Tag: Medicare

Hospitals slammed with $380M in CMS cuts, industry cries foul

 

 

Dive Brief:

  • With its final Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) rule for 2019, CMS is eliminating the pay discrepancy Medicare beneficiaries face visiting a hospital-owned outpatient setting as opposed to a traditional doctor’s office. CMS said cutting reimbursement at hospital-owned outpatient settings for these visits will save Medicare $380 million in 2019 alone. The American Hospital Association promptly vowed to sue.
  • On the 340B front, the agency is expanding payment cuts to off-site hospital departments in a bid to keep hospitals from shifting their pharmacy services to off-campus facilities. By doing this, hospitals receive higher payment rates, so CMS’ move is sure to anger safety net hospitals.
  • The agency is also allowing Medicare beneficiaries to receive more care outside of hospitals by adding 12 additional procedures at ambulatory surgical centers, a move supplemented by reductions to reporting requirements for both ASCs and hospitals. Those reporting cuts are expected to save providers $27 million over the next two years, according to CMS.

 

Dive Insight:

As hospitals continue to gobble up competitors and physician practices, consolidation has had a perverse affect on where Medicare beneficiaries are getting low-acuity care and how much Medicare is paying for those services.

A 2015 GAO report found that after acquiring a physician practice, a shift occurred where more patients were seen at the higher-cost setting of a hospital outpatient facility rather than the lower-cost option of a traditional doctor’s office.

“While vertical consolidation has potential benefits, we found that the rise in vertical consolidation exacerbates a financial vulnerability in Medicare’s payment policy: Medicare pays different rates for the same service, depending on where the service is performed,” the GAO report found.

CMS’ final rule issued Friday is an attempt at creating “a level playing field” for providers, CMS administrator Seema Verma said in a statement.

The change is expected to save Medicare $380 million in 2019 alone, adding up to a sizable payment cut for hospitals.

Tom Nickels, Executive Vice President of the American Hospital Association (AHA) railed against CMS’ “ill-advised” payment cuts to outpatient clinics, arguing further that the rule is “based on unsupportable analyses and erroneous policy rationales” that will hit rural patients and vulnerable communities hardest.

Even so, the final rule eases up a bit compared to an earlier proposal, by spreading out the site-neutral cuts over two years.

And overall, factoring in the cuts and payment rate increases, reimbursement on a net basis will rise slightly, 0.6%, for nonprofit hospitals and 1% for for-profit, according to the final rule. Height analysts said that’s an improvement from the proposed rule in which nonprofits net reimbursement would have been negative.

Friday’s rule also would allow ambulatory surgical centers to do more, creating another threat to hospitals. Under the rule, ASCs could provide and be reimbursed for 12 additional procedures, mainly for cardiovascular issues, according to CMS.

The agency was expected to extend 340B payment cuts to previously exempt off-campus providers, a move proposed in July that received swift pushback from safety net hospital advocates and the hospital industry at large.

Maureen Testoni, interim president of advocacy group 340B Health, said in a statement that her organization is disappointed in the “misguided and damaging policy,” and encouraged Congress to move to reverse the cuts.

“Cutting Medicare payments for drugs for patients treated in 340B hospitals by nearly 30% will damage the healthcare safety net that serves uninsured, underinsured, and Medicaid patients across the country,” Testoni said. “We have already seen the negative impact these cuts are having on patient care. Our member hospitals report that they have had to cut back on services and have had to forgo hiring or lay off doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other healthcare professionals.”

When CMS proposed extending 340B cuts to off-campus facilities in July, the American Hospital Association argued that the agency “misconstrued Congressional intent” to provide off-campus clinics with the existing outpatient payment rate. If CMS were to go through with the rule, AHA said at the time, it would ultimately “impede access to care for the most vulnerable patients” instead.

AHA, according to Nickels, intends to rally with other industry groups and “promptly bring a court challenge to the new rule’s site-neutral provisions.” AHA and a handful of other hospital associations are already in a legal battle with HHS over its 340B cuts.

MedPAC searches for ways to reach Medicare-eligible individuals who still aren’t enrolled

 

Medicare enrollment form and pen

 

A discrepancy in eligibility ages for Medicare and Social Security benefits means that some Medicare-eligible individuals are not enrolled in the program, leaving them unknowingly open to penalties.

