CMS | The Health Law Firm Blog

CMS Extends Waivers under the ACO Shared Savings Program

By Lance O. Leider, J.D., The Health Law Firm

On November 2, 2011, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) promulgated the interim final rule on fraud and abuse waivers for Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program. The interim rule can be found at 76 Fed. Reg. 67801. The waiver was granted pursuant to the agency’s authority under the Affordable Care Act, specifically, 42 U.S.C. § 1899(f).

You can read our prior blog postings on the ACO waiver programs here.

Normally, interim final rules are only permitted to remain in effect for a maximum of three years (see 69 Fed. Reg. 78422). CMS regulations require the agency to publish a final rule within three years of a proposed or interim final rule. As the interim final rule is set to expire on November 2, 2014, the agency took advantage of the procedure that allows it to extend the life of the rule for an additional year by publishing a notice explaining the reasons why the regular timeline was not met.

Explanation for the Extension.

CMS stated that it is in the process of preparing a final rule, and allowing the interim final rule to expire would create a great deal of legal uncertainty for ACOs currently participating in the Shared Savings Program. According to CMS, this uncertainty has the potential to disrupt ongoing ACO business, plans, and operations.

Ultimately, CMS has learned through the course of its operation of the Shared Savings Program that certain modifications to the program are necessary. Although these modifications are not yet defined completely, CMS nevertheless believed the prudent course of action was to maintain the status quo during the rule making process.

Check back with us for updates on the process and any further information as the final rule is developed.

Comments?

Have you considered joining an ACO? Why or why not? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced With Healthcare Business Practices.

The Health Law Firm routinely represents physician groups and practices with issues involving establishing, licensing, selling, merging, and intergroup affiliation. If you are considering establishing an ACO or have been approached to become a participant in one, you can contact The Health Law Firm at (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 or you can visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

About the Author: Lance O. Leider is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T10:00:58-04:00June 1, 2018|Categories: ACO, Affordable Care Act, The Health Law Firm Blog|Tags: accountable care organization, ACO contract, ACO contracts, ACO financial risk, ACO participation agreement, attorney, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, counsel, defense attorney, defense lawyer, doctor, health law attorney, health law firm, health lawyer, healthcare business lawyer, lawyer, medicare, Medicare ACO, Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, Medicare Shared Savings Program, Medicare-contracted ACO, MedPAC, MSSP, physician, pioneer ACO, risk model, shared savings program, the health law firm|Comments Off

Internal Revenue Service Decides Electronic Health Record Incentive Payments are Taxable

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has taken the position that electronic health record (EHR) incentive payments are taxable. Previously it was not specified how EHR incentive payments were to be treated or reported to the IRS. On January 14, 2013, the IRS issued guidance on this issue in a memorandum from the Office of Chief Counsel. This memorandum lists tax issues facing those who have received or who will receive EHR incentive payments. It also states the IRS’s position on those issues.

IRS Considered Three Different Issues and Gave its Stance on Each Issue.

In its memorandum, the Office of Chief Counsel considered the following three issues:

1. Whether recipients must include in gross income electronic health record
incentive payments paid by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
(CMS) pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

2. Whether CMS has a reporting requirement with regard to payments made under the EHR Incentive Program.

3. Whether the reporting requirement is altered if the payment is assigned to a third party.

The Summary of the Office of Chief Counsel’s Position on Each of the Issues.

1. The recipients must include the incentive payments in gross income unless they receive the payments as a conduit or an agent of another and are thus unable to keep the payments.

2. CMS has a reporting requirement under section 6041 of the Internal Revenue Code with respect to the eligible providers.

3. In the event of an assignment by the eligible providers to a third party, CMS would be obligated to report a payment to the eligible provider, even if the payment is assigned to a third party. The eligible provider would then likely bear a reporting obligation with respect to the assignment to a third party. CMS would not have a reporting obligation with respect to the third-party assignee unless CMS exercised managerial oversight with respect to, or had a significant economic interest in, the assignment.

Click here to read the entire memorandum.

Health Care Professionals Be Aware.

According to the IRS, taxpayers cannot avoid tax by turning over income to someone else. For example, a doctor earns an EHR incentive payment and turns it over to his/her practice. That doctor may still have to include the EHR payment on his/her personal tax return. The IRS allows an exception. If the doctor received the payment as an agent of the group practice, the doctor does not have to report it on his/her personal tax return.

