Tag: CMS

OIG: Telehealth “Critical” to Maintaining Access to Care Amidst COVID-19

The federal Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently published a report (OIG Report) as part of a series of analyses of the expansion and utilization of telehealth in response to the COVID-19 public health emergency.  In its report, the OIG concludes that telehealth was “critical for providing services to Medicare beneficiaries during the first year of the pandemic” and that the utilization of telehealth “demonstrates the long-term potential of telehealth to increase access to health care for beneficiaries.” The OIG’s conclusions are notable because they come at a time when policymakers and health care stakeholders are determining whether and how to make permanent certain expansions of telehealth for patients nationwide.

The OIG Report is based on Medicare claims and encounter data from the “first” year of the pandemic (March 1, 2020 through February 28, 2021) as compared to data for the immediately preceding year (March 1, 2019 through February 29, 2020). Per the OIG Report, the OIG observed that approximately 43% of Medicare beneficiaries used telehealth during the first year of the pandemic, and that office visits were the most common telehealth encounter for those patients. The telehealth utilization data showed an 88-fold increase over the utilization of telehealth services for the prior year, which in part reflects the significant limitations on telehealth reimbursement under Medicare prior to COVID-19, in addition to the significant regulatory expansion of telehealth at the federal and state levels in response to COVID-19.

Interestingly, the OIG Report states that beneficiaries enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan “were more likely to use telehealth” than Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, and that “CMS’s temporary policy changes enabled the monumental growth in the use of telehealth in multiple ways,” including by expanding the permissible patient locations, and the types of services that could be provided via telehealth. In addition, the OIG indicated that the use of telehealth for behavioral health services by beneficiaries “stands out” because of the higher incidence of beneficiaries accessing those services via telehealth, which may in turn influence policymaking and increase access to critical behavioral health care services.

Finally, the OIG Report notably includes a footnote which indicates that a separate report on “Program Integrity Risks” is forthcoming, which may shed light on corresponding compliance concerns that have arisen in connection with the significant expansion of telehealth in response to COVID-19.

Article By Conor O. Duffy of Robinson & Cole LLP

For more health law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.

U.S. Supreme Court Lifts Preliminary Injunctions on Healthcare Worker Vaccine Mandate

On January 13, 2022, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) Interim Final Rule (the “Rule”) in a 5-4 decision, staying the preliminary injunctions issued for 24 states by the District Courts for the Eastern District of Missouri and the Western District of Louisiana.  Therefore, the CMS vaccine mandate is in full effect for all states except Texas, which was not part of the cases before the Court.  The Rule requires nearly all workers at Medicare- and Medicaid-certified facilities—whether medical personnel, volunteers, janitorial staff, or even contractors who service the facilities—to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 unless they qualify for a medical or religious exemption.

The Court based its holding on two main points.  First, the Court held that Congress clearly authorized CMS to put conditions on funding it provides to the Medicare and Medicaid certified facilities.  The Court opined that perhaps CMS’s “most basic” function is to ensure that regulated facilities protect the health and safety of their patients, noting that Medicare and Medicaid patients are often some of the most vulnerable to infection and death from COVID-19.  Because CMS determined that a vaccine mandate is necessary to protect patient health and safety, the Court held the mandate “fits neatly within the language of the [authorizing] statute.”  The Court acknowledged that CMS has never required vaccinations in the past, but attributed this in part to the fact that states typically already require necessary vaccinations like hepatitis B, influenza, and measles for healthcare workers.

Second, the Court held that the mandate is not arbitrary and capricious, and cautioned the district courts that their role is merely to make sure an agency acts within the “zone of reasonableness.”  The Court found the administrative record sufficient to explain CMS’s rationale for the mandate and also accepted that getting the vaccine mandate in place ahead of winter and flu season satisfied the “good cause” standard for skipping the notice and comment period.

Healthcare employers subject to the Rule should immediately start implementing vaccine requirements if they have not already.  It is anticipated that in all states but Texas, CMS will likely begin enforcement of the vaccine mandate in approximately 30 days.  On December 28, 2021, CMS released guidance to state surveyors with enforcement standards to use starting 30 days from the memo, though at the time the memo only applied to the 25 states that were not enjoined.  Healthcare employers should also keep in mind that this is not the end of the road: the Court’s holding only means that the CMS vaccine mandate is in force while the 5th and 8th Circuits complete their review of the underlying state challenges to the mandate.  While the Supreme Court’s opinion sends a strong message that lower courts should uphold the mandate, there is no guarantee they will do so.

