Out in the Cold: Health Plan Blamed For Major Prompt-Pay Mess

Molina Healthcare of Texas isn't the only insurer to give physicians prompt-pay problems, and it won't be the last. Some of the practices trying to recover payments blame not just the health plan, but also the extended response time from the state regulator overseeing insurance products and conduct: the Texas Department of Insurance, which says it's hiring staff and making other changes to improve that response.

A Farewell to Falsity: Shifting Standards in Medicare Fraud Enforcement

For the better part of a decade, Americans have had a front-row seat to a fervent and turbulent debate over the future of their health care system. The passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), the most comprehensive health reform effort since the mid-1960s, ushered in a new era in health law and policy, granting millions of Americans access to health care. After multiple legal challenges and congressional efforts that ultimately failed to slay the law, the ACA had become entrenched by the end of the Obama administration, even though pieces of the law had failed to work exactly as planned. Now, with the surprising election of President Donald Trump, reenergized Republicans are targeting the law once more, and it suddenly appears more vulnerable than ever. Dynamic uncertainty again permeates the national debate. Although most powerful protections of the ACA may evaporate--no small event, to be sure--the value-based era which it unleashed seems here to stay. Indeed, this era--focused on efficiency, standardization, and quality within American medicine--has just begun to bear fruit. Illustrated prominently by recent changes to Medicare that alter how the program pays its doctors for services they provide to its beneficiaries, America is moving away from the old strictures of fee-for-service medicine. At the same time, traditional legal tools, and particularly the federal government’s most prominent anti-fraud tool, the civil federal False Claims Act (FCA), seem to be facing new limits. This has been recently evident in medical necessity-based fraud cases, and particularly highly publicized fights that have targeted the burgeoning industry of hospice care. This Article tracks this development, ultimately arguing that the move to "reimbursement-based regulation" may be a positive step in finally reining in the worst excesses of American health care. But it also cautions against the deceptive simplicity of allowing medical heterogeneity and clinical complexity to prevent application of America’s most powerful anti-fraud tools to its medical industry. Just because reimbursement policy has shifted to shoulder some of the regulatory burden of overtreatment does not mean that health care fraud--like fee-for-service medicine--should be confined to the past. In the end--and regardless of whatever legislation the national debate surrounding American health care produces--American medicine must adequately address its susceptibility to overtreatment, its incentives toward financial excess and waste, and its inability to push providers and entities into adopting more efficient practices. Medicare is finally moving quickly to bring about effective changes, and the program is seeking clarity in the midst of a period of tremendous uncertainty for American health care.

Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2019 Rates; Quality Reporting Requirements for Specific Providers; Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs (Promoting Interoperability Programs) Requirements for Eligible Hospitals, Critical Access Hospitals, and Eligible Professionals; Medicare Cost Reporting Requirements; and Physician Certification and Recertification of Claims. Final rule

We are revising the Medicare hospital inpatient prospective payment systems (IPPS) for operating and capital-related costs of acute care hospitals to implement changes arising from our continuing experience with these systems for FY 2019. Some of these changes implement certain statutory provisions contained in the 21st Century Cures Act and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, and other legislation. We also are making changes relating to Medicare graduate medical education (GME) affiliation agreements for new urban teaching hospitals. In addition, we are providing the market basket update that will apply to the rate-of-increase limits for certain hospitals excluded from the IPPS that are paid on a reasonable cost basis, subject to these limits for FY 2019. We are updating the payment policies and the annual payment rates for the Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) for inpatient hospital services provided by long-term care hospitals (LTCHs) for FY 2019. In addition, we are establishing new requirements or revising existing requirements for quality reporting by specific Medicare providers (acute care hospitals, PPS-exempt cancer hospitals, and LTCHs). We also are establishing new requirements or revising existing requirements for eligible professionals (EPs), eligible hospitals, and critical access hospitals (CAHs) participating in the Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs (now referred to as the Promoting Interoperability Programs). In addition, we are finalizing modifications to the requirements that apply to States operating Medicaid Promoting Interoperability Programs. We are updating policies for the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program, the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, and the Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program. We also are making changes relating to the required supporting documentation for an acceptable Medicare cost report submission and the supporting information for physician certification and recertification of claims.

