CMS grants New Hampshire Medicaid funding compliance extension

CMS has clarified that New Hampshire’s Medicaid expansion may end next year, but the current program can continue until the end of 2018. CMS stated that New Hampshire’s use of voluntary donations from health care providers and hospitals in the New Hampshire Health Protection Fund fails to comply with the federal requirements. CMS raised the possibility that federal funds may be withheld which would have resulted in a termination of the program.

The Medicaid statute in Section 1903(w) of the Soc. Sec. Act and implementing regulations at 42 CFR Sec. 433.54 and 433.66 establish a prohibition on provider-related donations, except in very limited circumstances. In a letter to New Hampshire officials, CMS indicated that there is a relationship between the donations and Medicaid payments, because Medicaid expansion is conditioned on the receipt of donations as articulated in New Hampshire legislation. The state’s use of voluntary donations from hospitals to supplement federal Medicaid funding violates federal law. The non-federal share financing of the New Hampshire Health Protection Program or Medicaid expansion through the use of provider-related donations to pay for Medicaid service-related costs violates the requirement that a bona fide provider-relation is a donation that has no direct or indirect relationship to Medicaid payments.

The 50,000 New Hampshire residents participating in the Medicaid expansion will not see any change in their coverage through the current re-authorization which continues until the end of 2018.New Hampshire’s next legislative session will need to address compliance with the federal law for the 2019 budget to bring the state’s non-federal share financing into compliance with the existing federal statute and regulations. Otherwise, Medicaid expansion in the state will lose federal funding. Governor Chris Sununu (R) stated that stripping coverage from Medicaid enrollees would have been “grossly unfair,” and will use the transition period to consider future changes.

Wrap-around Medicaid gives states administrative headaches

Medicaid premium assistance, where Medicaid acts as wrap-around coverage for a private health insurance plan, is administratively complex for states and may not work well. In an issue brief, the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) considered what is known about wrap-around Medicaid coverage, and looked at financial implications of such a program.

Wrap arounds

According to KFF, states with Medicaid premium assistance programs use Medicaid funds to purchase private coverage for Medicaid beneficiaries. Federal law requires these programs to make the purchased private coverage on par with what the state’s Medicaid program would cover, but private insurance generally covers less than Medicaid and requires more out-of-pocket payments. Therefore, states with these programs must provide supplemental benefits and cost-sharing protections, known as “wrap arounds,” to insure that cost sharing does not exceed Medicaid limits. In general, states with these programs have low enrollment rates, and therefore, there is limited data available to determine how well the programs work.

Administrative complexity

States have found that Medicaid premium assistance programs require a lot of administrative work to determine exemptions, track and manage cost sharing under multiple private plans, and track wrapped covered benefits. The administrative burden led multiple states to discontinue Medicaid premium assistance programs and to merely use their own managed care delivery systems. However, that burden can be minimized. When Arkansas created its Medicaid premium assistance program under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (P.L. 111-148), it contracted with a limited number of standardized plans. The standardization made it easier for the state to track and manage the wrap-around payments.

Financing

KFF looked at legislative proposals that would expand wrap-around Medicaid coverage and noted that, in order for such a program to be effective, it would need adequate federal funding, because such programs are required to be cost effective compared with traditional Medicaid coverage. It also noted that, if these programs were done under a waiver program rather than through traditional Medicaid, the funding would be limited in duration and amount, leaving it uncertain whether the program would be able to continue in the future.

Webinar: Delay, Deregulate, Derail — Health Care Roiled by Actions of Trump and Congress

Since January, both President Trump and Republican leaders in Congress have talked about a three-step process for repealing and replacing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). While the first six months of the Trump administration has seen mixed results, its efforts to reign in or hold back regulations, combined with its delay in filling lower-level agency roles, has impacted regulatory review and issuance of new regulations. So, despite Congress’ inability to pass legislation to change parts of the ACA, there is still plenty for providers to be concerned about.

Join Associate Managing Editor Kathryn Beard, JD, on Wednesday, August 2, for this half-hour live webinar covering attempts by the Trump Administration and Congress to delay, deregulate, and derail significant parts of federal health policy. She will discuss the two “repeal and replace” bills, FDARA, and significant executive and regulatory actions taken by the Trump administration which directly impact ACA provisions.

