House Committee urged to extend funding for federal safety net programs

Extend funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to ensure continuity of coverage for children, particularly in light of the current uncertainty surrounding other sources of health coverage in the U.S., witnesses urged at a House Committee on Energy and Commerce hearing titled “Examining the Extension of Safety Net Health Programs.” The purpose of the hearing was to examine the extension of funding for two federal safety net health programs that provide health care and coverage for low-income adults and children, CHIP and the Community Health Center Fund (CHCF).

CHIP

CHIP is a program that provides health coverage to targeted low-income children and pregnant women in families that have annual income above Medicaid eligibility levels but have no health insurance. It is jointly financed by the federal government and states, and the states are responsible for administering the program. A memo from the committee majority staff states that in fiscal year (FY) 2015, 8.4 million children received CHIP-funded coverage.

Section 2101 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (P.L. 111-148) increased the CHIP enhanced federal medical assistance percentage (E-FMAP), which varies by state, by 23 percent from October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2019. Since the ACA did not include additional or extended funding for CHIP, MACRA extended funding through September 30, 2017. The Medicaid and CHIP Express Lane Option, Child Enrollment Contingency Fund, CHIP Qualifying State Option, and CHIP Outreach and Enrollment Grants also expire September 30, 2017.

At the hearing, Cindy Mann, partner at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, touted the success of CHIP, which covers 8.9 million children nationwide. She stated that Congress must consider the overall level of funding for CHIP, in addition to the E-FMAP funds, which “are now fully integrated into states’ budgets and a key source of funding for sustaining CHIP.” She said that Congressional action is needed as soon as possible to ensure program continuity, budget certainty for states, and stable coverage for children, particularly those with special health care needs. She urged a five-year extension instead of two to provide needed stability (see Extend CHIP, protect DSH payments, MACPAC tells Congress, March 16, 2017).

Jami Snyder, Director of the Medicaid and CHIP programs for the state of Texas, noted that a decision to not reauthorize the CHIP program would result in a loss of over $1 billion in annual funding to the state of Texas and a loss of coverage for more than 380,000 Texas children.

Health Center Program

The Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) Health Center Program, authorized under Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act, awards grants to federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). The program is supported by discretionary appropriations and the CHCF, a mandatory multibillion-dollar fund established by Section 10503 of the ACA. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) (P.L. 114-10) extended funding through fiscal year 2017. According to the staff memo, the CHCF represents over 70 percent of the Health Center Program’s FY 2016 funding.

Michael Holmes, the chief executive officer of Cook Area Health Services, an FQHC in Minnesota, testified that as a result of CHCF investments new FQHC were added in more than 1,100 communities. With the extension nearing its expiration date, he “strongly urged” Congress to renew funding for at least five years to allow FQHCs to provide a stable and reliable source of access to patients and recruit and retain a comprehensive health care workforce.

Kusserow on Compliance: EHR incentive program attestation is serious business

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) (P.L. 111-5) authorized providing incentive payments to eligible health care professionals, hospitals, and Medicare Advantage Organizations (“MAOs”) to promote the adoption and “meaningful use” of health information technology and electronic health record (“EHR”) systems. CMS established the Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record Incentive Programs (EHR Incentive Programs) to make incentive payments to health care professionals and providers that meet specified requirements for the meaningful use of certified EHR technology (CEHRT). The EHR Incentive Programs are intended to bring about improved clinical outcomes and population outcomes, increase transparency and efficiency in health care, empower individuals to make decisions regarding their care, and generate additional research data on health systems. Program participants must report on their performance pertaining to certain clinical quality measures (CQMs) and objectives to CMS (for Medicare) or the authorized state agency (for Medicaid) through an attestation process. Since 2011, the EHR Incentive Programs have made incentive payments to numerous eligible professionals, eligible hospitals, and critical access hospitals (CAHs) that qualify as “meaningful users” by meeting the objectives and CQMs outlined in the various stages of the applicable programs.

Annual attestations required

Eligible providers must annually attest to meeting the specified objectives and measures in order to receive incentive payments under the EHR Incentive Programs. Once they have attested to meeting the identified objectives and measures, they are deemed to be meaningful users and eligible for incentive payments.  CMS, its contractor, and state Medicaid agencies conduct both random and targeted audits to detect inaccuracies in eligibility, reporting, and receipt of payment with respect to the EHR Incentive Programs.  Eligible hospitals may be selected for pre- or post-payment audits. CMS has required that eligible hospitals retain all supporting documentation used in completing the Attestation Module responses in either paper or electronic format for six years post-attestation. Eligible hospitals are responsible for maintaining documentation that fully supports the meaningful use and CQM data submitted during attestation. Those hospitals undergoing pre-payment audits will be required to provide supporting documentation to validate submitted attestation data before receiving payment.