Extension of Expiration Dates for Four Body System Listings. Final rule

We are extending the expiration dates of the following body systems in the Listing of Impairments (listings) in our regulations: Musculoskeletal System, Cardiovascular System, Digestive System, and Skin Disorders. We are making no other revisions to these body systems in this final rule. This extension ensures that we will continue to have the criteria we need to evaluate impairments in the affected body systems at step three of the sequential evaluation processes for initial claims and continuing disability reviews.

Claims Procedure for Plans Providing Disability Benefits; 90-Day Delay of Applicability Date. Final rule; delay of applicability date

This document delays for ninety (90) days--through April 1, 2018--the applicability of a final rule amending the claims procedure requirements applicable to ERISA-covered employee benefit plans that provide disability benefits (Final Rule). The Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on December 19, 2016, became effective on January 18, 2017, and was scheduled to become applicable on January 1, 2018. The delay announced in this document is necessary to enable the Department of Labor to carefully consider comments and data as part of its effort, pursuant to Executive Order 13777, to examine regulatory alternatives that meet its objectives of ensuring the full and fair review of disability benefit claims while not imposing unnecessary costs and adverse consequences.

Department of Veterans Affairs. Schedule for Rating Disabilities; Dental and Oral Conditions. Final rule

This document amends the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Schedule for Rating Disabilities by revising the portion of the schedule that addresses dental and oral conditions. The effect of this action is to ensure that the rating schedule uses current medical terminology and to provide detailed and updated criteria for evaluation of dental and oral conditions for disability rating purposes.

Hospitalizations With Observation Services and the Medicare Part A Complex Appeals Process at Three Academic Medical Centers

Hospitalists and other providers must classify hospitalized patients as inpatient or outpatient, the latter of which includes all observation stays. These orders direct hospital billing and payment, as well as patient out-of-pocket expenses. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) audits hospital billing for Medicare beneficiaries, historically through the Recovery Audit program. A recent U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report identified problems in the hospital appeals process of Recovery Audit program audits to which CMS proposed reforms. In the context of the GAO report and CMS's proposed improvements, we conducted a study to describe the time course and process of complex Medicare Part A audits and appeals reaching Level 3 of the 5-level appeals process as of May 1, 2016 at 3 academic medical centers. Of 219 appeals reaching Level 3, 135 had a decision--96 (71.1%) successful for the hospitals. Mean total time since date of service was 1663.3 days, which includes mean days between date of service and audit (560.4) and total days in appeals (891.3). Government contractors were responsible for 70.7% of total appeals time. Overall, government contractors and judges met legislative timeliness deadlines less than half the time (47.7%), with declining compliance at successive levels (discussion, 92.5%; Level 1, 85.4%; Level 2, 38.8%; Level 3, 0%). Most Level 1 and Level 2 decision letters (95.2%) cited time-based (24-hour) criteria for determining inpatient status, despite 70.3% of denied appeals meeting the 24-hour benchmark. These findings suggest that the Medicare appeals system merits process improvement beyond current proposed reforms. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2017;12:251-255.

Department of Veterans Affairs. Recognition of Tribal Organizations for Representation of VA Claimants. Final rule

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending its regulations concerning recognition of certain national, State, and regional or local organizations for purposes of VA claims representation. Specifically, this rulemaking allows the Secretary to recognize tribal organizations in a similar manner as the Secretary recognizes State organizations. The final rule allows a tribal organization that is established and funded by one or more tribal governments to be recognized for the purpose of providing assistance on VA benefit claims. In addition, the final rule allows an employee of a tribal government to become accredited through a recognized State organization in a similar manner as a County Veterans' Service Officer (CVSO) may become accredited through a recognized State organization. The effect of this action is to address the needs of Native American populations who are geographically isolated from existing recognized Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs) or who may not be utilizing other recognized VSOs due to cultural barriers or lack of familiarity with those organizations.

Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence. Final rules

We are revising our medical evidence rules. The revisions include redefining several key terms related to evidence, revising our rules about acceptable medical sources (AMS), revising how we consider and articulate our consideration of medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings, revising our rules about medical consultants (MC) and psychological consultants (PC), revising our rules about treating sources, and reorganizing our evidence regulations for ease of use. These revisions conform our rules to the requirements of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA), reflect changes in the national healthcare workforce and in the manner that individuals receive medical care, and emphasize the need for objective medical evidence in disability and blindness claims. We expect that these changes will simplify our rules to make them easier to understand and apply, and allow us to continue to make accurate and consistent disability determinations and decisions.