The legal landscape continues to evolve quickly and there is a lack of clear-cut authority or bright line rules on implementation.  This article is not intended to be an unequivocal, one-size-fits-all guidance, but instead represents our interpretation of where applicable law currently and generally stands.  This article does not address the potential impacts of the numerous other local, state and federal orders that have been issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including, without limitation, potential liability should an employee become ill, requirements regarding family leave, sick pay and other issues.

Article By Keeley A. McCarty and Ashley T. Hirano of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more health law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

CMS Removes All Nursing Home Visitation Restrictions as COVID-19 Cases Decrease

In order to continue addressing the impacts of COVID-19 on nursing home residents, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently issued a memo updating guidance for nursing home visitation. You can read the full memo here.

Early in the pandemic, CMS implemented visitation restrictions to mitigate the risk of visitors introducing COVID-19 to nursing homes. Now, CMS is updating its guidance and allowing visitation for residents at all times. CMS explained its decision to allow visitation is based upon data which shows approximately 86% of residents and 74% of staff are fully vaccinated, and the number of new COVID-19 cases each week in nursing homes has dramatically decreased.

Under the new guidance, nursing homes cannot limit the frequency and length of visits for residents, the number of visitors, or require advance scheduling of visits as mandated under the previous guidance. However, CMS is still directing nursing homes to follow infection-control policies and procedures. Visitors who have tested positive for COVID-19, have symptoms of COVID-19, or currently meet the criteria for quarantine, should not enter the facility. Nursing homes should still screen all visitors before entry.

Although not required, CMS is encouraging nursing homes in counties with substantial or high levels of community transmission to offer testing to visitors, if feasible. Nursing homes should also educate and encourage visitors to become vaccinated. Visitors should still wear face coverings and social distance at all times while in the nursing home. Nursing homes should stay diligent in their infection-control efforts.

Article By Sydney N. Pahren and Timothy Cahill of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

© 2021 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

CMS Requires COVID-19 Vaccine for Health Care Workers at all Facilities Participating in Medicare and Medicaid

On Nov. 4, 2021, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) released a new Interim Final Rule (IFR) regarding staff vaccination at facilities that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The IFR requires covered employers to ensure that staff receive their first dose no later than Dec. 5, 2021 and achieve full vaccination no later than Jan. 4, 2022.

The vaccine rule that was also released on Nov. 4, 2021 by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) does not apply to employees of health care entities who are covered under the CMS IFR. However, employees of health care providers who are not subject to the CMS IFR may be subject to the OSHA vaccine rule if the facility has more than 100 employees. For more information on the OSHA vaccine rule, please click here.

Justification for the Rule

CMS cited a number of reasons for the IFR, including the risk unvaccinated staff pose to patients, reports of individuals foregoing health care due to concerns of contracting COVID-19 from health facility staff, disrupted health care operations due to infected staff, and low vaccination rates among health care staff.

Scope of Coverage

The requirements of the IFR apply to health care facilities that participate in Medicare and Medicaid and that are subject to Conditions or Requirements of Participation, including but not limited to:

  • Ambulatory surgical centers;
  • Hospices;
  • Hospitals, such as acute care hospitals, psychiatric hospitals, hospital swing beds, long-term care hospitals, and children’s hospitals;
  • Long-term care facilities;
  • Home health agencies;
  • Comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facilities;
  • Critical access hospitals;
  • Home infusion therapy suppliers; and
  • Rural health clinics/federally qualified health centers.

While the IFR does not directly apply to physician offices, which are not regulated by CMS Conditions or Requirements of Participation, physicians may nevertheless be required to vaccinate as a result of their relationships with other health care entities. For example, the IFR requires hospitals to implement policies and procedures to ensure “individuals who provide care, treatment, or other services under contract or by other arrangement” are fully vaccinated.

Covered Personnel

The IFR requires vaccinations for staff who routinely perform care for patients and clients inside and outside of the facility, such as home health, home infusion therapy, hospice, and therapy staff. CMS’s vaccination requirement also extends to all staff who interact with other staff, patients, residents, or clients, at any location, and not just those who enter facilities. However, staff who provide services 100% remotely—that is, staff who never come into contact with other staff, patients, residents, or clients—are not subject to the IFR vaccination requirements. Additionally, providers and suppliers are not required to ensure IFR vaccination compliance of one-off vendors, volunteers, or professionals, such as (a) those who provide infrequent ad hoc non-health care services (e.g. annual elevator inspectors), (b) those who perform exclusively off-site services (e.g. accounting services), or (c) delivery and repair personnel.

