Viewing ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’ Category

CMS Publishes Medicare Provider Charge Data

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has finally made  publicly available  hospital-specific charges for the more than 3,000 U.S. hospitals that receive Medicare Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) payments. The data represents almost 7 million discharges or 60 percent of total Medicare IPPS discharges. Hospitals have protected their price lists or “charge masters”  from public disclosure and by means of contractual confidentiality restrictions. CMS’s disclosure of this data were inspired in part by a March 2013 Time magazine investigative report on hospital charges authored by Steven Brill, which attracted extensive media attention and discussion.

CMS hopes that users of the data will be able to make comparisons between the amount charged by individual hospitals within local markets, and nationwide, for services that might be furnished in connection with a particular inpatient stay. CMS shared the data in advance with media outlets such as The Huffington Post, The New York Times and The Washington Post. Each of these outlets have published stories based on their analysis.   Entities such as ACO’s may find this data useful as they seek to deliver better patient care on limited budgets in order to produce shared savings.

Links:

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/Medicare-Provider-Charge-Data/index.html

Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule for CY 2013

On July 30, 2012 CMS will publish a major proposed rule addressing changes to the physician fee schedule, payments for Part B drugs, and other Medicare Part B payment policies to ensure that the payment systems are updated to reflect changes in medical practice and the relative value of services. The proposed rule would also implement provisions of the Affordable Care Act by establishing a faceto-face encounter as a condition of payment for certain durable medical equipment (DME) items. In addition, it would implement statutory changes regarding the termination of non-random prepayment review under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. Finally, this proposed rule also includes a discussion regarding the Chiropractic Services Demonstration program.

The proposed rule also addresses new claims-based data reporting requirements for therapy services to implement a provision in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act (MCTRCA). In addition, this rule proposes:

● Potentially Misvalued Codes to be Evaluated.

● Additional Multiple Procedure Payment Reductions (MPPR).

● Expanding Medicare Telehealth Services.

● Regulatory Changes regarding Payment for Technical Component of Certain Physician Pathology Services to Conform to Statute.

● Primary Care and Care Coordination Service.

● Payment rates for Newly Covered Preventive Services.

● Definition of Anesthesia and Related Care in the Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists Benefit.

● Ordering Requirements for Portable X-ray Services.

● Updates to the Ambulance Fee Schedule.

● Part B Drug Payment Rates.

● Ambulance Coverage-Physician Certification Statement.

●Updating the–

  • Physician Compare Website.
  • Physician Quality Reporting System.
  • Electronic Prescribing (eRx) Incentive Program.
  • Medicare Shared Savings Program.

● Providing Budget Neutrality Discussion on the Chiropractic Demonstration.

● Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier and the Physician Feedback Reporting Program.

● Medicare Coverage of Hepatitis B Vaccine.

● Updating Existing Standards for e-prescribing under Medicare Part D and Lifting the LTC Exemption.

Several proposed changes would affect the specialty distribution of Medicare expenditures. This proposed rule reflects the priority on improving payment for primary care services. Overall, payments for primary care specialties would increase and payments to select other specialties would decrease due to several changes in how CMS proposes to calculate payments for CY 2013.

Link: https://federalregister.gov/a/2012-16814

How the use of Medicare Data to generate Performance Measurements affects Physicians?

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS recently issued final rules pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, (Pub. L. 111-148), enacted on March 23, 2010, and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, (Pub. L. 111-152), enacted on March 30, 2010 (collectively the “Affordable Care Act.”) Effective January 1, 2012, the Affordable Care Act would amend the Social Security Act (the “Act”) to require standardized extracts of Medicare claims data under parts A, B, and D to be made available to “qualified entities” for the evaluation of the performance of providers and suppliers. Qualified entities may use the information obtained the Act for the purpose of evaluating the performance of providers and suppliers, and to generate public reports regarding such performance (the “Performance Reports”). Qualified entities may receive data for one or more specified geographic areas. Congress also required that qualified entities combine claims data from sources other than Medicare with the Medicare data when evaluating the performance of providers and suppliers.

A.     What will be published in the Performance Reports?

Performance Reports generated by the qualified entities may only include information on individual providers and suppliers in aggregate form, that is, at the provider or supplier level, and may not be released to the public until the providers and suppliers have had an opportunity to review them and, if necessary, ask for corrections.

B.     How can the qualified entity use of the Medicare Claims Data?

The statute bars the re-use of the Medicare claims data provided to qualified entities under the Act. The qualified entity “shall only use such data, and information derived from such evaluation” for Performance Reports on providers and suppliers. Additionally, the Data Use Agreement between the qualified entity and CMS (the “DUA”), bars re-use of the data for other purposes. The Act does not address the use of the published Performance Report. Subject to any limitations imposed by other applicable laws, the Performance Reports could be used by any party, including the qualified entity, for activities such as internal analyses, pay-for-performance initiatives, or provider tiering.