Health care professionals and providers who have or will receive EHR incentive payments should plan to deal with the tax consequences of those incentives.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys.

The Health Law Firm routinely represents physicians and medical groups on EHR problems. It also represents pharmacists, pharmacies, physicians, nurses and other health providers in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, litigation, inspections and audits involving the DEA, Department of Health (DOH) and other law enforcement agencies. Its attorneys include those who are board certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

As a health care professional, do you think electronic health record (EHR) incentive payments should be taxable? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Goldberg, Alan. “Healthcare Reimbursement List.” American Health Lawyers Association. (April 26, 2013).

Montemurro, Michael. “Electronic Health Records Incentive Payments, POSTS-145204-12.” Internal Revenue Service. (January 14, 2013). From: http://www.thehealthlawfirm.com/uploads/1307005.pdf

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T10:00:48-04:00June 1, 2018|Categories: Electronic Health Record, Health Care Industry, IRS, The Health Law Firm Blog|Tags: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, defense attorney, defense lawyer, doctor, electronic health record (EHR), electronic health record incentive payments, florida attorney, Florida lawyer, health care professional, health care provider, incentive payments, Internal Revenue Service, meaningful use, Office of Chief Counsel, physician, taxable, taxes, the health law firm|Comments Off

A New Year Means New Audits and Site Visits for Assisted Living Facilities – Protect Yourself Now

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

For Assisted Living Facilities (ALFs) in Florida, it’s time to do a little brushing up on your compliance material.

Beginning in January 2015, the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), Office of Inspector General (OIG), Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity (MPI), will conduct site visits to determine compliance with the Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook and the Assistive Care Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook. This is just one of several initiatives aimed at ALFs to curtail fraud, waste, and abuse in the Florida Medicaid program.

Be Prepared.

The goal of a site visit is to determine if providers are rendering and documenting required services; to determine if assistive care services are being rendered by qualified and properly trained staff; to identify quality of care/environmental issues; and, to document and report ALF providers’ deficiencies to any managed care organizations with which the ALF is contracted.

According to the Florida Assisted Living Association (FALA), the majority of MPI sanctions concerning these fines are associated with the failure to have the following completed forms on file for each resident:

1. AHCA Form 1823 – The Health Assessment
2. AHCA Form 035 – The Certification of Medical Necessity
3. AHCA Form 036 – Medicaid Service Plan

Knowing is Half the Battle.

This announcement shows that the government will continue rigorous and thorough enforcement efforts this year. ALFs should consider this a fair warning to get supporting documentation in order. If you’re worried your ALF may not be in compliance, we suggest getting a compliance assessment. If your ALF is being audited we always suggest contacting an experienced health law attorney immediately. For general tips on how to respond to a Medicaid audit, click here for a previous blog.

Comments?

Did you know about these anti-fraud initiatives? Do you feel like your ALF is prepared for a site visit? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Assisted Living Facilities.

The Health Law Firm and its attorneys represent assisted living facilities (ALFs) and ALF employees in a number of different matters including incorporation, preparing contracts, defending the facility against malpractice claims, licensing and regulatory matters, administrative hearings, and routine legal advice.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.

First Year Pioneer ACO Results: Medicare Money Saved But Some Physicians Leave Program

By Lance O. Leider, J.D., The Health Law Firm

On July 16, 2013, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a press release summarizing the performance results for the first year of the Pioneer Accountable Care Organization (ACO) Model. Made possible by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), the Pioneer ACO Model encourages providers and care givers to deliver more coordinated care ans services for Medicare beneficiaries. ACOs, including the Pioneer ACO Model and the Medicare Shared Savings Program, are one way CMS is providing options to providers looking to better coordinate care for patients and use health care dollars more wisely, according to CMS.

Click here to read the entire press release from CMS.

Pioneer Model ACOs Increase Quality.

The press release states that all thirty-two (32) participants in the program successfully increased the quality of care received by their beneficiaries. Consequently, each participant received incentive payments for achieving these results.

Some examples of the quality improvements were lower readmission rates and better blood pressure and cholesterol control among diabetic patients. Some examples of the quality control measures that were implemented were:

– dispatch of hospital trained nurses to beneficiaries’ homes for management of prescriptions, blood-sugar readings, healthy eating education and delivery and set up of durable medical equipment (DME); and

– care coordination by trained healthcare professionals at no cost.

Pioneer Model ACOs Increase Savings.

