Health law is the federal, state, and local law, rules, regulations and other jurisprudence among providers, payers and vendors to the healthcare industry and its patient and delivery of health care services; all with an emphasis on operations, regulatory and transactional legal issues.
In 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) started a program that combined the process of reviewing a sample of claims with providing follow up education as a way to help reduce errors in the claim submission process. This is called the Targeted Probe and Educate Program (TPE). The goal of the program is to help providers and suppliers identify errors made and quickly make improvements. CMS has acknowledged that since its inception the program needs improvements and that this type of review can be burdensome. Most providers and suppliers never experience a TPE review; however, for the ones that receive notification, here are the top five things you should know before moving forward:
Litigation involving out of network claims by providers, also referred to as “non-participating” or “non-par”, continues to be rampant into 2019. Complexity of plan administration, increased state and federal rule making, and rising costs are resulting in increased litigation. A recurring issue: unpaid claims disputes.
Many physicians come to the conclusion that some contracts aren’t worth entering. More and more physicians are opting out of participating provider contracts or have chosen not to participate in the first place. Reimbursement is usually the prime reason. The law that controls much of the litigation surrounding these disputes is the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). ERISA is a federal law that sets minimum standards for most plans along with fiduciary responsibilities for plan sponsors. Under ERISA, a “Summary Plan Description” must be created for each plan that sets forth the rights and benefits of each plan member and importantly, how out-of-network reimbursement is determined. read more
When providers or suppliers self-report overpayments to Medicare Part C Managed Care organization, there is some uncertainty on what lookback period applies and whether there actually is an overpayment obligation. Is it Medicare’s 60-day overpayment rule that applies or do the Managed Care Part C organizations impose a different lookback period for overpayments?
CMS (The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) published its Final Rule clarifying the procedures applicable to the statutory requirement under the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) for providers and suppliers to self-report and return overpayments. (The Final Rule was published on February 12, 2016). The Final Rule applies to Medicare Parts A and B and addresses the procedures that a provider or supplier need to follow to investigate, identify, quantify to self-report and return an overpayment. The Final Rule clarifies the obligations of Medicare providers and suppliers to report and return overpayments for claims originating only under Medicare Parts A and B. The final rule does not address, or reference, the obligations of providers to return overpayments to Medicare Advantage organizations for Part C claims. read more
Passage of the new and comprehensive Florida addiction treatment industry legislation (CS/CS/HB 807) will send addiction treatment facility management relationships back to the drawing board. Prior to the new law, some DCF licensed facilities were managed by management companies, some of which were owned by people who either did not qualify to be on the DCF license or who did not want to be visible on the license.
The new addiction treatment law requires all such arrangements to be reconsidered. Here’s why: There are several sections in the new law where management is the subject of intensive focus. Newly created 397.410 requires DCF to establish minimum licensure requirements for each service component limited in part to the number and qualifications of all personnel, including management. Newly created 397.415(1)(d)1 authorizes DCF to deny, suspend or revoke licensure of any license based on a “false representation of a material fact in the licensure application or omission of any material fact from the application.” Finally, 397.415 creates an entire category of potentially punishing fines and, in some cases, exposure to criminal prosecution.
The new law will create heavy regulatory suspicion for any non-transparent management relationship, even a third party relationship. Worse, it’s conceivable that any suspicious or arguably noncompliant relationship could form the basis for recoupment by insurers. When the state Health Care Clinic Law was created some years ago, payers took advantage of situations where facilities that required a license but didn’t have one. Under a threat of insurance fraud (e.g. an unlicensed healthcare facility receiving compensation for services), some payers were able to extract huge recoupments.
Any DCF licensed facility with a third party management relationship needs to reconsider it in light of the new addiction treatment law. Moreover, all interested parties should pay close attention to (and monitor and participate in) the new law’s rulemaking process which began at the end of June.
CLICK HEREfor: SUBSTANCE ABUSE MARKETING SERVICE PROVIDER LICENSE APPLICATION
One of the biggest challenges faced by addiction treatment providers today, especially in Palm Beach County, Florida, arises in the context of unprecedented pressure by law enforcement via the Sober Home Task Force, newspapers and insurers. The threat of being targeted by law enforcement is an enormous thing in itself. Add to that the mainstream media’s insatiable desire for readers, the industry’s drop into insurer red flagging and recoupment, the political football nature of addiction and addiction treatment, and treatment providers can lapse into a state of paralyzed tunnel vision, a sort of mass hypnosis. Here’s the problem: providers dealing with the current compliance crisis environment have a lot to lose if they take their eye off the bigger picture. The more absorbed they become in “crisis mode,” the more likely they will miss important addiction treatment compliance details in an increasingly regulated and changing industry. Losing the ability to see the entire picture (and trends) and quickly adapting to it can have costly (and even deadly) consequences.