Medicare Program: Changes to the Medicare Claims and Entitlement, Medicare Advantage Organization Determination, and Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage Determination Appeals Procedures. Final rule

This final rule revises the procedures that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) follows at the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) level for appeals of payment and coverage determinations for items and services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries, enrollees in Medicare Advantage (MA) and other Medicare competitive health plans, and enrollees in Medicare prescription drug plans, as well as appeals of Medicare beneficiary enrollment and entitlement determinations, and certain Medicare premium appeals. In addition, this final rule revises procedures that the Department of Health and Human Services follows at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Medicare Appeals Council (Council) levels of appeal for certain matters affecting the ALJ level.

Claims Procedure for Plans Providing Disability Benefits. Final rule

This document contains a final regulation revising the claims procedure regulations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) for employee benefit plans providing disability benefits. The final rule revises and strengthens the current rules primarily by adopting certain procedural protections and safeguards for disability benefit claims that are currently applicable to claims for group health benefits pursuant to the Affordable Care Act. This rule affects plan administrators and participants and beneficiaries of plans providing disability benefits, and others who assist in the provision of these benefits, such as third-party benefits administrators and other service providers.

Ensuring Program Uniformity at the Hearing and Appeals Council Levels of the Administrative Review Process. Final rule

We are revising our rules so that more of our procedures at the hearing and Appeals Council levels of our administrative review process are consistent nationwide. We anticipate that these nationally consistent procedures will enable us to administer our disability programs more efficiently and better serve the public.

Returning Evidence at the Appeals Council Level. Final rule

This final rule adopts the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that we published in the Federal Register on October 21, 2015. This final rule revises our rules regarding returning evidence at the Appeals Council (AC) level. Under this final rule, the AC will no longer return additional evidence it receives when the AC determines the additional evidence does not relate to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge (ALJ) decision.

Medicaid Program; Mechanized Claims Processing and Information Retrieval Systems (90/10). Final rule

This final rule will extend enhanced funding for Medicaid eligibility systems as part of a state's mechanized claims processing system, and will update conditions and standards for such systems, including adding to and updating current Medicaid Management Information Systems (MMIS) conditions and standards. These changes will allow states to improve customer service and support the dynamic nature of Medicaid eligibility, enrollment, and delivery systems.

Final Rules for Grandfathered Plans, Preexisting Condition Exclusions, Lifetime and Annual Limits, Rescissions, Dependent Coverage, Appeals, and Patient Protections Under the Affordable Care Act. Final rules

This document contains final regulations regarding grandfathered health plans, preexisting condition exclusions, lifetime and annual dollar limits on benefits, rescissions, coverage of dependent children to age 26, internal claims and appeal and external review processes, and patient protections under the Affordable Care Act. It finalizes changes to the proposed and interim final rules based on comments and incorporates subregulatory guidance issued since publication of the proposed and interim final rules.

Audit Today, Revocation Tomorrow?

Federal regulations grant the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) the authority to revoke a healthcare provider's Medicare billing privileges for submitting claims for services that could not have been provided on the purported date of service, such as billing for deceased beneficiaries. A Final Rule became effective in 2015 extending the authority of CMS to revoke a provider's billing privileges if CMS determines that the provider has a pattern or practice of billing for services that do not meet Medicare requirements. Violations under the Final Rule include situations in which a provider regularly and repeatedly submits claims for medically unnecessary services. While historically a provider's noncompliance exposed the provider to overpayment refund demands resulting from CMS audit activity, this new revocation authority emphasizes an even greater need for providers to ensure their billing and documentation practices are in compliance with Medicare reimbursement requirements.

[Principles of intervertebral disc assessment in private accident insurance]

Due to the spread of intervertebral disc degeneration, insurance companies and experts are regularly confronted with related assessments of insured persons under their private accident insurance. These claims pose a particular challenge for experts, since, in addition to the clinical assessment of the facts, extensive knowledge of general accident insurance conditions, case law and current study findings is required. Each case can only be properly assessed through simultaneous consideration of both the medical and legal facts. These guidelines serve as the basis for experts and claims.managers with respect to the appropriate individual factual assessment of intervertebral disc degeneration in private accident insurance.