Definition of Full Vaccination

CMS considers “full vaccination” as 14 days after receipt of either a single-dose vaccine (such as the Johnson & Johnson vaccine) or 14 days after the second dose of a two-dose primary vaccination series (such as the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines). At this time, CMS is not requiring the additional (third) dose of mRNA vaccine for moderately/severely immunosuppressed persons or the “booster dose” in order for staff to be considered “fully vaccinated.” Additionally, CMS considers individuals receiving heterologous vaccines—doses of different vaccines—as satisfying the “fully vaccinated” definition so long as they have received any combination of two doses. In order to gauge compliance, CMS is requiring that providers and suppliers track and securely document the vaccination status of each staff member as well as vaccine exemption requests and outcome. The IFR does not specify that weekly testing, masking, and social distancing are an alternative to vaccination, meaning employers must ensure all employees are either (1) fully vaccinated or (2) exempted under a permissible exemption.

Exemptions

The IFR explicitly provides that employers must continue to comply with anti-discrimination laws and civil rights protections which allow employees to request and receive exemption from vaccination due to a disability, medical condition, or sincerely held religious belief or practice. Exemptions should be provided to staff with recognized medical conditions for which a vaccine is contraindicated as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. For exemptions for a sincerely held religious belief or practice, CMS encourages health care entities to refer to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Compliance Manual on Religious Discrimination. Despite the ability to provide an exemption, CMS states that exemptions may be provided to staff only to the extent required by law, and that requests for exemption should not be provided to those who seek solely to evade vaccination. CMS also notes at length that the Food and Drug Administration considers approved vaccines safe. Accordingly, CMS will likely be unwilling to excuse provider and supplier noncompliance due to employees refusing vaccination based on fears about safety.

Penalties

Although the IFR does not identify specific penalties for non-compliance, CMS is expected to use enforcement tools such as civil money penalties, denial of payment for new admissions, or termination of the Medicare/Medicaid provider agreement. CMS will utilize State Survey Agencies to review compliance with the IFR through standard recertification surveys and complaint surveys. Noncompliance with the IFR will be addressed through established classification channels of “Immediate Jeopardy,” “Condition,” or “Standard” deficiencies.

Preemption

While CMS recognizes that some states and localities have established laws to prevent mandatory compliance with vaccine mandates, CMS ultimately considers the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution as preempting inconsistent state and local laws as applied to Medicare- and Medicaid-certified providers and suppliers.

© 2021 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.
For more updates on COVID-19, visit the NLR Coronavirus News section.

New Policy to Remove Barriers to COVID-19 Testing

On February 26, 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Labor and Department of Treasury issued guidance removing barriers to COVID-19 diagnostic testing and vaccinations and strengthening requirements that plans and issuers cover diagnostic testing without cost sharing. This guidance makes clear that private group health plans and issuers generally cannot use medical screening criteria to deny coverage for COVID-19 diagnostic tests for individuals with health coverage who are asymptomatic, and who have no known or suspected exposure to COVID-19. Such testing must be covered without cost sharing, prior authorization, or other medical management requirements imposed by the plan or issuer. For example, covered individuals wanting to ensure they are COVID-19 negative prior to visiting a family member would be able to be tested without paying cost sharing.  The guidance also includes information for providers on how to get reimbursed for COVID-19 diagnostic testing or for administering the COVID-19 vaccine to those who are uninsured.  Click here for the newly issued guidance.  See press release here.

The new guidance should encourage providers to offer COVID-19 testing at their offices and outpatient locations since private group health plans and issuers must cover and reimburse for COVID-19 testing of asymptomatic individuals and defers to the provider’s individual clinical assessment of the patient to determine whether the patient should be tested for COVID-19.  This new guidance should also increase patient access to testing and remove barriers to encourage patients to be tested prior to travel without fears of large out of pocket payment for testing.  The provider should check with health plans to confirm that they have implemented this policy prior to starting to administer the test to the newly covered group.  Likewise, patients should check their coverage under their health plans.

© 2020 Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C. All Rights Reserved

ARTICLE BY Anjali N. Baxi of Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C.
For more, visit the NLR Health Law & Managed Care section

CMS Waives Certain Penalties Classes of the Stark Law

On March 30, 2020, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced it will waive certain penalties classes of violations of the Physician Self-Referral Law, known as the Stark Law. The affected penalties are those listed under Section 1877(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1877). These blanket waivers are effective retroactively to March 1, 2020.