The addiction treatment industry is like any other healthcare provider—enormously and increasingly regulated, highly scrutinized and always dynamic. The moment it took on features of traditional healthcare (e.g. lab and physician services), it left the relatively warm and fuzzy comfort of behavioral health providers, sorta. “Sorta” because medical behavioral health (e.g. psychology and counseling) has not had it easy in the past 10 years, as it came under crushing price compression with managed care driven networks and other price cutting middlemen that have often been owned or controlled by insurance companies. Addiction treatment providers in the pure behavioral health space were “saved” from all this till about three years ago because they were out of network and not the focus of insurer driven price cuts. As payors (and their price cut incentivized middle men) looked for more ways to drive up profits, the competitive and disorganized addiction treatment sector became a natural (and unprepared) sector to hit. And they hit it hard! Clearly, the Perfect Storm. Addiction treatment providers now have no option but to learn to swim hard and fast in the ever changing river of the healthcare business industry. read more
Most of the commercial payors are paying PHP (Partial Hospitalization Plan) and IOP (Intensive Treatment Plan) at a bundled daily rate. Many of the plans are now adding urine drug screens to the bundled daily rate and imposing a cap on the number of screens that can be done during an admission. Plans are paying rates that are much nearer to a Medicare rates. Payments based on a reasonable percentage of a provider’s charge are becoming harder to find, as the calculation of what is a usual and customary rate of payment continues to decline.
Yet, a great portion of substance abuse facilities are operating with more clinical staff, at a higher level through licensure, with better Electronic Medical Systems, more programs to combat some of the symptoms of addiction and with a greater awareness of compliance with state and federal guidelines. Even with these necessary improvements, reimbursements continue to decline. read more
Did you know as a residential addiction substance abuse treatment provider, your facility must know what is, and what is not, above your ceiling tiles? Does your facility have a “No Smoking” sign at the main entrance? Do you know which way the doors are supposed to close? Want to grow your business? Plan on expanding? You will need an ILSM (Interim Life Safety Measure) completed; and, the ILSM must include an infection control acknowledgment.
The Bottom Line About ILSM for Substance Abuse Treatment
In simplicity, buildings serving patients must comply with the NFPA 101 (2012 edition) Life Safety Code. Has your substance abuse treatment organization identified a Safety Officer? Has the Safety Officer identified Life Safety Code problems? If your answer is “No” to these two basic questions, it may be time for your practice to implement a Life Safety program.
Known as “Minimum Fire Safety Standards for Residential Alcohol and Drug Abuse Treatment and Prevention Programs, mental Health Residential Treatment Facilities and Crisis Stabilization Units”, this rule chapter must be applied and adhered to in all 24 hour, 7 day per week healthcare facilities, just like a traditional hospital. read more
Prohibitions against balance billing Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) patients have been around for more than a decade, but many non-contracted providers to HMO patients still don’t fully understand their rights to payment when it comes to collecting monies from patients and HMO’s.
HMO’s often have predetermined rates they pay to non-contracted healthcare providers; sometimes they are artificially low, do not reflect what is written in the member’s contract, or do not abide by what is required by applicable law. As a result, these providers may end up being underpaid if they don’t have a written contract with the payor and they do not understand the payment methodology being applied to them. This is of particular significance to emergency care providers. ER doctors and hospitals must, by law, provide emergency care without regard to whether the patient has an ability to pay for the treatment received.
Following their provision of emergency care, medical providers often question the payment obligations under the patient’s Health Maintenance Organization contract. If the emergency medical provider has a direct written contract, the reimbursement is governed by that participating provider contract’s reimbursement terms.
Earlier this year, the Florida legislature passed prohibitions against balance billing by out-of-network providers for emergency services and where the patient goes to a contracted facility but does not have an opportunity to choose a provider such as emergency room physicians, pathologists, anesthesiologists and radiologists.
Specific reimbursement requirements went into effect on October 1, 2016 for certain out-of-network providers of emergency and non-emergency services, where a patient has no opportunity to choose the provider.
Under these circumstances, an Insurer must pay the greater amount of either:
(a) The amount negotiated with an in-network provider in the same community where services were performed;
(b) The usual and customary rate received by a provider for the same service in the community where service was provided; or
Cigna recently sued a Texas hospital, Humble Surgical for overpayments. Humble Surgical is an out-of-network (OON) provider. Cigna alleged fraudulent billing practices and that the hospital engaged in a scheme to defraud payors by waiving members’ financial responsibility.
While the suit involved many other allegations our article focuses on the arguments Cigna made on failure to collect co-payments, deductibles, and co-insurance and fee-forgiving practices by the hospital. There were several other issues raised that are important to various practices that Cigna has engaged in with out-of-network providers. Cigna has consistently audited South Florida providers alleging failure to collect patient financial responsibility or fee-forgiveness, then informing the provider that it was not entitled to any reimbursement because these practices fell within the exclusionary language of the member’s plan.
The suit brought under federal law, ERISA and also Texas common law seeking reimbursement for all overpayments. Cigna was seeking equitable relief including imposing a lien or constructive trust on fees paid to the hospital.
Humble Surgical counter sued against Cigna for nonpayment of patients’ claims, underpayment of certain claims and delayed payment of all claims in violation of ERISA, including other causes of action. Here’s what happened: read more