Of the thirty-two (32) Pioneer ACOs, thirteen (13) of them produced shared savings with CMS. This means that they exceeded the cost reduction benchmarks and were eligible to receive a percentage of those savings from CMS as compensation additional to the fee-for-service payments. In total CMS estimates that approximately $87.6 million in Medicare expenditures was saved.

However, two (2) of the Pioneer ACO participants had shared losses. This means that their per beneficiary fee-for-service expenditures exceeded the stated goal and they were required to share in the losses suffered by CMS. These losses were approximately $4 million.

Some Pioneer Model ACOs Withdrawal From Program.

Of the Pioneer ACOs that did not produce shared savings, seven (7) of them have decided to leave the Pioneer program and enroll in the standard Medicare Shared Savings Program. This program offers lower risks and lower rewards and does not have the option of moving to a capitated payment model after the first two (2) successful years.

The two (2) Pioneer ACOs that experienced shared losses with CMS have signaled their intent to withdraw from the ACO model entirely.

The First-Year Pioneer ACO Lesson: Win Some, Lose Some.

While not a total success, the Pioneer ACO program did manage to produce net savings to Medicare and improve the quality of care provided to its beneficiaries. Many news outlets who oppose PPACA are citing this as a failure of the program and yet more bad news for President Obama’s healthcare overhaul. However, many other sources share CMS’s somewhat rosier view of the program. These sources state that while the program may not have been as big a success as hoped, it was only the first year in operation and is nowhere near a failure.

According to an article in American Medical News, the American Medical Association (AMA) supports ACO programs that have allowed physicians practicing in groups of various sizes to participate in new care models. The AMA states that the first-year pioneer results are encouraging, and have the potential to improve quality and decease costs. To read the entire article from American Medical News, click here.

Data should be released on the standard Shared Savings Program ACOs in the near future.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced With Healthcare Business Practices.

The Health Law Firm routinely represents physician groups and practices with issues involving establishing, licensing, selling, merging, and intergroup affiliation. If you are considering establishing an ACO or have been approached to become a participant in one, you can contact The Health Law Firm at (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 or you can visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

What do you think of the performance results summery for the first year Pioneer ACO Model? What do you think about the number of groups dropping out? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. “Pioneer Accountable Care Organizations Succeed in Improving Care, Lowering Costs.” CMS.gov. (July 16, 2013). From: http://cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Press-Releases/2013-Press-Releases-Items/2013-07-16.html

Fiegl, Charles. “Medicare pioneer ACOs save money but lose physicians.” American Medical News. (July 29, 2013). From: http://www.amednews.com/article/20130729/government/130729933/1/?utm_source=nwltr&utm_medium=heds-htm&utm_campaign=20130729

About the Author: Lance O. Leider is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Federal Health Officials Propose Medicare Paying Doctors to Discuss End-of-Life Issues

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a new plan for doctors to discuss end-of-life issues with their patients. The plan is part of the CMS annual Medicare physician payment rule. This comes six years after the original controversy when President Obama first announced his health care legislation.

Doctors Will Be Paid for Discussing Treatment Options with Elderly Patients.

In what can only be described as welcomed and needed relief, the rule would reimburse doctors for discussing living wills and end-of-life medical treatment options with older patients. The medical discussions include long-term treatment options, like heart transplants. It also handles advance care planning, including a patient who desires treatment for a condition that affects his or her decision-making. These are conversations already taking place, but physicians are not currently paid for them.

The Pressure is on Medicare.

Medicare reimbursement is extremely important for elderly and disabled persons. As the second-largest insurer, many private insurers also follow the same rules Medicare adopts. Their place in the end-of-life care has long been debated. Whether or not health care professionals should be reimbursed for hospice and end-of-life treatment talks has been the center of debate. Physician groups and patient advocates have been pushing the health program to pay doctors for these consultations.

Many advocacy groups, including the American Medical Association (AMA), support the proposal. The AMA believes it’s the patient’s choice to plan advance-care decisions. Research has shown that there are great benefits to elders in advance-care planning and having their end-of-life wishes known to others. Receiving timely knowledge from physicians and health professionals can result in better decisions and ease of mind.

Rules Previously Criticized as “Death Panels” by Ignoramuses.

Sarah Palin, the towering mountain of medical knowledge and intellectual analysis, who dragged down John McCain into defeat during the elections of 2008, previously denounced similar payment provisions in the past. Sparking a great deal of unnecessary controversy, Palin claimed the health care reform legislation would create “death panels.” As a result of these and other similar accusations, the provision was removed from the final Affordable Care Act legislation. This deprived elders of useful knowledge and deprived health care providers of payment for their services. To read more about the “death panel” controversy, click here.