The Stark Law is a strict liability statute generally prohibiting a physician from making referrals of Medicare- and Medicaid-designated health services to an entity with which the physician or an immediate family member has a financial relationship. Typically, if such a relationship exists between a physician and an entity, then the arrangement must satisfy an express Stark Law exception for the physician to bill for the referred services.

The blanket waivers temporarily allow payments and referrals between physicians and covered entities if the relationship falls into one of the express categories during the COVID-19 pandemic, even if such an arrangement would otherwise not meet a Stark Law exception. The blanket waivers apply to payments and referrals between an entity covered under the Stark Law and (1) a physician, (2) the physician’s organization defined under 42 C.F.R. 411.354(c) or (3) the physician’s immediate family member.

The blanket waivers must relate to one of the explicitly defined COVID-19 purposes and meet the following conditions:

  1. The providers are acting in good faith to provide care in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
  2. The financial relationship or referral is protected by one of CMS’s 18 permitted relationships (discussed below).
  3. The government does not determine that the financial relationship creates fraud and abuse concerns.

Defined COVID-19 Purposes

To apply, the blanket waivers must be related to COVID-19 purposes. Such purposes include:

  • “Diagnosis or medically necessary treatment of COVID-19 for any patient or individual, whether or not the patient or individual is diagnosed with a confirmed case of COVID-19;
  • Securing the services of physicians and other health care practitioners and professionals to furnish medically necessary patient care services, including services not related to the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19, in response to the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States;
  • Ensuring the ability of health care providers to address patient and community needs due to the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States;
  • Expanding the capacity of health care providers to address patient and community needs due to the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States;
  • Shifting the diagnosis and care of patients to appropriate alternative settings due to the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States; or
  • Addressing medical practice or business interruption due to the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States in order to maintain the availability of medical care and related services for patients and the community.”

Those wishing to use the blanket waivers need not provide advance notice to or receive approval from CMS. Those who rely on a blanket waiver, however, must retain records relating to its use, and the records must be available for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to review upon request.

The Blanket Waivers

The blanket waivers do not suspend the entire Stark Law. Rather, they apply only to 18 expressly enumerated relationships. These relationships can be divided into two classes: those that address payments and those that address referrals.

Allowed Payments

  1. Personally Performed Services: Remuneration paid by an entity to a physician above or below the fair market value (FMV) for the physician’s personally performed services to the entity is permitted.
  2. Office Space and Equipment Rental Payments: Remuneration paid by an entity to a physician or by a physician to an entity below FMV for rental of office space or equipment is permitted by the waivers. Rental payments exceeding FMV are not covered.
  3. Purchase of Items or Services: Remuneration paid by an entity to a physician or by a physician to an entity below FMV for the purchased items or services, including use of the entity’s premises, is permitted by the purchase waivers. The purpose of these waivers is to permit parties to rapidly source critical items or services without overpaying for the service.
  4. Additional Incidental Benefits to Medical Staff: Remuneration from a hospital to a physician in the form of medical staff incidental benefits that exceed the $36-per-item limit set forth in 42 CFR § 411.357(m)(5) is protected. This waiver permits a hospital to offer a range of benefits to its medical staff members to facilitate participation in the health care workforce, such as childcare services or clean clothing for the physician while at the hospital.
  5. Nonmonetary Compensation: Remuneration from an entity to a physician in the form of nonmonetary compensation that exceeds the $423 annual limit set forth in 42 CFR § 411.357(k)(1) is permitted. Similar to the medical staff benefit waiver, this waiver allows an entity to provide additional services that would otherwise exceed the limits established by the regulations to facilitate participation in the health care workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic. Currently, it is unclear how this waiver will be assessed when the blanket waiver period ends because the public emergency declaration caused by the COVID-19 pandemic is terminated. More guidance from CMS on the application of this waiver may be issued.
  6. Low-Interest or Interest-Free Loans: Remuneration among individuals and entities in the healthcare industry in the form of a loan, with an interest rate below FMV or on terms that are unavailable from another independent lender, is allowed. Essentially, CMS is attempting to increase cash liquidity within the health care industry to mitigate potential cash flow problems among health care workers and providers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Allowed Referrals