Unsupported and false attestations

Making false statements, including attestations to the federal government, could implicate federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1001), which generally prohibits knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements or concealing information. Although eligible hospitals receiving incentive payments under the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs are not required to follow any particular parameters when spending the payments, they must annually attest to meeting the relevant measures and objectives in order to be entitled to incentive payments. It is critical that eligible hospitals maintain documentation that supports their attestations.  Supporting documentation needs to make clear that the hospital is meeting the terms and conditions of the EHR Incentive Program. A checklist document by itself would be insufficient as supporting documentation. Failure to maintain such supporting documentation creates potential liability. Although no significant enforcement activity has taken place, compliance officers are advised to verify that proper supporting documentation is maintained.  In fact, the responsible program manager should be maintaining documentation as part of ongoing monitoring. As part of ongoing auditing, the compliance office should ensure that monitoring is conducted and validate that it is adequately meeting regulatory requirements.

Richard P. Kusserow served as DHHS Inspector General for 11 years. He currently is CEO of Strategic Management Services, LLC (SM), a firm that has assisted more than 3,000 organizations and entities with compliance related matters. The SM sister company, CRC, provides a wide range of compliance tools including sanction-screening.

Connect with Richard Kusserow on
Google+ or LinkedIn.

Subscribe to the Kusserow on Compliance Newsletter

Copyright © 2017 Strategic Management Services, LLC. Published with permission.

 

 

Kusserow on Compliance: OIG Work Plan now being updated monthly

The OIG announced that its work planning process is being modified to be more dynamic and to reflect the adjustments being made throughout the year in response to changing priorities and responding to new emerging issues. The OIG, as of June 15, 2017, will now adjust its Work Plan on a monthly basis, rather than semi-annually as has been done previously to ensure that it more closely aligns with the work planning process. The monthly updates will include the addition of newly initiated Work Plan items and the removal of completed items.

The Work Plan sets forth various audits and evaluations that are underway or planned during the fiscal year and beyond. Projects listed in the Work Plan span the Department and include CMS, public health agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH), and human resources agencies such as Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and the Administration on Aging. The OIG also plans work related to issues that cut across departmental programs, including State and local governments’ use of Federal funds, as well as the functional areas of the Office of the HHS Secretary. In conducting its work, the OIG assesses relative risks in HHS programs and operations to identify those areas most in need of attention. In evaluating potential projects to undertake, the OIG considers a number of factors, including mandates set forth in laws, regulations, or other directives; requests by Congress, HHS management, or the Office of Management and Budget; top management and performance challenges facing HHS; work performed by other oversight organizations (e.g., GAO); management’s actions to implement OIG recommendations from previous reviews; and potential for positive impact.

New Projects Added

Richard P. Kusserow served as DHHS Inspector General for 11 years. He currently is CEO of Strategic Management Services, LLC (SM), a firm that has assisted more than 3,000 organizations and entities with compliance related matters. The SM sister company, CRC, provides a wide range of compliance tools including sanction-screening.

Connect with Richard Kusserow on Google+ or LinkedIn.

Subscribe to the Kusserow on Compliance Newsletter

Copyright © 2017 Strategic Management Services, LLC. Published with permission.

 

 

Billions in ‘transfers of value’ to physicians, hospitals by industry get DOJ attention

In calendar year (CY) 2015, over $7.5 billion in “transfers of value” were made by pharmaceutical companies to physicians and hospitals through the federal Open Payments program, which in turn has caused the Department of Justice (DOJ) to focus on this area while investigating fraud in the health care system. In an HCCA sponsored seminar titled “Sunshine, Open Payments, and Potential Conflicts of Interest,” Senior Compliance Executive C.J. Wolf, M.D., of Healthicity, noted that under the Open Payments program, CMS has now accumulated over 28 million records of transfer of value. Within this vast repository of data, CMS uses it to uncover outliers in payments, and as a result, industry and providers, alike, are very interested in how the open payment system affects their operations.

Open Payments

Under Section 6002 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), manufacturers must disclose to CMS payments made to physicians and teaching hospitals. Manufacturers and group purchasing organizations must also report ownership and investment interests held by physicians. The HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) included these aspects into its list of priorities in its 2017 Work Plan, with Medicare and Medicaid payments high on the list (see Focus remains on Medicare, Medicaid payments in 2017 OIG Work Plan, Health Law Daily, November 10, 2016).

The 2017 Work Plan also stressed that the OIG will also determine how much Medicare paid for drugs and durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS) ordered by physicians who had financial relationships with manufacturers and group purchasing organizations.

Wolf noted the DOJ has taken a keen interest in this area of open payments, as evidenced by actions such as Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and its subsidiary IVAX, LLC, agreeing to pay a total of $27.6 million to the federal government and the State of Illinois in a settlement regarding allegations of false billing practices under the False Claims Act (see Teva Pharmaceutical to pay federal and state government $27.6 million to resolve false billing allegations, Health Law Daily, March 11, 2014).

Conflicts of interest

There are 11 payment “categories” that must be reported under the Open Payments program: (1) consulting fees, (2) honoraria, (3) gift, (4) entertainment, (5) food and beverage, (6) travel and lodging, (7) education, (8) charitable contribution, (9) royalty or license, (10) grant, and (11) research.

As part of the transparency initiatives under the ACA, the dollars that physicians receive from industry is reported and documented. Physicians and providers should be aware that these categories touch upon even compensation for serving as faculty or as a speaker for a non-accredited and noncertified continuing education program.

Because the Open Payments program also includes ownership interests that physicians or their immediate family members have in various companies and the data is then made available to the public each year, reporting often is paramount.