Over the past month, we provided additional details on the structure, funding, and evaluation of the Maternal, Infant, Early Childhood, Home Visiting (MIECHV) program and Medicare Therapy Caps. In this post we will go into detail on the structure, funding, and outlook of the “primary care cliff,” and specifically the three programs relating to community health centers. This is part of an ongoing series we are doing on the potential riders of a health care minibus. The “minibus” refers to a handful of policy provisions tied together in one piece of legislation. This minibus will carry a number of provisions into law, although the number of riders onboard the minibus, and when the minibus leaves the station, remains to be seen. Continue Reading Community Health Center Fund: A Minibus Rider
Lawmakers are again eyeing ways to modernize the Medicare system, including a revamping of the identification cards used by Medicare beneficiaries. On Wednesday, the House Ways and Means’ health subcommittee held a hearing on spurring innovation in the health care system. In the meeting, Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) said that he will revive legislation that will replace traditional Medicare identification cards with electronically readable cards.
As we discussed last year, the move is caused by two provisions in the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA). The first provision requires Social Security Numbers to be removed from Medicare identification cards within four years after MACRA’s enactment. The second provision requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to consider using electronic Medicare beneficiary and provider cards if the Secretary determines that it is cost effective and technologically viable. A report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) entitled “Medicare — Potential Uses of Electronically Readable Cards for Beneficiaries and Providers“ casts some doubt on whether a robust implementation of electronically readable cards is either cost effective or technologically viable. However, electronically readable Medicare cards could receive a more limited introduction as means of more efficiently conveying beneficiary identity and insurance information. In addition to reducing errors, this could serve to combat fraud that is made possible by the personal information currently found on each beneficiary’s identification card.
This is the fourth and final post in our series on the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Pub.L. No. 114-10. We’ve previously covered the repeal of the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) in our April 20th post, payment provisions and offsets in our April 21st post, and provisions relating to program integrity and fraud and abuse in our April 23rd post. In this post, we’ll be looking at other important provisions contained in MACRA, including the extension of CHIP funding through fiscal year 2017 and the advancement of interoperability in electronic health record (EHR) systems.
Section 106(a): Medicare Opt-Out and Private Contracts
Since 1998, Medicare has permitted physicians and certain other providers to enter into private contracts with Medicare beneficiaries under Part B and to bill for services without being limited by the upper payment limits established by Medicare. When providers make this “opt-out” decision, they also must agree to decline any reimbursement from Medicare for all Medicare beneficiaries for two years, except in cases of emergency or urgent care provided to a Medicare beneficiary with whom the provider does not have a private contract. MACRA allows private contracts between providers and Medicare beneficiaries to be automatically extended unless the provider furnishes the beneficiary with notice that the contract will not be extended 30 days prior to the expiration of the contract. Additionally, MACRA requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to make publicly available information regarding opt-out physicians. The information about opt-out physicians will include the number and specialties of opt-out physicians, as well as the proportion of opt-out providers billing for emergency or urgent care. HHS must post this information on its website and update it on an annual basis.
Section 106(b): EHR Interoperability
The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 authorized Medicare and Medicaid to provide incentive payments to eligible hospitals and physicians who attest to “meaningfully using” certified EHR technology. Although the ostensible purpose of the Meaningful Use Program was to encourage physicians and hospitals to adopt EHR technology, the program also was used to drive a variety of quality delivery changes for these providers. While the incentives have accomplished the limited goal of expanding the use of EHR, the benefits have been limited due to ongoing problems with interoperability among EHR systems. (“Interoperability” refers to the capability of EHR systems to be able to use the information exchanged among systems based on common standards.) MACRA requires HHS to establish metrics by July 1, 2016, for measuring how hospitals and providers progress in moving toward the goal of widespread interoperability of EHR systems. HHS will have to submit a report to Congress if this goal has not been met by December 31, 2018. In this report, HHS would be required to make recommendations for achieving this goal, such as adjusting payments and de-certifying certain EHR technology. MACRA also requires the Meaningful Use Program to require attestations by eligible hospitals and physicians that they have “not knowingly and willfully taken action (such as to disable functionality) to limit or restrict the compatibility or interoperability of the certified EHR technology.” This is a standard in the Stark Law EHR exception and Anti-Kickback EHR safe harbor. Finally, HHS is also required to submit a report to Congress (within one year from the date of enactment of MACRA) on methods to aid providers in comparing and selecting certified EHR technology. Continue Reading MACRA’s Advancement of EHR Interoperability and Telehealth
On Thursday April 16th, President Obama signed into law the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (“MACRA”). Pub.L. 114-10. In two previous posts, we discussed MACRA’s repeal of the Sustainable Growth Rate formula (the “SGR”) and physician payment reform, and the payment provisions and offsets established by MACRA. This third post will detail the Program integrity and fraud and abuse provisions of MACRA.
