The Final Overpayment Rule and Practical Steps for Compliance

compliance manualBy: James Saling

On February 11, 2016, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued the final overpayment rule commonly referred to as the “60 Day Rule”. Physicians, labs, hospitals, and other providers that receive reimbursement under Part A or B must comply with the 60 Day Rule or face penalties under the False Claims Act.

The 60 Day Rule requires that overpayments (e.g., payment for coding errors) be reported and returned to CMS within 60 days after the date on which the overpayment was identified. Identification of the overpayment was addressed at length in the regulation.  The 60-day clock to identify overpayments starts ticking “when the person has, or should have through the exercise of reasonable diligence, determined that the person has received an overpayment and quantified the amount of the overpayment.”  Reasonable diligence means that the provider takes steps to uncover overpayments and steps to quantify the amount of the overpayment. Continue reading

A Legal Look at The Healthcare Landscape in 2016

By: Jeff Cohen

MACRA 

The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act was enacted to replace the flawed sustainable growth rate (SGR).  MACRA contains performance measures for new payment models that will go in place in 2017.  MACRA also established the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS).

Physicians have to begin to learn about MACRA to improve performance and to avoid payment penalties.

We also have the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), which penalizes providers for failing to report quality measures data on Part B services.  To avoid a 2018 PQRS payment adjustment, for instance, providers have to report for a 12 month period.

There is also the Value Based Payment Modifier (VM) program that rewards groups for providing high quality, low cost care.  It’s interesting to note that CMS proposes to publically report those providers who receive an upward adjustment.  It’s being waived for Pioneer ACOs.  It’s interesting to note that the measures used for the VM program are different than those used for ACOs; and this is causing a lot of confusion.

Bottom line:  an increased use of benchmark establishment for quality and cost and financial incentive programs to achieve or surpass those benchmarks.

STARK LAW CHANGES

A new compensation arrangement exception is established for timeshare arrangements for the use of office space, equipment, personnel, items, supplies and other services.  This sort of “overhead sharing” arrangement is done, but there hasn’t been a specific Stark provision for it till this year.  It’s expected to be particularly useful in physician/hospital arrangements.

This exception amplifies the existing requirements that such arrangements must (1) be located where the physician or practice sees its patients, and (2) be used for designated health services that are incidental to what the doctor does, meaning E&M services and DHS that are provided at the time of such E&M services. Continue reading

CMS Sanctions Cigna over Substantial Failures in Medicare Plans

CMS log blueBy: Karina Gonzalez 

Centers for Medicare and Medical Services (CMS) has  banned Cigna from enrolling and selling new Medicare products because of issues with Part C (Medicare Advantage Plans) and Part D (Prescription Drug Program )that increased enrollees out-of-pocket expenses which led to delays or denials  in receiving medical services and prescription drugs.  These sanctions were imposed effective 1/21/2016 because CMS  determined that “Cigna’s conduct posed a serious threat to the health and safety of Medicare beneficiaries.”  Continue reading

The 7 Essential Elements of an Effective Compliance Plan

020513-Succession-Planning-ChecklistBy: Jackie Bain

When a healthcare provider cares for a patient, many times, the provider will set out directives for the patient to follow in order to live a healthier life.  These changes may include changes in lifestyle, eating habits, and obedience in taking medications.  A patient’s compliance with these directives instructs the provider on how to care for the patient in the future.  A patient who does not follow these directives may suffer health consequences.

Similarly, the government sets out legal regulations for healthcare providers.  The government expects healthcare providers to comply with its regulations, and providers who don’t can suffer consequences as a result.  The regulations governing health care providers are vast and dynamic.  In order to keep abreast of the changes in law, and to evidence an intent to comply with law, healthcare providers should strongly consider instituting compliance programs in their businesses.

Compliance with healthcare laws is important.  Any number of consequences can result in the event that a healthcare provider is out of compliance—the most devastating being that the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) has the authority to exclude healthcare providers from participation in Medicare and other federal health care programs.  Ignorance of the law does not absolve a healthcare provider of liability. Continue reading

Eye on the Regulations: The Argument Against ACO Exclusivity

photo 3By: Jackie Bain

In an ACO, participating physicians, hospitals and other healthcare providers use a coordinated approach to provide improved care to beneficiaries. As an incentive to participate in ACOs, Medicare shares its savings when participating providers coordinate to provide quality care while spending Medicare dollars more wisely.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) have determined that a certain amount of exclusivity is necessary for an ACO beneficiary to be accurately assigned to an ACO.  Exactly how much exclusivity is necessary has been the topic of much debate.  Initially, lawmakers envisioned that only primary care physicians were required to be exclusive to their ACOs.  After the public had the opportunity comment on the proposed law, the rule was changed.  Now, it is generally accepted that if CMS assigns an ACO beneficiary to an ACO because of primary care services previously supplied by the physician, then the physician must be exclusive to the ACO.  This is true whether the physician is a primary care physician or a specialist who provides primary care services to a patient with no primary care physician. Continue reading

Physicians’ Participation in the Open Payments Program: As if the Anti-Kickback Statute Wasn’t Enough !

sunshine act scope

 

By: David Hirshfeld

By now we are all too familiar with the commandment “Thou shaltneither pay nor receive, nor solicit the payment or receipt, of anything of value in exchange for referring an individual to a person for the furnishing of an item or service for which payment may be made by a Federal health care program.”  Many of us have restructured, redefined, contorted and construed our arrangements so that they fit neatly within a statutory Safe Harbor to the anti-kickback legislation.  Then, in the name of “Patient Protection,” comes the Open Payments Program (also known as the “Physician Payment Sunshine Act”).

Continue reading