  1. Referrals by Physician-Owner of a Hospital: Referrals by a physician-owner of a hospital that temporarily expands its facility capacity above the number of operating rooms, procedure rooms and beds for which the hospital was licensed on March 23, 2010 without prior application and approval of the expansion of facility capacity will temporarily not be prohibited by the Stark Law. (In the case of a hospital that did not have a provider agreement in effect as of March 23, 2010, but did have a provider agreement in effect on December 31, 2010, the effective date of such provider agreement applies.)
  2. Referrals by Physician-Owner of Ambulatory Surgical Centers that Temporarily Convert to Hospitals: Referrals by a physician-owner of a hospital that converted from a physician-owned ambulatory surgical center to a hospital on or after March 1, 2020 are permitted provided that:
  • The hospital does not satisfy one or more of the requirements of Section 1877(i)(1)(A) through (E) of the Act.
  • The hospital enrolled in Medicare as a hospital during the period of the public health emergency described in Section II.A of this blanket waiver document.
  • The hospital meets the Medicare conditions of participation and other requirements not waived by CMS during the period of the public health emergency described in section II.A of this blanket waiver document.
  • The hospital’s Medicare enrollment is not inconsistent with the Emergency Preparedness or Pandemic Plan of the state in which it is located.
  1. Referrals by Owners to a Home Health Agency: Referrals are now permitted by a physician of a Medicare beneficiary for the provision of designated health services to a home health agency (1) that does not qualify as a rural provider under 42 CFR 411.356(c)(1) and (2) in which the physician (or an immediate family member of the physician) has an ownership or investment interest.
  2. Referrals for Services at Locations Other than the Health Care Facility: Referrals are now permitted by a physician in a group practice for medically necessary designated health services furnished by the group practice in a location that does not qualify as a “same building” or “centralized building” for purposes of 42 CFR 411.355(b)(2). Also, referrals by a physician in a group practice for medically necessary designated health services furnished by the group practice to a patient in his or her private home, an assisted living facility, or independent living facility where the referring physician’s principal medical practice does not consist of treating patients in their private homes will not violate the Stark Law.
  3. Referrals to Immediate Family Members in Rural Areas: Referrals are now permitted by a physician to an entity with which the physician’s immediate family member has a financial relationship if the patient who is referred resides in a rural area.
  4. Relaxing Compensation Arrangement Written Requirements: Stark Law compensation arrangement exceptions frequently require the arrangement to be in writing. However, referrals are now permitted by a physician to an entity that the physician (or an immediate family member of the physician) has a compensation arrangement that does not satisfy the writing requirements of an applicable exception but satisfies all other requirements of the applicable exception, unless that requirement is waived under one or more of the blanket waivers above.

CMS encourages providers to contact CMS with questions regarding the applicability of the blanket waivers. Providers should send any requests to 1877CallCenter@cms.hhs.gov and include the words “Request for 1877(g) Waiver” in the subject line. All requests should include the following minimum information:

  • the name and address of requesting entity
  • the name, phone number and email address of the person designated to represent the entity
  • the CMS Certification Number (CCN) or Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) of the requesting entity; and
  • the nature of the request.

The contours and applications of these blanket waivers are complex and often require a nuanced understanding of how they are couched into the existing regulatory framework addressing the provision of health care services under the Social Security Act, the Stark Law, and a number of other statutes and regulations.

© 2020 Much Shelist, P.C.

For more on healthcare blanket waivers amidst COVID-19, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

CMS/HHS Issues FAQs on Essential Health Benefits and COVID-19

As the President issues a state of emergency in response to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, issued frequently asked questions (FAQs) on COVID – 19 and essential health benefits (EHB) coverage through the individual and small group insurance markets.

These FAQs state first that EHB generally include coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19. However, the exact coverage details and cost-sharing will depend upon the individual’s plan, and some plans may require preauthorization before these services are covered. Under current regulations, each state and the District of Columbia generally determines the EHB that plans in their locality must cover. Moreover, many states are encouraging, and some are requiring, insurance carriers to cover a variety of COVID-19 services, including testing and treatment, without cost-sharing or preauthorization.

The FAQs went on to say that medically necessary isolation and quarantine required by and under the supervision of a medical provider during hospital admission is generally covered as EHB. However, quarantine outside of a hospital setting, such as a home, is not a medical benefit, nor is it required as EHB.

Finally, the FAQs addressed the possibility of a future COVID-19 vaccine. Although not yet available, all vaccines are analyzed by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who will recommend whether the vaccine should be included as EHB without cost sharing and before any applicable deductible. Current guidance indicates that the process of evaluation and final implementation as an EHB can take over a year, but plans may voluntarily choose to cover a vaccine before that time. The FAQs also note that participants may use the plan’s drug exemptions process to request the vaccine be covered.