Registration Link:

Kusserow on Compliance: OIG issues first 2017 Semi-Annual report—1,422 exclusions in first half of 2017

The OIG released is first semi-annual report for 2017 which included the number of exclusion actions taken. There were a total of 1,422 individuals and entities they excluded from Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal health care programs. Most of the exclusions resulted from convictions for crimes relating to Medicare or Medicaid, for patient abuse or neglect, or as a result of license revocation. The OIG posts all such actions on its List of Excluded Individuals and Entities (LEIE).  In its compliance guidance, the OIG calls for screening of all individuals and entities engaged by or with whom they do business against the LEIE. CMS also makes such screening a condition of participation and enrollment. The OIG has a number of Administrative Sanction authorities whereby they have added steadily to the LEIE database. In the last three years the OIG added over 10,000 exclusions to the LEIE.

OIG Enforcement Authorities

Tom Herrmann, JD, is a nationally recognized health care compliance consultant.  He served for a number of years in the OIG Counsel’s Office as Chief of the Administrative Litigation Branch, and supervised the litigation of cases involving the imposition of civil monetary penalties and program exclusions. He explained that the OIG has been delegated the authorities to impose Civil Monetary Penalties, assessments, and program exclusion on health care providers and others determined to have engaged in defined wrongdoing. The effect of an OIG exclusion is that no payment may be made for any items or services furnished by an excluded individual or entity, or directed or prescribed by an excluded physician. He noted that in almost all instances where the OIG’s imposition of program exclusion or CMPs is appealed, it is upheld by a HHS Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the HHS Departmental Appeals Board (DAB), and Federal Courts. As such, it is absolutely essential to have ongoing sanction-screening of anyone engaged by a healthcare organization.

Jillian Bower, is another highly experienced health care compliance consultant, who has assisted scores of clients in meeting the sanction-screening obligations through the Compliance Resource Center (CRC). She notes that CMS has been very aggressive in calling for sanction screening, not only of the LEIE, but Debarments posted by the General Services Administration (GSA), as well as pressuring State Medicaid Directors to establish exclusion databases and mandate monthly screening by their enrolled providers. Since then most states have moved to comply with the CMS direction. This has increased the sanction-screening burden greatly for not only for the compliance office, but also human resource management (HRM). Procurement is also affected by the number of vendors and contractors that also have to be screened. Medical credentialing is involved because physicians granted staff privileges have to be screened. In order to meet screening mandates, it is almost a necessity to use a vendor search engine tools to assist in sanction-screening. This saves downloading the sanction databases of all the entities and developing their own search engine. So using a vendor for this purpose is a step in the right direction; however the bulk of the work remains with the organization to do screening and resolving potential “hits” remains with the organization. Altogether this can be a considerable effort and many organizations have to dedicate one or many employees to meet all these obligations. Alternatively, many just outsource the entire process, including verification and certification of results to a vendor

Sanction-Screening Tips

  1. Ensure periodic sanction screening of employees, medical staff, contractors, and vendors against the LEIE, not just at time of engagement but periodically thereafter. An individual or entity may be pass a sanction screen at time of engagement, but later have a sanction imposed.

 

  1. Maintain a complete record of sanction screening to evidence meeting mandates with individual(s) responsible for sanction screening attesting to results each time screening has taken place. If using a vendor to conduct the sanction screening on behalf of the organization, they should provide a full certified report each time they perform their service.

 

  1. Develop a compliance policy and applications requiring as a condition of employment, gaining staff privileges, or engagement, attestation that the individual has not been, nor are they now, the subject of an investigation by any duly authorized regulatory or enforcement agency. It is also advisable to add a condition of engagement that employees must promptly report any notice of investigation that involves them.

 

  1. Care should be taken to meet state Medicaid screening requirements in addition to checking the LEIE. For those organizations that cross state lines, it is particularly important to ensure compliance with state sanction screening mandates that differ from state to state.

 

  1. Inasmuch as most exclusions in the LEIE arise from another underlying court, state agency, or licensure board action, it is critical as part of the credentialing process to verify that health care professionals are duly licensed and not until any restrictions. Engaging or giving staff privileges to individuals who are restricted in their license may be considered by CMS as violating conditions of participation.

 

  1. Educate and inform management and employees on their obligation to promptly report any notification of an adverse action by any duly authorized regulatory or enforcement agency. Policies should be implemented to reinforce this.

 

  1. Consider using a vendor tool to assist in sanction-screening, but compare services and costs to avoid unnecessary expenditures; and consider the cost-benefits of outsourcing then entire sanction-screening process.

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.