Comments?

What do you think of end-of-life discussions? Do you think they should be in place? Should physicians be reimbursed? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Grier, Peter. “ ‘Death Panel’ Controversy Very Much Alive.” The Christian Science Monitor. (Aug. 21, 2009). From: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/0821/death-panel-controversy-remains-very-much-alive

Sun, Lena H. “Medicare Proposes to Pay Doctors to Have End-of-Life Care Discussions.” The Washington Post. (July 8, 2015). From:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/medicare-proposes-to-pay-doctors-to-have-end-of-life-care-discussions/2015/07/08/1d7bb436-25a7-11e5-aae2-6c4f59b050aa_story.html

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

About the author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

KeyWords: Medicare, federal health, health law, health law attorney, health law lawyer, end-of-life issues, The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), CMS, Medicaid, healthcare, health care, health care attorney, health care lawyer, physicians, physician attorney, health care legislation, Affordable Care Act, ACA, medicine, the health law firm, death panel, death panel controversy, Medicare investigations, Medicaid investigations, elderly healthcare, senior health care, American Medical Association

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2015 The Health Law firm. All rights reserved.

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T10:01:00-04:00June 1, 2018|Categories: In the News, The Health Law Firm Blog|Tags: ACA, Affordable Care Act, American Medical Association, CMS, death panel, death panel controversy, elderly healthcare, end-of-life issues, federal health, health care, health care attorney, health care lawyer, health care legislation, health law, health law attorney, health law lawyer, healthcare, medicaid, Medicaid investigations, medicare, Medicare investigations, medicine, physician attorney, physicians, senior health care, The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the health law firm|Comments Off

Grace Period Included in the Affordable Care Act Could Pose Financial Risk to Healthcare Professionals and Providers

By Michael L. Smith, R.R.T., J.D., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law, and George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

A little known rule published by CMS to implement the Affordable Care Act (ACA) could pose a significant financial risk for doctors, hospitals and other healthcare providers. The rule requires health plans participating in the exchanges to provide individuals purchasing insurance through the exchanges a grace period before terminating the coverage for non payment of the premiums. Doctors and other healthcare providers will continue to provide care during the grace period, but the insurance plan will not be required to pay the claims incurred during most of the grace period. The result could be that physicians and other healthcare providers would provide a significant amount of uncompensated care.

Details of the Rule.

The CMS rule provides individuals that purchased subsidized coverage through the exchanges a 90-day grace period before their coverage is cancelled for non payment. The insurance plan is required to pay any claims incurred during the first 30 days of the grace period, but the insurance plan is not required to pay the claims incurred during the last 60 days of the grace period if the individual’s coverage is terminated. The insurance plan is allowed to place all the claims during the last 60 days of the grace period in a pending status. The rule requires the insurance plan to notify the healthcare providers when an insured individual is in the last 60 days of the grace period.

Risk Falls on Healthcare Professionals and Providers.

The rule imposes a significant risk for uncompensated care on the healthcare providers. The rule does require insurers to tell healthcare providers when patients are behind on their premium payments, but he rule does not specify how the health plan will provide that notice to the providers. The only notice some providers receive will probably be the pending status placed on the unpaid claims by the insurance plan.

Many doctors and hospitals are reluctant to participate in insurance plans offered on the exchanges due to the increased financial risk associated with the CMS rule. The result could be that individuals enrolling in insurance plans through the exchanges may find it difficult to find a healthcare provider willing to accept them as patients. CMS has been asked to modify the rule so that insurers are required to pay claims during the entire 90-day grace period.

How Grace Period Can be Manipulated to Benefit Patients.