© 2007-2020 Hill Ward Henderson, All Rights Reserved

Nursing Shortage Expected to Continue Through 2024: How CMS Is Easing the Burden on Hospice Agencies

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics has forecast a nursing shortage through 2024, with the United States projected to need more than half a million new nurses to replace those who leave the profession. This nursing shortage stems from a convergence of factors. First, the healthcare arena has experienced an influx of new patients due to the Affordable Care Act and an aging population, increasing the demand for healthcare services. Second, many baby boomers have already reached or will soon reach retirement age. Finally, there are barriers to education for new nurses, including a lack of programs, faculty, and clinical sites to support training needs.

Extraordinary Circumstance Designation

On December 21, 2018, the director of the Quality, Safety & Oversight Group of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a memorandum that officially extends CMS’s designation of the national nursing shortage as an “extraordinary circumstance.” This extension will permit hospice agencies to use contract workers to provide core nursing services through September 30, 2020.

Under 42 C.F.R. 418.64, hospice agencies “must routinely provide substantially all core services” through their own employees. Hospice agencies may use contract staff in their facilities only if there are “extraordinary or other non-routine circumstances.” These circumstances are generally unforeseen temporary events, such as “[u]nanticipated periods of high patient loads, staffing shortages due to illness or other short-term temporary situations that interrupt patient care; and temporary travel of a patient outside of the hospice’s service area.”

CMS’s designation of the nursing shortage as an “extraordinary circumstance” means that hospice agencies are exempt from the general rule requiring them to employ their own nurses to provide core nursing services. While this exemption will allow hospice agencies to hire contractors to supplement their own employee workforces, these agencies still will be responsible for all professional, financial, and administrative functions, as well as counseling, medical social services, and other core hospice services.

The memorandum also eases the paperwork burden on hospice agencies. CMS previously required that hospice agencies provide notification and a stated justification to CMS and the agency’s state survey agency whenever they used contract staff during extraordinary circumstances. Under this memorandum, the notification and justification are no longer required. Documentation, however, is still required if a hospice agency uses contract staff for other reasons and will be reviewed as part of the routine survey process.

Key Takeaways

This may be welcome news for hospice agencies struggling to care for patients, but there are some limitations these agencies may want to keep in mind. Notably, the “extraordinary circumstances” designation permits agencies to use contract staff only to supplement—not replace—their core nursing staff. Additionally, although hospice agencies may hire contract staff for core nursing functions, the exemption does not apply to other professional, financial, and administrative functions. Finally, hospice agencies should remember that they must still document their use of contract staff when it is due to a reason other than the nursing shortage.

 

© 2019, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

Telehealth Gets a Boost in Proposed Physician Fee Schedule

Some very good news for the telehealth community can be found amidst the more than 1,400 pages of the proposed Medicare Physician Fee Schedule for 2019 (“Proposed Rule”) issued by CMS yesterday.  Finally, CMS acknowledges just how far behind Medicare has lagged in recognizing and paying for physician services furnished via communications technology.

Virtual Check-In

The longstanding barriers to Medicare payment for telehealth visits based on the location of the patient and the technology utilized could soon give way to payment for brief check-in services using technology that will evaluate whether or not an office visit or other service is warranted.  CMS proposes to establish a new code to pay providers for a virtual check in. For many telehealth providers, the payment proposal will not go far enough since the new code can only be used for established patients. CMS notes that the telehealth practitioner should have some basic knowledge of the patients’ medical condition and needs that can only be gained by having an existing relationship with the patient.

Store and Forward

In other good news, the Proposed Rule creates a specific payment code for the remote professional evaluation of patient-transmitted information conducted via pre-recorded “store and forward” video or image technology.  CMS recognizes that the progression of technology and its impact on the practice of medicine in recent years will result in increased access to services for Medicare beneficiaries. CMS is seeking comment as to whether these type of telehealth services could be deployed for new patients as well as existing patients.

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018

The Proposed Rule also implements important expansions of telehealth services included in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (“BBA of 2018”) passed last winter. The BBA of 2018 made way for end-stage renal disease patients to receive certain clinical assessments via telehealth beginning in January 2019.  Under the Proposed Rule, CMS proposes to amend its regulations to add in the home of the patient as the “originating site.” Under existing Medicare rules, the patient’s home is not an appropriate “originating site” for a telehealth visit.

Comments on the Proposed Rule are due by September 10, 2018.