During a meeting on Thursday, the Medicare Payment and Advisory Commission (MedPAC) discussed why this problem exists and how to fix it.

Eligibility for both Medicare and Social Security has begun at age 65 for many years. Although Medicare eligibility still starts at age 65, the “full retirement” age for Social Security is gradually increasing to 67.

People who receive Social Security benefits are enrolled in Medicare automatically. But due to this change, about 40% of 65-year-olds who are not yet receiving Social Security benefits have not been auto-enrolled in Medicare.

Some can enroll after life events, such as losing employer-sponsored coverage after retirement. The rest, however, face delays in coverage and late enrollment penalties: $13.40 per month for each year delaying enrollment in Part B, and $4.20 per month for each year delaying enrollment in Part D.

There is an appeals process for people stuck with penalties, but they must prove that they received incorrect information from a government official.

Several commissioners saw those penalties as overly harsh, but a few said Medicare needs a better system to ensure the eligible population enrolls.
One commissioner suggested providing seniors a way to enroll in Medicare when they go to enroll in an exchange plan. Similarly, another commissioner said exchange plans could help communicate information about enrolling in Medicare to seniors.

Yet another commissioner, however, worried insurance companies would try to retain as many of their enrollees as possible—even those that could enroll in Medicare.

Little is known about the eligible-but-not-enrolled population—age 65 or otherwise. This population could be mostly healthy individuals deferring enrollment until they feel they need coverage, or they could be low-income individuals who feel they can’t afford the premiums.

Scott Harrison, Ph.D., a principal policy analyst who presented at Thursday’s session, suggested that MedPAC urge the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to work with the Social Security Administration (SSA) to better inform individuals about their Medicare eligibility.

Usually, beneficiaries receive enrollment information through the mail. But one commissioner, Karen DeSalvo, M.D.—who served as acting assistant secretary for health at HHS under President Obama—encouraged the group to “think broadly.”

HHS and the Social Security Administration can communicate via Federally Qualified Health Center networks, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration grantees, and more, DeSalvo said. Communicating through “a lot of avenues” could also reach individuals that lack a permanent address, she added.

MedPAC plans to collect more information about this population’s age, geographic distribution, income, and literacy before taking action.

Hundreds of groups raise concerns about E/M payment proposal

 

 

Dive Brief:

  • Nearly 300 patient and provider groups and other health organizations sent two separate letters to CMS Administrator Seema Verma to protest proposed evaluation and management (E/M) service changes in the 2019 Physician Payment Rule.
  • A letter that included the American Medical Association and about 150 other groups did praise the rule’s effort to cut back on physician paperwork.
  • However, another letter that was signed by 126 groups said “this proposed approach to reducing paperwork would have unintended consequences for Medicare beneficiaries” like doctors responding to the rate cuts by spending less time with patients or cherry-picking the healthiest patients.

Dive Insight:

CMS proposed a change in its 2019 physician fee schedule that would consolidate billing codes for E/M office visits. It’s part of a move to reduce Medicare provider documentation and reporting burdens. However, opponents to the proposal say it will hurt specialists and lead to flat payments for all E/M visits regardless of complexity.

Doctors are generally onboard with proposals that reduce required documentation and red tape, but a substantial change in the way payments are calculated has many of them uneasy and speculating a harmful fallout.

The American Medical Association’s letter with about 150 medical groups said the groups support CMS’ “Patients Over Paperwork” initiative. The agency has promoted efforts to reduce providers’ administrative burdens through changing and reducing regulations.

Proposed documentation changes that will cut administrative tasks include allowing providers to document only the interval history since the last visit, eliminating the requirement that physician re-document information and not forcing providers to justify a home visit rather than an office visit.

In its letter, the organizations praised the attempt to reduce “note bloat.” One of the groups that signed the letter, the American Academy of Family Physicians, said earlier this year that rules and paperwork burdens are “untenable” for family physicians. At the time, the group offered seven ways to reduce that burden.

The medical groups writing to CMS were concerned, however, with the proposal to collapse payment rates for eight office visit services for new and established patients down to two each.

