No Surprise Billing Requirements to be Implemented Jan 1, 2022

On January 1, 2022, a new federal law, “Requirements Related to Surprise Billing, Part I” (“The Rule”),  goes into effect for health care providers and facilities and for providers of air ambulance services.  The Rule will restrict excessive out-of-pocket costs to consumers which resulting from surprise billing and balance billing.

Group health plans and health insurers contract with a network of provider and health care facilities, these providers are considered as in-network providers.  They agree to accept a specific payment for their services.  Providers and facilities that are not contracted with a health plan or insurer are known as out-of-network providers (OON). They usually charge higher amounts than in-network providers.  When OON providers do not receive full payment for their charge from the insurance payor, they charged the patient for the difference between the charge and the amount paid, a practice known as balance billing.Continue reading

Physician Owned Hospitals Looming Large in Florida

physician owned hospitals

physician owned hospitalsBy: Jeff Cohen

Florida may become the “next Texas” on the issue of physician owned specialty hospitals.  “Next Texas,” since there are a number of examples where the concept launched (and also flopped).  Done right, such facilities could be a better fit for many patients, depending of course on patient co morbidity issues.  In theory, they would be the perfect bridge between surgery centers and regular acute care hospitals.  But the ability of such specialty focused care suggests a better staffing model and more targeted and efficient overhead, instead of the broad-based overhead of an acute care hospital at is spread out aver all cases, including those where overhead allocation is viewed as “just an expense.” Continue reading

CMS Hospital Price Transparency Requirements

hospital price transparency

hospital price transparencyBy: Karina Gonzalez

On November 15, 2019 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a final rule requiring hospitals to publicly disclose “standard charges, including payer-specific negotiated rates for items and services. Hospitals will be required to comply by January 1, 2021. The proposed rule is subject to 60 days of comment.

The final rule requires hospitals to make public in a machine-readable file online all standard charges (including gross charges, discounted cash prices, payer-specific negotiated charges) for all hospital items and services.  It requires hospitals to de-identify minimum and maximum negotiated charges for at least 300 “shoppable” services.Continue reading

CMS’s Targeted Probe and Educate (TPE) Program: Top 5 Things to Know

Targeted Probe and Educate

Targeted Probe and EducateBy: Matt Fischer

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:

  • Who is selected?

Continue reading

Seeking Compensation for Out of Network Claims: A Primer for Providers

healthcare fraud

out of network litigationBy: Matt Fischer

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. Continue reading

Provider Self-Disclosures of Overpayments for Medicare Part C – Managed Care

medicare part c overpayment

medicare part c overpaymentBy: Karina Gonzalez

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.Continue reading

Addiction Treatment Law Changes Management Relationships

healthcare regulatory complianceBy: Jeff Cohen

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 HERE for: SUBSTANCE ABUSE MARKETING SERVICE PROVIDER LICENSE APPLICATION

Beware The Hypnosis of Crisis

By: Jeff Cohen

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.Continue reading

Trend Watch: Usual and Customary Rate on the Decline

By: Karina Gonzalez

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.Continue reading

Residential Substance Abuse Treatment & Life Safety Code

By: Valery Bond, RHIT

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.Continue reading