 

©1994-2018 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Trump Administration Takes First Steps to Support Healthcare Exchanges, but Key Questions Remain

healthcare exchangesIn an effort to stabilize the Exchanges and encourage issuer participation, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently extended the federal Exchange application and rate filing deadlines and published a proposed rule affecting the individual health insurance market and the Exchanges. While issuers will likely see these actions as encouraging signs of the Trump administration’s willingness to support the Exchanges, these actions do not resolve the political uncertainty regarding the Affordable Care Act’s fate or whether cost-sharing reductions will be funded for 2018. These outstanding questions will likely be a key factor in Exchange stability going forward.

In Depth

On February 17, 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register outlining a series of proposals intended to stabilize the individual health insurance market and the Exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Comments on the proposed rule are due to CMS on March 7, 2017.

On the same day as the proposed rule was published, CMS announced that it was extending the federal Exchange application and rate filing deadlines with the apparent goal of ensuring that the proposed rule changes could be finalized and taken into account when issuers make Exchange participation and rate decisions for 2018. Although issuers are likely to support the proposed rule and delayed federal filing deadlines, it is not clear what effect these changes will have since they do not resolve the ongoing uncertainty regarding the fate of the ACA repeal effort in Congress and federal funding of cost-sharing reductions in 2018.

CMS believes that the proposed “changes are urgently needed to stabilize markets, to incentivize issuers to enter or remain in the market and to ensure premium stability and consumer choice.” The agency’s urgency is underscored by recent reports that Humana would exit the Exchanges entirely for 2018 and other companies have publicly stated that they are uncertain about the extent of their participation in 2018. Looking just at states using healthcare.gov, there are 960 counties with only one issuer in 2017. Additional issuer defections for 2018 would increase the odds that certain counties will have no issuers participating on the Exchange. This would result in residents of such counties being unable to utilize premium or cost-sharing subsidies for which they otherwise qualify.

The proposed rule addresses long-standing issuer concerns about special enrollment periods and perceived gaming of the 90-day grace period available to enrollees receiving premium subsidies. Looking beyond the specific proposals, the proposed rule is significant for the simple fact that it is the Trump administration’s first concrete step to support and stabilize the Exchange market. This likely provides a measure of relief for industry stakeholders that were unsure whether Republicans would be willing to support the Exchanges, which were a key focus of Republican opposition to the ACA. There had been mixed signals during the Trump administration’s first weeks about how it would approach ACA implementation. President Trump issued an executive order his first day in office directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) and other agencies to “exercise all authority and discretion available to them to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of” ACA requirements, creating uncertainty regarding how this broad directive would be implemented. In addition, the administration reportedly pulled back on advertising healthcare.gov during the final weekend of open enrollment, leading some to speculate that the Trump administration would be less supportive of Exchange stability than the Obama administration. In the proposed rule, however, CMS tries to make clear that it shares issuers’ goals of “improv[ing] the risk pool and promot[ing] stability in the individual market.”

The question remains whether the proposed changes (and the directional signal of Trump administration support) are sufficient to achieve their stated policy goals. That question is significantly influenced by the status of the ongoing legislative process seeking to quickly repeal the ACA. Although CMS has in this proposed rule endorsed the goal of Exchange market stability in anticipation of CY 2018 open enrollment proceeding as planned, a Republican-led Congress and the Trump administration have continued to signal their commitment to repeal the ACA. Even with the recent delay in Exchange product and rate filing deadlines, the political process (and the related uncertainty about the ACA’s fate) may not be resolved by the time issuers need to begin developing their rates and making decisions on CY 2018 participation. The proposed rule also does not resolve lingering questions related to Exchange funding, such as the availability of cost-sharing reductions for 2018, that will likely be a key factor in Exchange stability going forward.

Summary of Proposed Rule Changes

The proposed rule changes are largely designed to close potential avenues of adverse selection and improve the overall risk pool by encouraging healthier individuals to enroll in coverage.

Open Enrollment

CMS proposes shortening the 2018 open enrollment period from November 1, 2017, through January 1, 2018, to November 1 through December 15, 2017. CMS originally proposed that the shortened open enrollment period would be effective for the 2019 open enrollment period, but the agency is now proposing to move this up by one year. CMS expects that this change would improve the risk pool by reducing enrollments late in the open enrollment period spurred by an applicant’s recent discovery of a need to access health care services. This policy would also increase premium payments to plans, as more enrollees would begin the year’s coverage in January instead of February.