The CMS rule may also result in individuals manipulating the system. Some individuals may intentionally pay premiums for only part of the year and become serial abusers of the 90 day grace period. Another unintended consequence of the ACA is that individuals that choose not to pay their premiums and have their coverage terminated can reenter the exchange and enroll in a plan regardless of their pre-existing conditions so there is little incentive for some individuals to maintain their coverage.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in the Representation of Health Professionals and Providers.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm provide legal representation to physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, CRNAs, pain management doctors, dentists, pharmacists, psychologists and other health providers in insurance company or other third party payor reimbursements.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

Were you aware of the 90-day grace period? As a healthcare professional or provider, are you worried you don’t have adequate financial protection? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Fiegl, Charles. “Medical Groups Fear ACA Grace Period Will Lead to Unpaid Claims.” American Medical News. (September 2, 2013). From: http://www.amednews.com/article/20130902/government/130909984/4/

Block, Jonathan. “Providers Protest Rule Putting Them at Financial Risk if Patients Don’t Pay Premiums.” Modern Healthcare. (August 13, 2013). From: http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20130813/NEWS/308139968

Adams, Samuel. “Hospitals May Absorb Risk of Insurers’ Debtor Patients.” Bloogberg. (August 17, 2013). From: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-16/hospitals-may-pay-for-insurers-debtor-patients-under-obamacare.html

45 C.F.R. Section 156.270

About the Authors: Michael L. Smith, R.R.T., J.D., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T10:00:53-04:00June 1, 2018|Categories: In the News, The Health Law Firm Blog|Tags: 90 day grace period, ACA, ACA grace period risks for physicians, Affordable Care Act, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, CMS, defense attorney, defense lawyer, enrollees, grace period, grace period risks for providers, health insurance company, health insurance programs, health insurers, health law firm, health plan, healthcare reform law, hospitals, insurance exchange, Obamacare, practice administrators, premium payment delinquency, the health law firm, unpaid health insurance premiums, who pays claims during grace period, withhold payments on claims|Comments Off

MedPAC Wants to Hold Accountable Care Organizations More Accountable

By Lance O. Leider, J.D., The Health Law Firm

As the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) prepares to designate the next class of accountable care organizations (ACOs), the agency sought the advice and input of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) on how to proceed. MedPAC is an independent Congressional Agency established to advise the U.S. Congress on issues affecting Medicare.

Click here to read our previous blog on the background and purpose of ACOs.

MedPAC Suggests All Medicare Shared Savings Program ACOs Join the Two-Sided Risk Model.

In response to the request from the CMS, MedPAC reiterated its previous position that it would like to see all Medicare ACOs take on greater financial risk. As it presently stands, some Medicare-contracted ACOs do not share in the risks associated with the ACOs patients’ healthcare costs exceeding certain target ranges. Even though those ACOs do not bear any financial risk if the goals are not met, they nevertheless stand to benefit if they are.

MedPAC found that the one-sided risk model being used by most Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) ACOs to be insufficient to reach the goals of the MSSP.

Specifically, MedPAC wants to see all MSSP ACOs in the two-sided risk model. That model requires the ACO to reimburse Medicare for some of the costs which exceeded the target ranges. This pressure is important to note because only 13 of the 32 Pioneer ACOs generated enough savings to Medicare to qualify for MSSP savings payments.

Understand an ACO Agreement Before You Sign.

As we see more and more physicians being approached to join or form ACOs, it is crucial to understand exactly what type of arrangement you are getting into.

Many ACO contracts we see are simply for participation as a provider in the organization. However, some of the contracts we see require that the physician make a financial investment in the ACO or otherwise require that the physician pay a “pro rata” share of any penalty assessed by CMS.

Current ACO participation and recruiting is something akin to the gold rush of the nineteenth century. Everyone is rushing to stake a claim in fear of being left out. Be careful about what kind of an agreement you sign and be sure that you understand the long-term consequences of tying your practice to an as-yet unproven model. To read our previous blog on the first year pioneer ACO results, click here.

If you are approached to join an ACO, or are considering signing a participation agreement/contract with one, make sure to read the contract carefully and consult with an experienced healthcare attorney.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced With Healthcare Business Practices.

The Health Law Firm routinely represents physician groups and practices with issues involving establishing, licensing, selling, merging, and intergroup affiliation. If you are considering establishing an ACO or have been approached to become a participant in one, you can contact The Health Law Firm at (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 or you can visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

What do you think of MedPAC’s position on ACOs? Have you considered joining an ACO? Why or why not? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

About the Author: Lance O. Leider is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Copying and Pasting Clinical Notes in Electronic Health Records Could Be Considered Healthcare Fraud

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) is concerned about healthcare providers carelessly copying and pasting clinical notes in electronic health records (EHRs). According to an audit report released on December 10, 2013, copying and pasting in EHRs can lead to fraudulently duplicated clinical notes, which can be considered healthcare fraud. This practice is allegedly widespread across medicine, according to a Modern Healthcare article. Federal officials say there is a need to crackdown on this behavior.

