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.

Wolters Kluwer Announces White Paper Series on Healthcare Legislation

As federal lawmakers grapple with sweeping healthcare reform, Wolters Kluwer provides resources to help professionals stay ahead of reimbursement and compliance requirements

Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory U.S. today announced the launch of an authoritative and timely white paper series to track updates and provide analysis on the American Health Care Act (AHCA) and Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA), the proposed replacements for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) under consideration in Congress.

The AHCA passed in the House of Representatives by a slim majority in May. A discussion draft of the BCRA was released in late June but the Senate has delayed any votes on the legislation until July. The first white paper in the series, entitled “How the AHCA Directly Impact Significant Parts of the ACA,” identifies and explains aspects of the ACA that are directly impacted by the AHCA. Wolters Kluwer’s white paper series will track the legislation as new versions of the bill become available.

“Considering the impending changes proposed by lawmakers, healthcare, legal and compliance professionals need to understand the evolving regulatory landscape,” said Paul Clark, Health Law Analyst for Wolters Kluwer’s Healthcare group. “Our series of white papers will help healthcare professionals to track changes in the legislation as they occur, measure the impacts, and manage compliance and reimbursement practices more efficiently.”

Download a free electronic copy of “How the AHCA Directly Impact Significant Parts of the ACA”

For those interested in daily, comprehensive coverage of the latest health law developments, Wolters Kluwer offers Health Law Daily providing in-depth analysis on new developments delivered directly to users’ device of choice every day. To learn more visit The Health Law Daily.

About Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory U.S.

Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory U.S. is part of Wolters Kluwer N.V. (AEX: WKL), a global leader in information services and solutions for professionals in the health, tax and accounting, risk and compliance, finance and legal sectors. We help our customers make critical decisions every day by providing expert solutions that combine deep domain knowledge with specialized technology and services.

Wolters Kluwer reported 2016 annual revenues of €4.3 billion. The company, headquartered in Alphen aan den Rijn, the Netherlands, serves customers in over 180 countries, maintains operations in over 40 countries and employs 19,000 people worldwide.

For more information about Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory U.S., visit www.WoltersKluwerLR.com, follow us on FacebookTwitterand LinkedIn.

Media

Linda Gharib
Director, Communications
Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory U.S.
Tel: +1 (646) 887-7962
Email: linda.gharib@wolterskluwer.com

Related Links

http://www.wolterskluwerlr.com

CMS updates Medicaid eligibility and payment oversight programs

CMS finalized changes to the Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) and Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) programs designed to improve payment oversight and state eligibility determinations in the Medicaid program. The changes—contained in an advance release of a Final rule set to publish in the Federal Register on July 5, 2017—implement provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (P.L. 111-148). The Final rule ends a pilot phase for the two programs and resumes the eligibility measurement component of the PERM program and the MEQC program for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019.

PERM

The PERM program measures improper payments in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) based on reviews of the fee-for-service (FFS), managed care, and eligibility components of Medicaid and CHIP. Due to changes in Medicaid eligibility law—including expansion under the ACA—CMS did not conduct the eligibility measurement component of the PERM program for FYs 2015 through 2018 (see CMS proposes updates to Medicaid eligibility and payment oversight, June 21, 2016). During that time, CMS conducted a pilot program known as the Medicaid and CHIP Eligibility Review Pilots to maintain oversight of state eligibility determinations. In addition to reestablishing the eligibility measurement component of the PERM program for FY 2019, the Final rule makes several updates to program requirements. Changes to the program include:

  • eligibility reviews for payments made by states between July and June of a given year (a change from the previous October through September review period);
  • federal contractor review of determinations;
  • sampled reviews based upon FFS and managed care payments;
  • inclusion of federal improper payments when the federal share is incorrect, even if the total computed amount is accurate;
  • the development of a national sample size; and
  • payment reductions in cases where a state’s eligibility improper payment rate exceeds the 3 percent threshold and the state does not demonstrate a good faith effort to meet the threshold.

MEQC

The MEQC program requires states to report to HHS the ratio of erroneous excess medical assistance payments to total expenditures for medical assistance. Under Section 1903(u) of the Social Security Act (SSA), HHS is required to withhold payments in excess of a 3 percent threshold for eligibility-related improper payments. Like the PERM program, CMS did not operate the MEQC program for FY 2015 through 2018 so that CMS could make updates to the program to reflect changes in eligibility. The Final rule aims to restructure the MEQC program to better compliment the PERM program. The changes include:

  • state flexibility to design MEQC programs unless states have consecutive improper payment rates over the 3 percent threshold;
  • requirements to conduct reviews beyond the scope of the PERM program; and
  • corrective action submission requirement for identified errors.