C.     What can Physicians do to correct issues with Performance Reports?

The Act requires the Performance Reports to be made available to the public after they are made available to providers and suppliers for review and requests for corrections. Each provider or supplier will confidentially receive any Performance Report where they are identified. It is the responsibility of the qualified entity to ensure that the data is delivered using a secure method to the appropriate provider or supplier.

D.     How long do physicians have to review and provide comments before the Performance Report is published?

CMS requires that qualified entities publicly report measure results on the date specified to the provider or supplier when the report is sent for review (at least 60 days after the date on which the confidential reports are sent to a provider or supplier), regardless of the status of a request for error correction.

E.     How many Performance Reports will Physicians have to deal with?

CMS does not intend to limit the number of qualified entities accepted for participation into the program, and therefore, it is possible that there will be more than one qualified entity working in the same geographic area and publish Performance Reports for that geographic area.

F.     How much will it cost a Physician to review a Performance Report and provide comments?

Physicians who receive the Performance Reports have no obligation to review them. CMS assumes that those who do review the Performance Reports would devote and average of five hours to reviewing them at an average cost of $214.00 for physician offices. For those who appeal CMS assumes that preparing the appeal would involve an average of ten hours of effort on the part of a physician at an average cost of $429 for physician offices. The latter amount includes CMS’ assumption that 50 percent of the providers and suppliers who decide to appeal would hire consultants to assist with the appeals process.

G.     Will the Performance Reports be published in standard formats?

 CMS does not intend to standardize the Performance Reports, so each qualified entity will be able to publish Performance Reports in different formats.

 H.     Must the Performance Reports be published? How frequently will the reports be published?

Qualified entities are not allowed to produce Performance Reports for confidential use only, thus the reports must be published. There is no requirement in the Act on the frequency of public reporting, so CMS adopted a rule of once per year. Reporting once per year is the minimum requirement. A qualified entity may choose to report more frequently than once per year, as long as it is still able to meet the requirement of allowing providers and suppliers the opportunity to review and request error correction in the Performance Reports.

I.     How fresh will be the Medicare claims data that CMS provides?

CMS will provide qualified entities with the most recent available historical data, which, for qualified entities approved at the beginning of the program, CMS expects to include data for CY2009, CY2010, and the first two quarters of 2011. Then, CMS would provide quarterly data updates on a rolling basis.

J.     Will the qualified entity have all of the claims for a physician?

CMS will release claims based on the location of the beneficiary residence, not the location of the provider or supplier rendering the services. This will mean the qualified entity might not receive all of the Medicare claims for a given provider or supplier.

This is the the link to the release of the final rule by CMS:  http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2011-31232_PI.pdf

A Contract Landmine To Avoid In A World Of More Lawsuits

A contract provision which appears to be helpful on the front end can harm a business in unforeseen ways, especially businesses which are frequently subject to lawsuits such as nursing homes. The contract provision in this instance requires the losing party to pay the attorneys’ fees and expenses of the prevailing party (i.e., an attorneys’ fees provision). From the perspective of a nursing home, the attorneys’ fees provision in an admissions contract with a resident may seem to be attractive because it has the potential to minimize law suits with a low possibility of success. However, the attorneys’ fees provision, especially a poorly drafted provision, can create a perverse incentive for the plaintiff’s attorney. The plaintiff’s attorney may incur expenses in stronger cases even if the amounts at risk are small. Under these circumstances, the tool to limit overall expenses can become a burden because the associated legal fees are greater than expected relative to the amount in dispute.

The potentially adverse effects of the attorneys’ fees provision can be magnified in a world where the Nursing Home Transparency and Improvement Subtitle to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is effective (the “Transparency Statute”). The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed into law in 2010. In brief, the Transparency Statute requires nursing homes to disclose (i) the principals of the nursing home (including but not limited to each of the following: the officers, directors, trustees, managers, partners, members etc.), (ii) any other person who has control of a facility, has input on its operations or manages the facility, and (iii) the organizational structure of each of the foregoing and the relationships among those persons. The Transparency Statute is part of an effort by the federal government to raise the level of accountability at nursing homes. Nursing home operators should consider whether the attorneys’ fees provision in admissions contracts will end up funding plaintiff litigation against their principals and other persons involved in the business.

The net effect of an attorneys’ fee provision in admissions contracts could be more of an emphasis by legal counsel to follow through on litigation for stronger cases against nursing homes involving small amounts and a corresponding increase in settlement amounts. A recommended course of action for the nursing home operator is to conduct a review of its admissions contract to determine whether the attorneys’ fee provision is included. If the attorneys’ fee provision is included, the amendments are easy to implement for future contracts; however, a detailed review and analysis is required to determine how to deal with currently effective admissions contracts.