CMS likely would need to extensively market the shortened enrollment period to ensure public awareness. It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration is comfortable with such a commitment to marketing the program given the pull back on marketing efforts for the end of CY 2017 open enrollment.

Special Enrollment

CMS proposes a series of limitations on special enrollment periods intended to reduce adverse selection. Previously, issuers had complained that many healthy individuals were forgoing coverage until they were sick, taking advantage of lax special enrollment period rules to enroll in coverage only when it was needed.

To limit gaming, CMS proposes to expand an enrollment verification pilot program for states using healthcare.gov, planned to begin in summer 2017. CMS proposes that applicants enrolling in coverage under a special enrollment period would have their enrollment pended until they provide documentation that they actually qualify for the special enrollment period. Where providing and processing documentation would result in a delay in coverage after the requested coverage effective date, this policy would result in retroactive coverage. As such, where verification results in a delay in coverage of two months or more, CMS proposes to permit enrollees to request a later effective date.

Guaranteed Availability

CMS also proposes to reinterpret the “guaranteed availability” standard, which requires health plans in the individual market to sell coverage to any willing buyer during open or special enrollment periods. CMS proposes to create an exception to guaranteed availability for individuals with unpaid premiums due to the issuer from which the individual is seeking to purchase new coverage. In part, this proposal seems to address issuers’ concern that some individuals have taken advantage of generous grace periods to discontinue premium payment towards the end of a benefit year only to reenroll with the same plan for the next benefit year. Individuals could still enroll in coverage without coming due on unpaid premium amounts by enrolling with a different issuer (if there is more than one issuer participating in the service area).

Accepting Comments on Continuous Coverage Proposals

CMS requests comments on potential policies it could implement to promote continuous coverage, but the agency is not proposing any specific policies at this time. A continuous coverage requirement is a central feature of many Republican ACA replacement proposals as an alternative to the ACA’s individual mandate. The ACA’s statutory guaranteed availability protections are broad, so adoption of a generally applicable continuous coverage requirement would likely require a legislative change. This is, however, a signal that CMS, under HHS Secretary Price and congressional Republicans, is considering similar policy solutions.

De Minimis Variation

CMS proposes to expand the definition of de minimis variation, the amount by which a qualified health plan’s (QHP’s) actuarial value may vary from the statutorily mandated value. CMS proposes to increase the amount of permissible variation to -4/+2 percentage points from the +/-2 percentage points currently permitted. CMS argues that this policy will promote market stability by permitting plans to maintain the same plan design year over year. CMS additionally argues that this policy may promote competition and put downward pressure on premiums, encouraging healthier individuals to participate in the plan.

Network Adequacy

CMS also proposes to defer to states with respect to network adequacy for Exchange plans in federally facilitated Exchange (FFE) and state-based Exchange states. In past years, CMS has proactively verified that QHPs in FFE states have an “adequate” network of providers. Through such reviews, CMS has enforced “maximum time and distance standards” requiring, for at least 90 percent of enrollees, that certain types of providers be within a specified distance and travel time. These quantitative standards mirrored the Medicare Advantage program requirements. CMS proposes to discontinue its analysis of QHP time and distance, instead deferring to state regulators and accrediting bodies.

Network adequacy requirements vary significantly across states, so this change will affect issuers differently. While the National Association of Insurance Commissioners has adopted a new Health Benefit Plan Network Access and Adequacy Model Act, it has not been adopted in any states and defers to individual states to set applicable time and distance standards. Thus, CMS’s deferral of network adequacy to states may permit narrower networks than under CMS’s quantitative standards.

Executive Order on Significant Regulatory Actions

Also of note is CMS’s approach to President Trump’s recent executive order, which requires that any “significant regulatory actions that [impose] costs” be offset through the elimination of costs associated with at least two prior rules. The proposed rule offers an early opportunity to examine how the administration will implement this executive order. CMS determined that the proposed rule “is not a significant regulatory action that imposes cost” under the recent executive order. The basis for this finding appears to be CMS’s belief that the proposed rule results in a net cost reduction. Thus, while CMS characterized the rule as “significant” for creating separate costs and benefits that exceed $100 million, the net cost reduction allows the agency to avoid eliminating two rules. Industry stakeholders should continue to monitor how CMS implements President Trump’s recent executive order.

 Embed from Getty Images

 

ARTICLE BY Ankur J. Goel, Jeremy Earl & Seth Schneer of McDermott Will & Emery

© 2017 McDermott Will & Emery