Section 101(e)(7): Promoting Alternative Payment Models – Study and Report on Fraud Related to Alternative Payment Models under the Medicare Program
Buried within Section 101, which is the provision repealing the SGR and authorizing various reforms to physician reimbursement, Subsection (e)(7) includes a required study and report on fraud related to alternative payment models under the Medicare Program. This study will be conducted by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”) and examine the applicability of Federal fraud prevention laws to the items and services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries for which payment is made under an alternative payment model defined by MACRA. In addition, this study will identify aspects of those same alternative payment models that are vulnerable to fraudulent activity and consider the implications of waivers of federal fraud prevention laws in support of such alternative payment models.
Within two years of the enactment of MACRA, the Secretary is required to submit to Congress a report providing the results of this study, which will include recommended actions to reduce the identified vulnerabilities of the alternative payment models and, as appropriate, recommendations from the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) regarding possible changes in Federal fraud prevention laws to reduce those vulnerabilities.
Section 104: Empowering Beneficiary Choices Through Continued Access to Information on Physicians’ Services
Section 104 requires that beginning in 2015, the Secretary make publicly available on an annual basis, through a searchable database, information regarding physicians and, as appropriate, other eligible professionals (which are defined to include physicians, physical or occupational therapists, qualified speech-language pathologists, qualified audiologists, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, certified nurse-midwives, clinical social workers, clinical psychologists, and registered dietitians or nutrition professionals) on items and services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries.
Section 104 of MACRA requires the Secretary to provide at least the following types of information:
- The number of services furnished to beneficiaries of Medicare Part B by physicians or other eligible professionals (which may include information on the most frequent services furnished or groupings of services);
- Submitted charges and payments for services; and
- A unique identifier for the physician or eligible professional that is available to the public (e.g., NPI number).
Additional requirements of Section 104 include that the information made available under this Section must be searchable by at least:
- The specialty or type of physician or other eligible professional;
- Characteristics of the services furnished (e.g., volume or groupings of services); and
- The location of the physician or other eligible professional.
Beginning in 2016, the Secretary is required to integrate the information made available under this section on the Physician Compare website hosted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”).
This required publication of data will be similar to the 2012 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data information made public by the Secretary in April 2014. As we discussed in a previous post dated April 10, 2014, HHS’s original and historic release of Medicare payment data last year was the result of multi-year litigation, which resulted in a federal judge overturning an injunction that had been in place since the late 1970s prohibiting HHS from disclosing information about Medicare payments to individual physicians.
Even recognizing the general merits of annual publication of this type of data, the information has the potential to cause confusion. For example, certain physicians, notably oncologists and retinal surgeons, dispense drugs through their practices. Because Medicare pays these physicians directly for these drugs, without a detailed look at the CPT codes in the published data, it appears at first glance that these physicians receive disproportionately large incomes from treating Medicare patients.
Another example of problems caused by this data is the publication of charges. Only those who follow reimbursement closely understand that charge data is almost meaningless. This is because very few patients pay providers based on charges, but rather payment is typically based on a fee schedule set by third party payors. As a result, providers set their charges based on a variety of measures. In some cases charges are very close to the payment rates, and in some cases they are set well above payment rates in order to recoup from a small number of charge-paying patients losses the provider incurs from private payor reimbursement. All this appears to have been irrelevant to Congress as it has now mandated annual publication of providers’ charge data. Continue Reading MACRA: Program Integrity and Fraud and Abuse Provisions