Category Archives: Managed Care Contract

HMO Patient Emergency Care Reimbursement

Posted on by

By: Bradley M. Seldin, C0-counsel Guest Contributor

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.   Continue reading →

How to Make an Out of Network Appeal Count

Posted on by

out of network appealBy: Karina Gonzalez

As many know, out-of-network providers have much different appeal rights with commercial plans than in-network providers.  It is important to understand each health plan’s appeal procedure as well as time requirements for an appeal may vary.  However, the appeal process is still one of the most important tools providers have to get paid in the current environment of reduced reimbursements, caps on the number and frequency of services, bundled payments based on specific codes, delayed payments, daily errors in claims processing leading to denied claims, claw backs, and the list goes on.   Continue reading →

Big Reimbursement & Balance Billing Changes in Florida Law

Posted on by

VOBBy: Karina Gonzalez

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

(c)         The Medicare rate for the service. Continue reading →

Cigna Loses Texas Case Against Humble Surgical Hospital, Hit with $16 Mil Judgment

Posted on by

anti kickbackBy: Karina Gonzalez

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:  Continue reading →

ASAM & Cigna to Collaborate on Performance Measures in Addiction Treatment

Posted on by

cigna asamBy: Karina Gonzalez

ASAM and announced a collaborative effort with  Brandeis University to test and validate three ASAM performance measures for addictions treatment. ASAM hopes that this project will provide measure testing of performance measures that will be accepted and adopted in the treatment of patients with addiction.

Three measures will be tested using two years of de-identified Cigna claims data  for  substance abuse.  The measures to be  tested in the study will be: use of pharmacotherapy for individuals with alcohol use disorders; pharmacotherapy for individuals with opioid use disorders and follow-up after withdrawal.  This is expected to be a six month project. Continue reading →

Addiction Treatment Attack by Payers Grows

Posted on by

money viseBy: Jeff Cohen

Addiction treatment providers continue to react to an assault by payers to run them “out of town.”  The first round of attacks (in the Fall of 2014) focused on the practice of copay and deductible write offs.  The phrase cooked up by lawyers for Cigna, “fee forgiveness,” wound its way into the courts system in Texas in a case (Cigna v. Humble Surgical Hospital, Civ. Action No. 4:13-CV-3291, U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Tex., Houston Division) against a surgery center, where Cigna argued that the practice of a physician owned hospital in waiving “patient responsibility” relieved the insurer from paying ANYTHING for services needed by patients and provided to them.  Though the case did not involve addiction treatment providers, it gave addiction treatment lawyers a look into what was going to come.  The same argument made in the Texas case was the initial attack by Cigna in a broad attack of the addiction treatment industry, especially in Florida.

As addiction treatment providers fielded Cigna’s “fee forgiveness” attack in the context of “audits,” providers held firm to the belief that justice would prevail and that they would soon restore a growing need for cash flow.  “If we just show them that we’re doing the right thing,” providers thought, “surely they will loosen up the purse strings.”  After all, this was a patient population in terrific need of help, with certain [untested] protection by federal law (the Mental Health Parity Act). Continue reading →

A Legal Look at The Healthcare Landscape in 2016

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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 →

Managed Care Contracts: Watch Out for Definitions Section Pitfalls

Posted on by

Contract CWBy: Karina Gonzalez

One of the most commonly overlooked components of a managed care contract is the definitions section despite the fact that what is contained here will affect the contracted provider on a daily basis.  Contract terms that are too generic so that they are not clearly defined and understood as they relate to a particular area of practice can have a direct influence on clinical decision making.  A patient may need a higher level of care but be approved for a lower level only.  The provider knows that a patient may suffer if the level approved will not treat the illness or that the patient’s condition could deteriorate without a higher level of care.

Let’s take, for example, the definition of medical necessity in a contract. Who decides medical necessity?  Is it the provider or is it the managed care organization (MCO)?  Many contracts state that the term “medical necessity” relates only to the issue of reimbursement.  Further, that the approval or denial of a claim is “for reimbursement purposes only” and should not affect the provider’s judgment on whether treatment is appropriate to treat the illness, symptoms or complaints of the patient.   Continue reading →

Audit Decisions Leading to Absurd Outcomes

Posted on by

healthcare businessBy: Karina Gonzalez

Commercial plans continue their audit activity in 2016 demanding many changes and adjustments yet giving little in return. The 2015 audits have not been completed for the majority of substance abuse providers in South Florida, yet the commercial plans have arbitrarily stopped paying new claims even though it takes them at least 6 months to complete a post payment audit.  If and when a provider finally gets an audit result, payors are imposing requirements that just are impossible to meet.

Payors do not appear to be paying attention to the public health crisis of substance abuse addiction and the ever growing need for treatment.   The assumption is being made by the payors that all providers in this space are over utilizing services and engaged in fraudulent practices, despite the reality that  many providers are doing just the contrary.    Continue reading →