Burden on submitter of quality data to verify successful transmittal

When a provider is required to submit data to CMS by entering data into a system that verifies the data and then transmits it to CMS, it is the provider’s duty to ensure that the data is actually transmitted to CMS. The Provider Reimbursement Review Board (PRRB) held that it is not enough to simply input information into the system when there are mechanisms in place to confirm that the data was successfully transmitted to CMS (Horizon Home Care & Hospice v. National Government Services, PRRB Hearing, Dec. No. 2018-D30, Case No. 16-0143, March 29, 2018).

Background

A hospice provider submitted admission and discharge data files to CMS via the Quality Improvement Evaluation System (QIES) as required under the Social Security Act (the Act). After submitting the information, the system provided a message indicating that the submission file was being processed for errors and a Final Validation Report would be available in the CASPER Reporting application once the data was transmitted to CMS. The hospice provider assumed that the submission was accepted and never accessed the CASPER Reporting application to obtain a copy of the Final Validation report.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (P.L. 111-148) ties submission of certain mandatory quality data to a provider’s eligibility for the annual Medicare hospice benefit increase or market basket update. It also mandates that a hospice’s market basket update be reduced by 2 percent if it failed to report the required quality data. Per this mandate, the Medicare contractor notified the hospice provider that its Annual Payment Update was being reduced by 2 percent.

After checking the CASPER system, the hospice provider discovered that the final validation report indicated that the data contained a facility identifier error and was never transmitted to CMS. The hospice provider requested that CMS reconsider its decision. CMS upheld its payment reduction and the hospice provider appealed the reconsideration decision to the Board.

QRP rule

The hospice provider argues that the plain language of the Quality Reporting Program (QRP) Rule requires that a hospice provider submit the data to CMS but does not require that the CASPER system receive the data from QIES. The Medicare contractor argues that the rule clearly states that the quality “data must be submitted in a form and manner, and at a time, as specified by the Secretary.” The Medicare contractor further argues that it is the provider’s duty to submit the data accurately, completely and timely.

The QIES system notified the hospice provider that it should obtain a validation report from the CASPER system. The Hospice Item Set manual and submission user’s guide both warn that if fatal errors are found, the record will be rejected and a validation report should be run to ensure the data was successfully transmitted. In the 2014 Guidance Manual, CMS warns that the system will provide fatal error and/or warning messages on the Final Validation Report for submitted data that does not meet the requirements.

Decision

The PRRB held that the provider is not required to review and printout its final validation report, however it is in the provider’s best interest to run the validation reports to confirm that the data was input correctly and transmitted from QIES to CASPER. The hospice provider did not perform the recommended steps prior to the submission deadline to assure that the quality data it entered into QIES was error free and transferred to CASPER. Therefore, the hospice provider did not submit the quality data in the form and manner and at the time required by the Act.

AMA provides resources to help physicians with MIPS reporting

As part of its effort to improve Medicare Payment Reform, the American Medical Association (AMA) is providing tools for physicians to better understand and meet the reporting requirements under the new Quality Payment Program from CMS. The AMA has created a “One Patient, One Measure, No Penalty” campaign to help physicians understand the reporting requirements and avoid the 4 percent penalty for not reporting under the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) track. Along with this campaign, the AMA has created an interactive MIPS Action Plan that provides deadlines and a step-by-step plan of how to meet the reporting requirement deadlines.

As part of the “One Patient, One Measure, No Penalty” campaign, the AMA has provided a short video that demonstrates how to fill out CMS forms to accurately report a quality measure on a patient encounter. A step-by-step guide is also provided as a supplement to the video, along with a sample form to review. There are also links to other tools, such as the CMS Quality Measure Search tool, so that all of the resources are available in one easy-to-find location.

The MIPS Action Plan is a ten-step plan that begins with a determination of whether MIPS applies to the physician. The AMA provides a detailed breakdown of some of the determining factors, such as whether a physician is considered a hospital-based physician, in a frequently asked questions supplemental resource. The MIPS Action Plan then proceeds to walk through the process of reporting, including deadlines to start reporting, and submitting 2017 MIPS data.