“We oppose the implementation of this proposal because it could hurt physicians and other healthcare professionals in specialties that treat the sickest patients, as well as those who provide comprehensive primary care, ultimately jeopardizing patients’ access to care,” according to the letter.

The other letter states that specialist services are already “grossly under-compensated” and additional cuts would make workforce shortages worse, including in specialties like rheumatology. “Not only will this will result in an additional burden on patients with more copayments and costs associated with time and travel, it will also reduce the quality of care, particularly for patients with complex medical conditions,” the letter reads.

Rather than move forward with the proposal, the organizations suggested that CMS convene stakeholders “to identify other strategies to reduce paperwork and administrative burden that do not threaten patient access to care.”

OIG: CMS paid out $434M in improper premium assistance payments

 

Healthcare.gov

 

CMS paid $434 million in improper premium assistance payments in 2014, according to the Office of Inspector General (OIG). And the true total of improper payments could approach $1 billion.

At least 461,127 financial assistance policies that CMS authorized that year were not in accordance with federal requirements, the OIG estimated in a recent report. Another 183,983 policies were “potentially improper,” the office found, amounting to an additional $504.9 million.

At issue is a substitute authorization system CMS employed in 2014, which OIG says failed to accurately authorize at least 19% of a sample of premium assistance policies the office analyzed. But the multimillion-dollar loss is also representative of a premium assistance model gone awry—one that sets up incentives for providers to push patients toward private insurance.

“CMS did not have an effective system in place to ensure that financial assistance payments were made only for confirmed enrollees and in the correct amounts for the 2014 benefit year. Instead, CMS relied on [qualified health plan] issuers to verify that their enrollees were confirmed and to attest that the financial assistance payment information they reported on their templates was accurate,” OIG wrote in its report (PDF).

Lacking that verification, it’s possible some of the policyholders were not, in fact, paying their full premium balance but were instead being supplemented by predatory providers through controversial patient-steering practices. Some providers—dialysis centers in particular—have been accused of inappropriately meddling in patients’ coverage decisions.

Because Medicare and Medicaid have much lower reimbursement rates than private insurers, providers have a structural incentive to prefer patients with private insurance. And through premium assistance programs, they have a functional, though inappropriate, mechanism to “steer” patients out of public programs and onto the higher-paying ACA marketplaces: They can make some premium payments on behalf of patients and still come out ahead on the reimbursement side.

OIG does not consider this a “proper” use of patient assistance programs.

To correct for the improper payments, OIG recommended that CMS work with the Treasury Department and QHP issuers to recoup the $434.4 million. However, while CMS partially concurred with the agency’s recommendations, it stated it would not return payments in which issuers “acted in good faith,” nor would it go after issuers that had gone out of business since 2014. It did not provide an estimated figure it hoped to recover.

In its report, OIG also noted that the deficiency that enabled these improper payments has since been solved.

“As of May 2016, CMS had fully transitioned QHP issuers operating through the Federal marketplace to an automated payment system that makes financial assistance payments to QHP issuers on an individual policy-level basis. CMS plans to fully transition most QHP issuers operating through State marketplaces to the automated system in 2018,” it wrote.

CMS proposes Medicare ACO revamp to force risk

 

Dive Brief:

  • CMS is proposing an overhaul of the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) that would force Accountable Care Organizations to take on financial risk sooner. While ACOs currently have six years to shift to a risk-bearing model, the proposed rule would give existing ACOs one year to shift and new ACOs two years.
  • Currently, 82% of Medicare ACOs are in the upside-only MSSP track, meaning they share in savings but avoid sharing in losses. With this proposal, CMS anticipates 109 of the current 649 participants to drop out of the program by 2028.
  • Critics, however, feel those numbers might be higher. A recent survey from the National Association of ACOs (NAACOS) showed 71.4% of ACOs would rather drop out than assume more financial risk. The association said at the time that it does “not support forcing ACOs to assume risk if they are not ready.”

Dive Insight:

After six years of allowing ACOs to participate in MSSP without taking on downside risk, CMS is getting serious about cutting the cord. CMS Administrator Seema Verma said the agency expects the changes to result in $2.24 billion in savings for the Medicare program over the next 10 years. CMS is calling the initiative “Pathways to Success.”

