved in senior care than ever before.8 Insurance companies only recently increased the percentage of revenue spent on patient care to 80%, up from as low as 50% before 2010.9 Given these facts, it may be worth questioning whether the insurance companies have too much control over care now, and if the acquisition of care providers by insurance providers should be eliminated completely to avoid a complete takeover of healthcare by insurance companies that already focus more on profit than people.
Kristin Rowan has been working at Healthcare at Home: The Rowan Report since 2008. She has a master’s degree in business administration and marketing and runs Girard Marketing Group, a multi-faceted boutique marketing firm specializing in event planning, sales, and marketing strategy. She has recently taken on the role of Editor of The Rowan Report and will add her voice to current Home Care topics as well as marketing tips for home care agencies. Connect with Kristin directly kristin@girardmarketinggroup.com or www.girardmarketinggroup.com
©2024 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in Healthcare at Home: The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com