More clinicians able to join Next Generation ACOs, CPC+ for 2018

For the 2018 performance period of the Quality Payment Program (QPP), a program designed to reform Medicare payments to physicians to improve the quality of care provided, physicians will have additional opportunities to join two Advanced Alternative Payment Models (Advanced APMs). The Next Generation Accountable Care Organization (ACO) model and the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) model will accept new applications for participation early in 2017. Once new applicants are accepted, CMS expects that 25 percent of QPP participants will be part of Advanced APMs for performance year 2018 and eligible to receive incentive payments from Medicare.

The QPP is part of CMS’ implementation of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) (P.L. 114-10), which builds on measures created by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (P.L. 111-148). It consists of two tracks for eligible professional participation: Advanced APMs and the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). To participate as an Advanced APM, the eligible professional must be part of certain payment models, including the Next Generation ACO and CPC+ models, both of which were created by the CMS Innovation Center, which was established under section 3021 of the ACA.

The announcement that both models will open for applications in early 2017 follows promises made by CMS two months ago (see New alternative payment models announced by CMS, October 26, 2016). As part of its announcement, CMS released a Fact Sheet on the CPC+ Payer and Practice Solicitation. The American Medical Association (AMA) commended the expansion, saying that, because of Advanced APMs, “physicians will have more time with patients and more flexible payments to support care coordination and improvements in access and quality.”

Medicare-Medicaid ACO Model launched to improve ‘dual eligible’ care

The Medicare-Medicaid Accountable Care Organization (ACO) Model, an effort to improve the quality of care and lower costs for beneficiaries who are enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid, has been announced by CMS. Current Medicare ACOs often do not have financial accountability for the expenditures of Medicaid beneficiaries attributed to their organization. The new Medicare-Medicaid ACO Model is designed to build on current Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) ACOs by allowing MSSP ACOs to take on accountability for the quality of care and both Medicare and Medicaid costs for Medicare-Medicaid enrollees (also known as “dual eligible beneficiaries”).

Background

Medicare ACOs are made up of groups of doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers and suppliers who come together voluntarily to provide coordinated, high-quality care to the original Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Section 3021 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (P.L. 111-148) created the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, which provides for the testing of innovative payment and service delivery models. The MSSP (established by ACA section 3022) and other ACO initiatives were created to change the incentives for how medical care is delivered and paid for, moving away from a system that rewards the quantity of services to one that rewards the quality of health outcomes.

The new model

According to a CMS fact sheet, The Medicare-Medicaid ACO Model will allow new and existing MSSP ACOs to take on accountability for the full spectrum of Medicare Part A, Part B, and Medicaid costs for their patients. If Medicare-Medicaid ACOs in a state generate Medicare savings for their Medicare-Medicaid enrollees, states (as well as the Medicare-Medicaid ACO) may be eligible to share in those savings with CMS. States may choose from three options for when to begin the first 12-month performance period for the Model ACOs in their state: January 1, 2018; January 1, 2019; or January 1, 2020.

Through the Medicare-Medicaid ACO Model, CMS also seeks to encourage participation from safety-net providers in alternative payment models. Medicare-Medicaid ACOs that qualify as “Safety-Net ACOs” will be eligible to receive pre-payment of Medicare shared savings to support the ACO’s investment in care coordination infrastructure.

Eligibility and application process

CMS is accepting letters of intent from states that wish to work with CMS to design certain state-specific elements of the model, such as the details of the Medicaid financial methodology and shared savings/shared losses arrangements, selection of additional quality measures, and additional ACO eligibility requirements. States will also have the option to include additional Medicare-Medicaid enrollees not assigned under the MSSP and Medicaid-only beneficiaries in the target population for the Model.

CMS will enter into participation agreements with up to six states with preference given to states with low Medicare ACO saturation. Once a state is approved to participate in the model, a request for application will be sent to ACOs and health care providers in that state.

In addition to applying to participate in the Medicare-Medicaid ACO Model, ACOs will be required to apply to participate in the MSSP and ultimately sign a participation agreement to participate in the MSSP in order to participate in the Medicare-Medicaid ACO Model.