Providers have long been reticent to take on risk in payment models, including dropping out of programs once that requirement is triggered. Many policy experts agree, however, that the potential for financial penalty is needed if there is to be real change.

ACOs, created in 2012 as a cornerstone of the Affordable Care Act, were expected to save Medicare nearly $5 billion by 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A recent analysis from Avalere showed that ACOs have actually increased government spending. That analysis, published in March, found that between 2013 and 2016, the MSSP increased federal spending by $384 million rather than produce the $1.7 billion in savings it was expected to over that time period.

“It’s time for the program to evolve. It’s time for ACOs to start taking upside and downside risk,” Verma said on a call with reporters. “What the data tells us is that ACOs taking two-sided risk are delivering better results.”

In addition to forcing ACOs to take on downside risk sooner, the proposed rule would provide incentives for telehealth, require ACOs to adopt the 2015 Edition of EHR technology and encourage ACOs to inform their beneficiaries that they are indeed an ACO and explain how that might impact their care.

Medicare ACOs currently enroll more than 10 million beneficiaries. Interestingly, in an effort to “bolster engagement,” CMS is proposing to “allow certain two-sided ACOs to provide an incentive payment of up to $20 to each assigned beneficiary for each qualifying primary care service that the beneficiary receives.” Verma said this incentive could come in the form of gift cards.

Importantly, CMS is proposing to phase out its no-risk model by 2020.

Critics of the proposed rule say it is too extreme and will force more ACOs out of MSSP than CMS might be anticipating. In a statement released shortly after the proposal, American Hospital Association Executive Vice President Tom Nickels said the rule would “create barriers to entry in transitioning to value-based care.”

“While we acknowledge CMS’s interest in encouraging providers to more quickly move toward accepting risk, drastically shortening the length of time in which ACOs can participate in an upside-only model ignores the reality that providers are starting at vastly different points and will have vastly different learning curves when moving toward value-based care,” Nickels said.

According to the statement, AHA advocates for a happy medium between quality of care, Medicare savings and support for ACOs.

The proposed rule does have its fair share of supporters, even receiving a stamp of approval from former CMS administrator Andy Slavitt.

The Health Care Transformation Task Force, made up of a mix of industry players, applauded the proposed rule, calling it an “important step to promote value-based transformation and to push industry momentum forward.”

Tim Gronniger, former deputy chief of staff at CMS and current SVP of development & strategy at Caravan Health, said the rule would have “significant impacts on the market” and shows “CMS is committing to a future where ACOs play a large role in the future of the Medicare program.” Caravan CEO Lynn Barr added that its members are prepared for the rule, if finalized.

Rita Numerof, president of healthcare consulting firm Numerof & Associates, told Healthcare Dive she applauds CMS’ proposal, but added that the complexity of the rule’s delivery does it no justice.

“CMS has the power to shift performance by setting direction and expectations,” Numerof said. “But it shouldn’t dictate the specifics of how and where care is delivered. 600 pages of guidance to explain changes in rules is yet another example of how administrative bureaucracy unintentionally distracts from the business of delivering care to those who need it.”

4 changes physician groups don’t like in proposed MACRA, physician fee schedule rule

Female-Patient-Doctor-Women's-Health-Credit:Getty/monkeybusinessimages

Doctors’ groups are still digesting the 1,473-page proposed federal rule updating the Medicare physician fee schedule and outlining changes for year three of the physician payment program implemented under MACRA.

But in their preliminary review of the proposal released by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services last Thursday, they’ve already found plenty to fault, including changes that would slow the move of physician practices to value-based payment and a failure to lower drug costs.

That, even as CMS Administrator Seema Verma sent out a “Dear Doctor” letter on Monday to various clinician groups saying the proposed final rule is aimed at restoring the doctor-patient relationship and reducing “burdensome and often mindless administrative tasks.”

“CMS’s focus is on putting patients first, and that means protecting the doctor-patient relationship. We believe that you should be able to focus on delivering care to patients, not sitting in front of a computer screen,” Verma wrote in the letter that describes changes CMS is proposing.

What exactly do these groups representing physicians find problematic? Here are some of the changes the groups pointed out:

It could slow the move to value-based payment. The AMGA, a trade association that is pushing for the transformation of healthcare, said in a statement that the agency “missed the opportunity” to move Medicare provider payments to a value-based system.

