Kusserow on Compliance: Controls working to prevent Medicare Advantage capitation payments after beneficiaries’ death

The OIG released a report that stated CMS policies and procedures were generally effective in ensuring that capitation payments to Medicare Advantage (MA) organizations for Medicare Parts A and B services were not made on behalf of deceased beneficiaries after their death. The Medicare Access and Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2015 requires CMS to establish policies to ensure that payments are not made for Medicare services rendered after death of beneficiaries. In prior audits, the OIG identified problems in controls to prevent these kinds of Medicare payments. In this case, the OIG conducted an audit to determine effectiveness of CMS’s policies and procedures to prevent capitation payments to Medicare Advantage (MA) organizations for Medicare Parts A and B services after individuals’ dates of death.

Details of the audit report noted that during calendar years 2012 through 2015, CMS received updated beneficiary date-of-death information and then made approximately 1.8 million adjustments to capitation payments, thereby recouping $2.96 billion from MA organizations for Parts A and B capitation payments that had been made on behalf of beneficiaries who had died.  However, the OIG found that CMS did not identify and recoup all improper capitation payments. As of March 7, 2017, CMS had not recouped $2.4 million associated with 1,817 capitation payments that were made on behalf of 978 beneficiaries. The OIG noted these improper payments represented .0004 percent of the total capitation payments made to MA organizations and .08 percent of the total adjustments that CMS made after receiving information on beneficiaries’ dates of death.

The OIG recommended CMS (1) move to recoup the $2.4 million in capitation payments made to MA organizations on behalf of deceased beneficiaries and (2) implement system enhancements to identify, adjust, and recoup improper capitation payments in the future. CMS concurred with both of these recommendations and described corrective actions that it had implemented.

 

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.

Report finds flaws in proposals for premium support programs in Medicare

The Urban Institute issued a report titled “Restructuring Medicare: The False Promise of Premium Support,” in which the authors attempt to point out the potential flaws in the proposed premium support program in Medicare. The report states that the proposals attempt to model the program off of the arguably successful Medicare Advantage (MA) program, but fail to account for the features of MA that actually make it work. According to the Urban Institute, the proposals also ultimately shift the burden of the rising cost of the Medicare program to the beneficiaries, who are not in a position to shoulder the increased costs.

The proposal

Current Medicare beneficiaries can choose between traditional Medicare, where they have defined benefits covered by specified providers, or MA, where the beneficiary picks from a selection of private plans that have been approved by Medicare and charge close to traditional Medicare costs. A premium support program would allow beneficiaries a fixed-dollar contribution that they could take and apply to the insurance plan they choose in a health insurance marketplace. Beneficiaries could choose a plan that costs more than their Medicare contribution amount, but they would be responsible for paying the difference out of their own pocket. Supporters of this proposed program argue that setting a fixed cost for each beneficiary would reduce government spending and the marketplace would create competition, which would in turn drive down prices.

Burden shifting

Proponents of the premium support plan argue that without the plan, the Medicare program will run out of money, noting that the “CBO projects that between 2017 and 2047, Medicare spending will grow from 3.1 percent to 6.7 percent of GDP.” However, the report argues that the proponents of are focusing on the wrong problem. The aging-in of the baby boom generation is expected to increase Medicare enrollment by about 50 percent by 2030. By focusing on the cost of premiums and restructuring the program to force more beneficiaries to pay more out of pocket, they are shifting the burden of the increase in incoming enrollees to the beneficiaries. Medicare beneficiaries reported an annual median income of about $25,000 in 2012. “Medicare households spent nearly three times as much of their household budgets on out-of-pocket spending as non-Medicare households did” in 2012. A premium support plan could potentially increase the financial burden on those low-income beneficiaries, and force them into plans that they wouldn’t choose otherwise just to alleviate some of that financial burden.

Competitive markets

Proponents argue that forcing insurance plans to submit bids to participate similar to the way MA does would create competition and lead to lower premiums. The government contribution would then be set based on a weighted average of all of the bids for each region. However, premiums can drastically vary within a region and if premiums are higher in an area than the benchmark government contribution for the region, beneficiaries would be forced to pay the difference. The difference between earlier versions of the premium support plan and the current proposals show that the proponents have noted that there would not be an even playing field in all areas and they have attempted to come up with different ways to set the government contribution amount and increase it annually based on different factors. The MA program has an administratively set benchmark government contribution that is based on traditional Medicare spending in each area, which varies significantly compared to the bids.