Click here to read the entire audit report from the HHS OIG.

This is the first of two reports on fraud and vulnerabilities in EHR systems. The second report from the OIG will be on weaknesses in how the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) payment contractors monitor for fraud in EHRs. This report is scheduled to be published soon.

Report Looks at Hospital Policies Regarding Copy-and-Paste Features.

The audit report studied 864 hospitals that had received subsidies for EHR systems as of March 2012. Out of those hospitals, only twenty-four percent (24%) had any policy regarding the improper use of copying-and-pasting in EHRs. The report concluded that too few hospitals actually have policies defining the proper use of copy and paste in EHRs.

According to Modern Healthcare, adoption of EHR systems has coincided with a rapid rise in higher-cost Medicare claims. This has led to officials looking into whether EHRs are enabling illegal upcoding. Officials say that EHR features such as copy and paste make it too easy to bill for work that wasn’t actually performed and help increase reimbursements, according to Modern Healthcare. Click here to read the entire article from Modern Healthcare.

In the report the HHS OIG recommends that the CMS strengthen its efforts to develop a comprehensive plan to address fraud vulnerabilities in EHRs. It was also suggested that CMS develop guidance on the use of the copy-paste feature in EHR technology.

Tips to Help Avoid Copy-and-Paste Errors.

Tools commonly available in EHRs that allow physicians to copy and paste patient information should be used with extreme care, according to an article on American Medical News. The article offers health care providers some guidelines to help avoid errors related to copying and pasting.

– Avoid copying and pasting of text from another person’s notes.

– Avoid repetitive copying and pasting of laboratory results and radiology reports.

– Note important results with proper context, and document any resulting actions. Avoid wholesale inclusion of information readily available elsewhere in the EHR because that creates clutter and may adversely affect note readability.

– Review and update as appropriate any shared information found elsewhere in the electronic record (e.g., problems, allergies, medications) that is included in a note.

– Include previous history critical to longitudinal care in the outpatient setting, as long as it is always reviewed and updated. Copying and pasting other elements of the history, physical examination or formulations is risky, as errors in editing may jeopardize the credibility of the entire note.

Click here to read the entire article from American Medical News.

What This Means for Healthcare Providers Using EHRs.

The practice of copying and pasting previous information without checking can be considered careless and potentially dangerous to patients. It can be problematic when there are multiple teams taking care of one patient and using the chart to communicate. The right way is to make sure everything in the note you sign accurately reflects what happened on your shift.

In the report the HHS OIG stated that copy-and-paste features in EHRs will be under additional scrutiny. By knowing where the enforcement focus will be, providers can attempt to avoid copy-and-paste practices that are likely to lead to audits. Additionally, providers can beef up compliance efforts and policies.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Handling Medicare and Medicaid Audits, Investigations and other Legal Proceedings.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm represent healthcare providers in Medicare audits, ZPIC audits and RAC audits throughout Florida and across the U.S. They also represent physicians, medical groups, nursing homes, home health agencies, pharmacies, hospitals and other healthcare providers and institutions in Medicare and Medicaid investigations, audits, recovery actions and termination from the Medicare or Medicaid Program.

Don’t wait until it’s too late. If you are concerned of any possible violations and would like a consultation, contact a qualified health attorney familiar with medical billing and audits today. To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

In your practice do you use an EHR system? Have you had any issues with copying and pasting clinical notes? Does your practice have a copy-and-paste policy? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.|

Sources:

Carlson, Joe. “Fed Eye Crackdown on Cut-and-Paste EHR Fraud.” Modern Healthcare. (December 10, 2013). From: http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20131210/NEWS/312109965/cut-and-paste-function-can-invite-ehr-fraud-officials-say

O’Reilly, Kevin. “EHRs: ‘Sloppy and Paste’ Endures Despite Patient Safety Risk.” American Medical News. (February 4, 2013). From: http://www.amednews.com/article/20130204/profession/130209993/2/

Levinson, Daniel R. “Not All Recommended Fraud Safeguards Have Been Implemented in Hospital EHR Technology.” Department of Health and Humans Services Office of Inspector General. (December 2013). From: http://www.modernhealthcare.com/assets/pdf/CH92135129.PDF

