Payor Strategies to Reduce the Harm of Opiods

By: Karina Gonzalez

CMS recently published a white paper entitled “Healthcare Payer Strategies to Reduce the Harms of Opioids.” The white paper was prepared by the Healthcare Fraud Prevention Partnership (“HFPP”), which is a voluntary public-private partnership between the federal government, state agencies, law enforcement, private health insurers, employer organizations and fraud units to reduce fraud, waste and abuse.  The white paper gives information and provides insight on the way payors view addiction treatment.

HFPP identified five actions that should be considered for implementation by all payors as quickly as possible.

  • Train providers on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for prescribing opioids for chronic pain;
  • Promote access to and usage of Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT);
  • Promote the availability of Naloxone;
  • Encourage use of cross-payor data to identify fraudulent, wasteful or abusive practices associated with opioids in order to target corrective actions; and
  • Identify and disseminate effective practices across the healthcare sector.

Continue reading

The Move to Self-Reporting Continues: Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol

health law complianceBy: James Saling

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued proposed Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol (SRDP) forms and revisions to the regulations on May 6, 2016. This was an additional step in the move for providers to self-report violations of the Stark Law.  Part of the revisions to the regulations came as a result of the final overpayment rule issued earlier this year on February 11, 2016 (60 Day Rule). CMS expects that the SRDP forms will facilitate faster review of a self-disclosure and make it easier for providers to report violations.

The SRDP was established as a result of the Affordable Care Act and is a tool for resolving Stark Law compliance issues. One of the problems with the SRDP is the time that self-disclosures worked their way through the system.  Some self-disclosures have yet to be resolved and were initially made years ago. Continue reading

Medical Ethics Corner: Conditions of Participation for Transplants

By: Dr. Brent Schillinger, Guest Contributor

Quality control measures developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) seem to be creating an ethical dilemma for some of the sickest patients and their physicians.  This dilemma appears to be the case amongst liver transplant candidates based on an observation that has been quantitatively measured in a new nationwide study commissioned by the American College of Surgeons (ACS).

In 2007, CMS started a new regulatory policy on liver transplants called Conditions of Participation.  The policy was intended to encourage safe, high quality transplant services in Medicare-participating facilities.   New benchmarks for “quality” were arbitrarily constructed.  If the transplant centers were unable to meet the stipulated conditions there were consequences that followed.  The patient outcomes were specifically used to categorize a facility as a “good” or “bad” performer.   This label of  quality could greatly affect the patient and the referring physician confidence, and thus the quantity of referrals, as well as the size of the Medicare payment for services.  In fact if the rating was below a certain level, a hospital could actually lose Medicare funding altogether. 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

How to Get Managed Care Companies to Pay For Your Practice’s Improvements

managed care moneyBy: Valerie Shahriari

Florida’s providers are buzzing with questions about value based care, asking why now? Is it a fad? Will it really ever be a widespread form of payment? Why does Florida seem farther behind the value based curve than other markets?

While there are more aggressive markets in other parts of the country, the bottom line is this: CMS changes are coming and they will not be stopped.  The government has invested too much money to turn around at this point.  Here are just a few examples of why:

  • The CMS Value Based Program with hospitals is already implemented;
  • Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation is piloting NUMEROUS programs covering many physician specialties
  • CMS expanded the Medicare Shared Savings Program to 3 tracks.
  • A new Merit-Based Incentive Payment for Physicians, Physician Assistants, Nurse Practitioners, Clinical Nurse Specialists, and Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists will be apply to payments for services furnished in 2019.

The train has left the station. Providers will now shift from fee for service to value based payments with CMS.  To be successful and still have a profitable business, clinical integration and quality improvements will need to be implemented to improve your practice whether you are hospital based or office based AND whether you are employed by a hospital or in private practice. These changes will be implemented for all of your patients as you will not distinguish in your level of service between patients with managed care as the payor rather than CMS.  This essentially means that managed care payors will reap the benefits of these improvements in your practice.  If you do not have a value based contract in place with the managed care payors they will not be sharing one dime with you.  They will reap the benefits of your improvements AND keep the money!  And by the time you get around to a managed care contract that is value based, the shared savings opportunities will be less than if you began those discussions now.  Continue reading

How to Get Managed Care Companies to Pay for Your Practice’s Improvements

managed care moneyBy: Valerie Shahriari, via Healthcare Reimbursement Blog

Florida’s providers are buzzing with questions about value based care, asking why now? Is it a fad? Will it really ever be a widespread form of payment? Why does Florida seem farther behind the value based curve than other markets?

While there are more aggressive markets in other parts of the country, the bottom line is this: CMS changes are coming and they will not be stopped.  The government has invested too much money to turn around at this point.  Here are just a few examples of why:

  • The CMS Value Based Program with hospitals is already implemented;
  • Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation is piloting NUMEROUS programs covering many physician specialties
  • CMS expanded the Medicare Shared Savings Program to 3 tracks.
  • A new Merit-Based Incentive Payment for Physicians, Physician Assistants, Nurse Practitioners, Clinical Nurse Specialists, and Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists will be apply to payments for services furnished in 2019.

The train has left the station. Providers will now shift from fee for service to value based payments with CMS.  To be successful and still have a profitable business, clinical integration and quality improvements will need to be implemented to improve your practice whether you are hospital based or office based AND whether you are employed by a hospital or in private practice. These changes will be implemented for all of your patients as you will not distinguish in your level of service between patients with managed care as the payor rather than CMS.  This essentially means that managed care payors will reap the benefits of these improvements in your practice.  If you do not have a value based contract in place with the managed care payors they will not be sharing one dime with you.  They will reap the benefits of your improvements AND keep the money!  And by the time you get around to a managed care contract that is value based, the shared savings opportunities will be less than if you began those discussions now.  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