CMS delays implementation of bundled payment models

CMS has further delayed the implementation date of the Cardiac Rehabilitation (CR) Incentive Payment model and modifications to the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model by three months. This additional delay, CMS said, is necessary to allow time for additional review, to ensure that the agency has adequate time to undertake notice and comment rulemaking to modify the policy if modifications are warranted, and to ensure that in such a case participants have a clear understanding of the governing rules and are not required to take needless compliance steps due to the rule taking effect for a short duration before any potential modifications are effectuated.

CMS issued a final rule on the two models January 3, 2017. Pursuant to the Trump Administration’s “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” memorandum, on February 17, 2017, CMS issued a final rule that delayed the effective date of the January 3, 2017 final rule, for provisions that were to become effective on February 18, 2017, to March 21, 2017. CMS’ March 21, 2017, interim final rule postponed the effective date of the January 3, 2017 final rule from March 21, 2017, until May 20, 2017. The applicability date of the new regulations at 42 C.F.R. Part 512 and specific CJR regulations are delayed from July 1, 2017, until October 1, 2017. CMS sought comments on a longer delay of the model start date, including to January 1, 2018.

Under the CJR model, which began April 1, 2016, acute-care hospitals in certain areas receive retrospective bundled payments for episodes of care for hip and knee replacements. All related care within 90 days of hospital discharge from the joint replacement procedure is included in the episode of care. The January 3, 2017, final rule made several changes to the model.

Under the CR Incentive Payment model, acute care hospitals in certain geographic areas will receive retrospective incentive payments for beneficiary utilization of cardiac rehabilitation/intensive cardiac rehabilitation services during the 90 days following hospitalization for an acute myocardial infarction or coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

The American Hospital Association criticized the pace of these mandatory demonstration projects as “too much, too soon” and said, “We will continue to urge that any new bundled payment programs be of a voluntary nature.” In addition, HHS Secretary Tom Price has asserted that CMS exceeded its authority with bundled payment initiatives like the CR and CJR models.

AHCA’s Patient and Stability Fund would benefit large states, study finds

Large states and states with fewer insurers offering coverage in the individual and small group markets could receive the most money under the American Health Care Act’s (AHCA) Patient and State Stability Fund, according to a study by Avalere. The AHCA, which consists of two bills that came out of the House Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce Committees, is touted as an effort to repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (P.L. 111-148).

Bill

Section 132 of the Ways and Means bill would add title XXII to the Social Security Act to create the Patient and State Stability Fund. The Fund would provide funding for the states and District of Columbia from 2018 through 2026 for eligible states to do any of the following:

  • provide financial assistance to high-risk individuals who do not have employer health insurance to enroll in health insurance coverage in the state’s individual market;
  • provide incentives for entities to enter into agreements with the state to help stabilize health insurance premiums in the health insurance market;
  • reduce the cost for providing coverage in the individual and small group markets;
  • promote participation in the individual and small group markets and increase available insurance options;
  • promote access to preventive services, dental care, and certain services for individuals with mental or substance abuse disorders;
  • provide payments to providers for the provision of health care services as specified by the Administrator; and
  • provide assistance to reduce out-of-pocket costs for individuals enrolled in health insurance coverage in the state.

Funding

The bill would appropriate $100 billion over 10 years to provide allocations to states. According to Avalere, the first 85 percent of the funds would be distributed based on the share of the state’s insurance claims as a percentage of the nation, so states that have more people with insurance and higher medical costs could receive more funding that states lower overall enrollment and spending.

The remaining 15 percent would be distributed to states that have seen an increase in the number of low-income uninsured from 2013 to 2015 or have fewer than three insurers offering coverage in their exchange in 2017.

Distribution among states

According to Avalere, the allocation methodology could result in states like California, Florida, and New York receiving the most money North Carolina, Arizona, Alabama, Oklahoma, and South Carolina could receive disproportionately high amounts of money due to the lack of health insurance participation on their markets in 2017.

The funding levels “vary widely” on a per capita basis compared to the state’s individual market enrollment in 2015, Avalere concluded. They range from $1,830 in the District of Columbia to $220 in Montana.