The group said it was disappointing that CMS kept a high low-volume threshold for providers to participate in MIPS, one of two payment tracks under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). That will continue to reduce the payment adjustments for providers that are invested in value-based care, the AMGA said.

As authorized by MACRA, providers can earn an adjustment of up to 7% on their Medicare Part B payments in 2021 based on their 2019 performance. However, as indicated in the proposed rule, CMS estimates the overall payment adjustment will be 2%. “We are concerned that CMS has again opted not to recognize the efforts of high-performing AMGA members. As we enter the program’s third year, it is time for CMS to honor congressional intent and use MIPS to create value for Medicare,” said Jerry Penso, M.D., AMGA president and CEO.

Not everyone held that viewpoint. America’s Physician Groups President and CEO Donald Crane said the group is cautiously optimistic that CMS has taken real action to advance the value movement. In particular, he cited the reaffirmation of the recently announced Medicare Advantage Qualifying Payment Arrangement Incentive (MAQI) demonstration.

It could raise, not lower, drug prices. The Community Oncology Alliance, a nonprofit association of independent oncology centers, said CMS’ proposal to cut a 6% fee doctors get for drugs dispensed in their offices to 3%, which would apply to new drugs during their introductory period, will not lower drug prices as the government indicated. The proposal was likely to trigger pushback, and it did.

“COA believes that this payment cut for new cancer therapies will result in drug manufacturers actually increasing WAC [wholesale acquisition cost] list prices so that their new products will not be at a competitive disadvantage to existing products which are reimbursed at average sales price (ASP) plus 6%,” the group said in a statement.

“No words can adequately describe how puzzling the CMS proposals are,” said Ted Okon, executive director of COA. “At a time when the Trump administration is floating its blueprint to bring down drug prices, they are proposing a move that will actually fuel list prices of chemotherapy and other lifesaving drugs.”

The American Society of Clinical Oncology said the move to cut physician reimbursement for Part B drugs would make the cancer care delivery system more unstable. “Additionally, the cuts could hinder patient access to newer, innovative therapies—potentially stalling progress against cancer and almost certainly making it more difficult for oncologists to provide essential services to patients with cancer,” said Monica M. Bertagnolli, M.D., the group’s president, in a statement.

It could cut payments for evaluating complex cases. While CMS is proposing to overhaul the Evaluation and Management (E&M) documentation and coding system to dramatically reduce the amount of time doctors must spend on documentation, the COA was worried about the impact.

Under the proposal, CMS would drastically cut payment for the critical evaluation and management of more complex cancer cases from $172 to $135 (a 22% payment cut) for a new patient and from $148 to $93 (a 37% payment cut) for an existing patient, the group said. While the intent is to streamline reporting, it will severely undervalue the thorough and critical evaluation and management of seniors with cancer, especially life-threatening complex cases, the group said.

“Their scheme to pay a physician the same amount for evaluating a case of sniffles and a complex brain cancer simply defies all logic. It is the antithesis of value-based healthcare and cheapens the medical care seniors are entitled to under Medicare,” said Okon.

In her letter to doctors, Verma said most specialties will see changes in their overall Medicare payments in the range of 1% to 2% up or down from the new E&M policy, but she said any small negative payment adjustments would be outweighed by the significant reduction in documentation burden.

It could increase costs, keep reporting burden. The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) said it was disappointed that CMS decided to continue its policy requiring physicians to document a full 365 days of quality measures rather than 90 consecutive days.

The proposed rule would also require physicians to upgrade to 2015 Edition Certified Electronic Health Record Technology beginning in 2019. The MGMA was also unhappy that the rule would require physicians to make costly upgrades to their electronic health records for 2019 and take further steps toward implementing burdensome appropriate use criteria.

“At first glance, the rule doesn’t meet MGMA’s definition of administrative simplification,” said Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs.


Enter code DAShealth to view video.


Enter code DAShealth to view video.


Enter code DAShealth to view video.

Please complete the sign in form below.

[contact-form-7 404 "Not Found"]

Please complete the sign in form below.







Enter code DAShealth to view video.


Enter code DAShealth to view video.


Enter code DAShealth to view video.



Enter code DAShealth to view video.