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T10:00:53-04:00June 1, 2018|Categories: Electronic Health Record, Health Care Industry, In the Know, The Health Law Firm Blog|Tags: audit, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, crackdown, cut-and-paste, defense attorney, defense lawyer, Department of Health and Human Services, duplicate clinical notes, EHR, EHR billing issues, EHR fraud, electronic health records, electronic medical records, EMR, health law firm, healthcare fraud, hhs, hospital EHR, medical billing, medicare audit, Medicare claims, Medicare fraud, Office of Inspector General, OIG, reduce fraud, reimbursements, the health law firm|Comments Off

ZPICs Seek “Voluntary” Agreements from Physicians for Auto-Denial Edits for Home Health Services

By Michael L. Smith, R.R.T., J.D., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law, and George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the primary purpose of Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPICs) is to investigate instances of suspected fraud, waste, and abuse. The specific actions employed by ZPICs to fulfil this mission include:

– Investigating potential fraud and abuse for CMS administrative action or referral to law enforcement;
– Conducting investigations in accordance with the priorities established by Center for Program Integrity’s (CPI) Fraud Prevention System;
– Performing medical review, as appropriate;
– Performing data analysis in coordination with CPI’s Fraud Prevention System;
– Identifying the need for administrative actions such as payment suspensions and prepayment or auto-denial edits; and,
– Referring cases to law enforcement for consideration and initiation of civil or criminal prosecution.

However, it appears that some of the ZPICs have been overly proactive in identifying the need for payments suspensions and are asking providers to voluntarily agree to payment suspensions for certain claims.

Click here to read more on ZPICs from CMS.

Physicians Being Targeted by ZPICs for Auto-Denial Edits.

Recently, physicians have been approached by ZPICs and asked to voluntarily agree to a payment edit on their National Provider Identifier (NPI) that would automatically deny any claim for payment for home health services that listed the physician as the ordering, attending, or referring physician. A ZPIC requesting a specific physician to voluntarily cease ordering any home health services appears to go further than identifying the need for administrative action including a payment suspension.

The activities a ZPIC may use to fulfil its obligations to CMS are:

– Request medical records and documentation;
– Conduct interviews;
– Conduct onsite visits;
– Identify the need for a prepayment or auto-denial edits and refer these edits to the Medicare Administrative Contractors (MAC) for installation;
– Withhold payments; and,
– Refer cases to law enforcement.

The following functions are reserved for the MACs and not functions of the ZPICs.

– Provider outreach and education;
– Recouping monies lost to the Trust Fund (the ZPICs identify these situations and refer them to the MACs for the recoupment);
– Medical review not
– Complaint screening; for benefit integrity purposes;
– Claims appeals of ZPIC decisions;
– Claim payment determination;
– Claims pricing; and
– Auditing provider cost reports.

While a ZPIC may refer a provider to the MAC for the imposition of an auto-denial edit, some ZPICs seem to have taken this process a step further and are attempting to have physicians voluntarily agree to the auto-denial edits.

Issues with Agreeing to an Auto-Denial Edit.

A physician who voluntarily agrees to an auto-denial edit could create significant problems for his or her patients and practice. A physician agreeing to an auto-denial edit would need to cease ordering home health services and would need to refer the patients that need home health services to another physician. Any physician that has been approached by a ZPIC seeking a voluntary auto-denial edit should consult competent legal counsel before agreeing to the auto-denial edit.

We have heard if ZPIC representatives allegedly intimidating or attempting to intimidate physicians who routinely order home health services for patients into agreeing to such auto-denial edits.

Don’t Wait Until It’s Too Late; Consult with a Health Law Attorney Experienced in Medicare and Medicaid Issues Now.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm represent healthcare providers in Medicare audits, ZPIC audits and RAC audits throughout Florida and across the U.S. They also represent physicians, medical groups, nursing homes, home health agencies, pharmacies, hospitals and other healthcare providers and institutions in Medicare and Medicaid investigations, audits, recovery actions and termination from the Medicare or Medicaid Program.

For more information please visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com or call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001.

Comments?

Have you heard of these auto-denial edit requests from ZPICs? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

About the Authors: Michael L. Smith, R.R.T., J.D., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T10:00:53-04:00June 1, 2018|Categories: Medicare, The Health Law Firm Blog, ZPIC|Tags: auto-denial edit, Center for Program Integrity (CPI), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, CMS administrative action, CMS demand letter, CMS intent to refer letter, CPI fraud prevention system, defense attorney, defense lawyer, doctor, fraud defense, fraud prevention, fraud prevention system, health law firm, home health services, legal representation, mac, medical review, medicare, Medicare Administrative Contractor, medicare audit, Medicare audits Florida, Medicare fraud, National Provider Identifier, NPI, overpayment, payment suspensions, physician, recoupment action, the health law firm, Zone Program Integrity Contractor, zpic, ZPIC attorney, zpic audit, ZPIC lawyer|Comments Off

CMS Delays Stage 3 Meaningful Use for Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs

By Michael L. Smith, R.R.T., J.D., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law, and George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

On December 6, 2013, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a revised timeline for the implementation of Stage 3 meaningful use measures for the Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs.

