CMS has rolled out a telehealth/telemedicine tool kit to assist medical professionals with health care delivery during the current COVID-19 public health emergency.
The toolkit contains information and links concerning:
1135 Waivers – allows the Secretary of HHS to temporarily waive or modify certain Medicare, Medicaid, and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) requirements to ensure sufficient health care services and items are available to meet the needs of individuals enrolled in Social Security Act programs during the emergency and that providers who provide services in good faith can be reimbursed and exempted from sanctions (provided there is no determination of fraud and abuse). 1135 waiver or modifications include:
Conditions of participation and other certification requirements;
Program participation and similar requirements;
Preapproval requirements;
State licensing requirements where services are rendered as long as the provider has equivalent licensing in another State (for Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP reimbursement only; State licensing still controls whether a non-Federal provider may provide services in a state he/she is not licensed in);
EMTALA sanctions for redirection for medical screening, as long as redirection is not the result of discrimination on the basis of a patient’s source of payment or ability to pay;
Stark self-referral sanctions;
Adjustment (not waiver) to performance deadlines and timetables;
Limitations on payment to permit Medicare enrollees to use out of network providers in an emergency situation.
Suppliers looking to participate in the latest rendition of CMS’ Competitive Bidding Program need to act now to try and secure a bid.
Otherwise, once implemented, only DME providers that have won a bid for that specific item in that geographical bid area can service Medicare beneficiaries residing therein.
Here’s a ‘to-do’ list for providers looking to participate with a competitive bid, and the latest timeline updates from CMS.
CMS contractors such as Unified Program Integrity Contractors (UPICs) are tasked with ensuring that Medicare pays the right amount for covered services by legitimate providers. Specifically, a UPIC’s main goal is to identify cases of suspected fraud, waste and abuse, and additionally, to take immediate administrative action to protect federal program funds. Within its administrative action toolkit, apart from the common pre- or post-payment reviews and payment suspensions, UPICs have the ability to refer cases of potential fraud to law enforcement agencies.
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.
Multiple health care businesses have scored wins this year in their fight to prevent CMS from recouping payments before having an opportunity for an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing. The similarity? They each sought a temporary injunction in federal court. Arguing that the alleged recoupments would cause the businesses to close, employees to lose their jobs and patients would be forced to change their providers, the businesses were granted temporary injunctions enjoining CMS from starting recoupment until the ALJ appeal stage had reached a conclusion.
Attorneys Susan St. John and Michael Silverman of the Florida Healthcare Law Firm will present this live lunch n’ learn webinar for providers interested in learning more about the direct patient care model. They will discuss the recent legislative updates that have brought this issue to the forefront in Florida.
Further reading per AAFP.org – The direct primary care (DPC) model gives providers a meaningful alternative to fee-for-service insurance billing, typically by charging patients a monthly, quarterly, or annual fee (i.e., a retainer) that covers all or most primary care services including clinical, laboratory, and consultative services, and care coordination and comprehensive care management. Because some services are not covered by a retainer, DPC practices often suggest that patients acquire a high-deductible wraparound policy to cover emergencies. Direct primary care and concierge care are not synonymous. In practices offering concierge care, the patient typically pays a high retainer fee in addition to insurance premiums and other plan obligations (e.g., copays, out-of-pocket expenditures), and the practice continues to bill the patient’s insurance carrier.
Over the past several months, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has taken a number of steps that show an awareness of the regulatory burden placed upon participants in the government’s health care programs, and even some willingness to consider reducing those burdens. While it remains to be seen whether the recent proposals will have measurable results, the following actions can still be viewed with guarded optimism.
Proposed Changes to Medicare
In July, 2018, CMS proposed significant changes to Medicare, to be included in rules that take effect in 2019. These changes cover physician fee schedules, streamlining Evaluation & Management (E&M) billing, advancing “virtual care,” decreasing drug costs, revising the MIPS program and establishing the MAQI demonstration project. The agency also asked for comments on price transparency issues.
As the provision of health care services continues to evolve, many practitioners are contemplating creating membership-based services for their patients through Direct Primary Care Agreements (“DPCA”). Although DPCAs are not necessarily a new concept, the Florida Legislature enacted a bill during the 2018 legislative session making DPCA’s exempt from the Florida Insurance Code. Thus, DPCAs are not a form of insurance subject to regulations of insurance products but are private contracts between practitioner and patient for specified health care services. Here is how the DPCA concept works.
DPCAs are private contracts between patients and primary care providers. Section 624.27, Florida Statutes, defines primary care provider as a provider licensed pursuant to Chapters 458, 459, 460, and 464, or a primary care group practice, who provides primary care services to patients. Included under this broad definition of providers are: allopathic doctors, osteopathic doctors, physician assistants, anesthesiologist assistants, chiropractors, RNs, LPNs and ARNPs.
As noted in Opting Out of Medicare Part I, opting out of Medicare may be an option for some physicians and practitioners. After determining whether you are eligible for opt-out or if it is financially feasible, there are a few other considerations. Part I discussed the Private Contract a physician must enter into with each Medicare beneficiary he or she treats; here, we will address the opt-out affidavit and other nuances of opting out. Let’s get started!
The Medicare Opt Out Affidavit
Provisions in an Opt Out Affidavit are similar to provisions that must be included in the opted out physician’s or practitioner’s private contract with Medicare beneficiaries. The opt-out affidavit must state that the physician or practitioner will only provide services to Medicare beneficiaries with whom they have a written and signed private contract and that the physician or practitioner will not submit claims to Medicare on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries. Medicare does allow for an exception here, but that is only when an opted out physician or practitioner treats a Medicare beneficiary who is not under private contract, and that beneficiary presents with a medical emergency or urgent care problem. Keep in mind, that if a Medicare beneficiary presents with a medical emergency or urgent care problem, the physician or practitioner cannot require that patient to sign a private contract at that time.
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.
By: Susan St. John
By: 
By: 
By: 
Attorneys 
By: 
By: 
By: Michael Silverman
By: 