Highlight on Maine: Able-bodied MaineCare recipients could be subject to more stringent requirements

“Able-bodied adults” would be subject to work/education requirements and a lifetime limit of five years under changes Mary Mayhew, director of the Maine Department of Health and Human Services, proposed to Maine’s Medicaid program, MaineCare. In a letter to HHS Secretary Tom Price, Mayhew said she would be seeking the changes in a forthcoming formal 1115 demonstration waiver request.

Mayhew’s letter comes at the heels of a referendum campaign to expand Medicaid in Maine at, according to Mayhew, a cost of $400 million over the next five years. A second motivation is the apparently sympathetic Trump Administration, which has proposed replacing Medicaid with block grants.

Mayhew said that the state has expanded its Medicaid program over decades, resulting in the use of hundreds of millions of state dollars “to turn Medicaid into an entitlement program for working-age, able-bodied adults.” MaineCare serves 270,000 individuals, just over 20 percent of Maine’s population, which, Mayhew said, represents a 22 percent reduction in enrollment since 2011.

Mayhew’s Medicaid proposals include the following:

  • work or education requirements for able-bodied adults in the Medicaid program, similar to the work requirements for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs) in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP);
  • a five-year lifetime limitation on able-bodied adults’ eligibility for Medicaid;
  • limiting non-emergency transportation (NET) to situations where the underlying service to or from which individuals are being transported is a required Medicaid service and requiring them to access existing transportation resources before accessing NET;
  • requiring monthly premiums for adults who are able to earn income;
  • requiring monthly coinsurance of a set amount (approximately $20) for all members, cost-sharing of $20 for using the emergency department, and fees for missed appointments;
  • applying a reasonable asset test to Medicaid; and
  • waiver of the retroactive coverage of services incurred during the 90 days before Medicaid eligibility.

 

Strike balance in proposals to modify private physician contracts, KFF warns

Policy makers considering proposals to ease Medicare private contracting rules should strike a balance between ensuring doctors and practitioners receive fair payment and helping beneficiaries face predictable and affordable medical care, a Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) issue brief concluded. While proponents of such proposals may tout increased physician autonomy, easing private contracting rules could lead to “an unraveling of financial protections” currently in place.

Options for charging Medicare patients

Currently, physicians and practitioners have three options for charging patients in traditional Medicare—by registering as a participating provider, a nonparticipating provider, or an opt-out provider who privately contracts with Medicare patients. Participating providers (see Social Security Act (SSA) Sec. 1842(h)(1)) agree to accept the Medicare physician fee schedule amount as payment in full for all Medicare services, and patients are liable for a 20 percent coinsurance. Nonparticipating physicians may choose, on a service-by-service basis, to charge Medicare beneficiaries higher fees, up to a limit of 115 percent of the fee schedule amount (see SSA Sec. 1848(g)).

Opt-out providers with private contracts may charge Medicare patients any fee they feel is appropriate, as agreed upon in the contract, and Medicare does not cover or pay for such services (see SSA Sec. 1802(b)). Less than 1 percent of physicians in clinical practice chose to opt out of Medicare in 2016.

Patient protections

Before providing services, physicians must inform a beneficiary in writing that they opted out of Medicare (see 42 C.F.R. Sec. 405.415). The physician is prohibited from entering into a private contract when the beneficiary needs emergency or urgent care. Also, a physician must opt out of Medicare for all of his or her Medicare patients and for all services provided to them. A two-year opt-out period is automatically extended for two-year periods.

Proposals to change Medicare private contracting

The issue brief described various proposals to modify private contracting in Medicare, including legislation introduced by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga): (1) allowing physicians to contract more selectively, on a patient-by-patient or service-by-service basis; (2) allowing patients and physicians to seek Medicare reimbursement for an amount that Medicare would normally pay under the physician fee schedule; and (3) allowing patients and physicians to seek reimbursement from supplemental insurance, such as Medigap policies and employee-sponsored retiree coverage.

KFF noted the arguments in favor of these proposals. First, lifting restrictions on private contracting would allow physicians to receive higher payment for services, which could offer practitioners greater autonomy. Second, the proposals could increase the number of physicians willing to accept Medicare patients because they could charge higher fees to some Medicare patients. Third, the proposals could reduce beneficiary out-of-pocket costs because beneficiaries entering into private contracts would be able to seek Medicare reimbursement for part of the physician’s bill.

KFF raised concerns, however. For example, liberalizing private contracting rules could increase costs for beneficiaries. In addition, some beneficiaries could lose access to affordable services, particularly for less common physician specialties.