Providers who bid to participate in MA are aware that there is a billing limit and they will be paid Medicare rates. The premium support plan does not take into account the impact this has on who submits bids and at what rate. In 2013, “CBO found that commercial insurance rates for inpatient hospital services were 89 percent higher than traditional Medicare rates, but Medicare Advantage plan rates for inpatient services were roughly equal to traditional Medicare’s rates.” Private insurers competing with one another in the bidding process are not likely to drop their prices down to Medicare level rates unless limits are placed on the billing of Medicare beneficiaries, similar to the limits in the MA programs. This leaves Medicare beneficiaries effectively priced out of these competing private insurance plans.

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.

 

 

‘Fatigued’ providers must concentrate on complying with two-midnight rule

Some providers may be experience two-midnight rule “compliance fatigue” due to the changing rules and current lack of traditional enforcement activity, said presenters at the Health Care Compliance Association webinar, “Two Midnight Rule: Where Are We Now?” The two-midnight rule has been a “moving target” and its evolution has been challenging for providers, with CMS having issued more than 40 items of sub-regulatory guidance over the past 3.5 years. Presenters Lauren Gennett and Isabella Wood of King & Spaulding LLP said, however, that it is important for compliance personnel to emphasize the importance of continued compliance.

Two-midnight rule. The two-midnight rule is codified at 42 C.F.R. Sec. 412.3(d), which provides that an inpatient admission is considered reasonable and necessary under Part A if the admitting physician ordered the inpatient admission based on the expectation that the patient would require at least two midnights of medically necessary hospital services.

If an unforeseen circumstance, such as a beneficiary’s death or transfer, results in a shorter stay than the physician’s expectation of at least two midnights, the patient may be considered to be appropriately treated on an inpatient basis. An inpatient admission for a surgical procedure specified by Medicare as “inpatient only” under 42 C.F.R. Sec. 419.22(n) is also generally appropriate for payment under Medicare Part A, regardless of the expected duration of care.

Rare and unusual circumstances exception. There may be “rare and unusual circumstances” in which an inpatient admission for a service not on the inpatient only list may be reasonable and necessary in the absence of an expectation of a two midnight stay. CMS expanded this exception effective January 1, 2016 (see OPPS payment update a net cut for many, Health Law Daily, November 13, 2015). The exception is determined on a case-by-case basis by the physician responsible for the care of the beneficiary, subject to CMS medical review. Relevant factors include: (1) the severity of the signs and symptoms exhibited by the patient; (2) the medical predictability of something adverse happening to the patient; and (3) the need for diagnostic studies that appropriately are outpatient services.

Wood said that CMS has not provided examples of services that might qualify for the “rare and unusual circumstances” exception. She noted that the exception is challenging for providers, who do not know how rare and unusual the circumstances must be to qualify for the exception. There is, she said, “a lot of wiggle room and uncertainty” for providers.

Inpatient admission orders. Before the two-midnight rule, there was not an express requirement for an inpatient admission order, but now 42 C.F.R. Sec. 412.3(a) requires that the inpatient admission order be in the medical record for the hospital to be paid for inpatient services under Part A. The physician is required to authenticate the order before discharge, which can be difficult for short stays. Gennett said that this requirement is “low hanging fruit for contractor denials.” There is, however, an exception for missing or defective orders that CMS originally included in January 2014 guidance and recently updated in the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, Pub. 100-02, Ch. 1 (see Change Request 9979, March 10, 2017).

Enforcement. From October 2013 through September 2015 Medicare administrative contractors (MACs) conducted limited “probe & educate” reviews, and quality improvement organizations (QIOs) began conducting reviews in October 2015. QIO review has had its challenges, however, and in 2016 CMS temporarily “paused” QIO patient status reviews (see QIOs back to reviewing Two-Midnight rule claims, Health Law Daily, September 13, 2016). In April 2017 the QIO record selection process changed; QIOs now sample the top 175 providers with a high or increasing number of short stay claims per area with a request for 25 cases, and all other providers previously identified as having “major concerns” in the prior round of review will have a request for 10 cases.

Recovery audit contractors (RACs) may conduct provider-specific patient status reviews for providers that have been referred by the QIO as exhibiting persistent noncompliancewith Medicare payment policies, including consistently failing to adhere to the two midnight rule. The presenters noted that providers should be “extra cautious” in light of the potential for RAC referrals.

The two-midnight rule is also on the HHS Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) radar. In December 2016, the OIG issued a report based on a claims review for fiscal years 2013 and 2014 concluding that hospitals are billing for many inpatient stays that were potentially inappropriate (see Two-midnight Medicare policy succeeding but still lacks full cooperation, Health Law Daily, December 19, 2016). The OIG also stated in its FY 2017 work plan that it intends to review hospitals’ use of inpatient and outpatient stays under the two midnight rule.