According to CMS, Stage 2 will be extended through 2016, and Stage 3 will begin in 2017 for those hospitals, physicians and other eligible providers that have completed at least two years of Stage 2 meaningful use. These changes affect two groups of eligible providers: providers who started Stage 1 in 2011, and who are currently scheduled to start Stage 3 in 2016, and those providers who started Stage 1 in 2012, and who are scheduled to start Stage 3 in 2016.

This announcement does not change when providers must start Stage 2, nor does it affect the requirement for hospitals and critical access hospitals to upgrade to EHR technology to receive incentive payments. The Medicare and Medicaid EHR incentive programs are staged in three steps with increasing requirements for participation. Eligible providers who do not meet meaningful use requirements will still be penalized with reduced Medicare reimbursement starting January 1, 2015.

To read more from CMS, click here.

Reasons for the Timeline Change.

According to Modern Healthcare, CMS stated that the goal of the timeline change is two-fold. First, to allow CMS and the Office of National Coordinator (ONC) to focus on assisting providers to meet Stage 2 demands for patient engagement, interoperability and information exchange, as well as use data collected during the phase to inform policy decisions for Stage 3.

CMS expects that it will release a notice of proposed rulemaking for Stage 3 in the fall of 2014, and the corresponding ONC notice for proposed rulemaking for the 2017 Edition of the ONC Standards and Certification Criteria will also be released at that time. Click here to read the entire article from Modern Healthcare.

What this Means for You.

If you begin participation with your first year of Stage 1 for the Medicare EHR Incentive Program in 2014:

– You must begin your 90 days of Stage 1 of meaningful use no later than July 1, 2014 and submit attestation by October 1, 2014 in order to avoid the 2015 payment adjustment.

If you have completed one year of Stage 1 of meaningful use:

– You will demonstrate a second year of Stage 1 of meaningful use in 2014 for a three-month reporting period fixed to the quarter for Medicare or any 90 days for Medicaid.
– You will demonstrate Stage 2 of meaningful use for two years (2015 and 2016).
– You will begin Stage 3 of meaningful use in 2017.

If you have completed two or more years of Stage 1 of meaningful use:

– You will still demonstrate Stage 2 of meaningful use in 2014 for a three-month reporting period fixed to the quarter for Medicare or any 90 days for Medicaid.
– You will demonstrate Stage 2 of meaningful use for three years (2014, 2015 and 2016).
– You will begin Stage 3 of meaningful use in 2017.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys.

The Health Law Firm routinely represents physicians and medical groups on EHR issues. It also represents pharmacists, pharmacies, physicians, nurses and other health providers in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, litigation, inspections and audits involving the DEA, Department of Health (DOH) and other law enforcement agencies. Its attorneys include those who are board certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

What do you think of the revised timeline for the implementation of Stage 3 meaningful use? Will this affect you? If so, how? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Conn, Joseph. “Meaningful-Use Deadline Pushed Back One Year.” Modern Healthcare. (December 6, 2013). From: http://bit.ly/1kkAtsC

Tagalicod, Robert and Reider, Jacob. “Progress on Adoption of Electronic Health Records.” Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. (December 13, 2013). From: http://www.cms.gov/eHealth/ListServ_Stage3Implementation.html

About the Authors: Michael L. Smith, R.R.T., J.D., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. http://www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. http://www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T10:00:54-04:00June 1, 2018|Categories: Electronic Health Record, In the Know, The Health Law Firm Blog|Tags: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, certifications, CMS, defense attorney, defense lawyer, EHR, electronic health record incentives, electronic health records, electronic medical record, EMR, health law, health law firm, healthcare, meaningful use, meaningful use deadlines, Meaningful Use Stage 2 incentives, Meaningful Use Stage 3 incentives, meaningful use timeline, medicaid, medicare, MU, Office of the National Coordinator, ONC, the health law firm|Comments Off