Analysis of professional malpractice claims in implant dentistry in Italy from insurance company technical reports, 2006 to 2010

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to analyze the characteristics of implant dentistry claims in Italy based on insurance company technical reports for malpractice claims.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred twenty-one technical reports of cases of professional malpractice in implant dentistry between 2006 and 2010 were included in the study. Data included the sex and age of the patient and dentist, the kind of negligence claimed, and the damages awarded as a consequence of the alleged misconduct.

RESULTS

Of the cases examined in this study, 9.9% went to court. The patients were female in 73.6% of the cases. Most of the technical errors were committed during implant insertion (82.6%). In 50.4% of cases, the technical error involved the surrounding structures, such as damage to the inferior alveolar nerve (32.2%) or the lingual nerve (2.5%), invasion of the maxillary sinus (9.1%), or pulpal dental necrosis in adjacent teeth (6.6%). Incomplete clinical documentation was apparent in 54.5% of cases. In 9.9% of cases, a civil suit had already been filed before a visit, and medicolegal advice from the insurance expert had been procured.

CONCLUSION

The discrepancy between the total number of cases examined and those that went to court indicates that implant malpractice claims in Italy are most often settled out of court. The large number of intraoperative errors seen and the high proportion of injuries to surrounding structures suggest that implant dentists would benefit from further specific training. Also, clinical documentation vital to a defense against any claims relating to professional misconduct was incomplete or absent in more than half of the cases.

A proposed method for retrospective eye dose assessments for the purposes of resolving cataract compensation claims

The 2011 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) statement on tissue reactions suggested a significant reduction in the threshold dose for radiation induced cataracts. This, combined with the potential for a long delay between exposure and cataract diagnosis, may result in an increased requirement to evaluate eye dose from past exposures in order to settle current compensation claims. This article highlights how compensation claims relating to radiation exposure are assessed within the UK legal system and suggests that in vivo Electro Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR) dosimetry of teeth has utility for the retrospective quantification of radiation doses to the eye. It was identified that in vivo EPR in its current form may be sufficiently sensitive to support cataract compensation claims, although further work is required to enable appropriate dose conversion coefficients to be quantified.

Department of Veterans Affairs. Payment or reimbursement for certain medical expenses for Camp Lejeune family members. Interim final rule

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is promulgating regulations to implement statutory authority to provide payment or reimbursement for hospital care and medical services provided to certain veterans' family members who resided at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, for at least 30 days during the period beginning on January 1, 1957, and ending on December 31, 1987. Under this rule, VA will reimburse family members, or pay providers, for medical expenses incurred as a result of certain illnesses and conditions that may be attributed to exposure to contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune during this time period. Payment or reimbursement will be made within the limitations set forth in statute and Camp Lejeune family members will receive hospital care and medical services that are consistent with the manner in which we provide hospital care and medical services to Camp Lejeune veterans.

Department of Veterans Affairs. Hospital care and medical services for Camp Lejeune veterans. Final rule

This document amends Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regulations in order to implement a statutory mandate that VA provide health care to certain veterans who served at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, for at least 30 days during the period beginning on January 1, 1957, and ending on December 31, 1987. The law requires VA to furnish hospital care and medical services for these veterans for certain illnesses and conditions that may be attributed to exposure to toxins in the water system at Camp Lejeune. This rule does not implement the statutory provision requiring VA to provide health care to these veterans' family members; regulations applicable to such family members will be promulgated through a separate notice.

The federal medical loss ratio rule: implications for consumers in year 2

For the past two years, the Affordable Care Act has required health insurers to pay out a minimum percentage of premiums in the form of medical claims or quality improvement expenses--known as a medical loss ratio (MLR). Insurers with MLRs below the minimum must rebate the difference to consumers. This issue brief finds that total rebates for 2012 were $513 million, half the amount paid out in 2011, indicating greater compliance with the MLR rule. Spending on quality improvement remained low, at less than 1 percent of premiums. Insurers continued to reduce their administrative and sales costs, such as brokers' fees, without increasing profit margins, for a total reduction in overhead of $1.4 billion. In the first two years under this regulation, total consumer benefits related to the medical loss ratio--both rebates and reduced overhead--amounted to more than $3 billion.

CMS calls a temporary halt to the RA program

The Recovery Auditors (RA) have been prohibited from issuing new post-payment Additional Document Requests since February but can conduct automated reviews until June 1. CMS is revamping the RA program and will award new contracts to auditors at an undetermined point in the future. Contract changes include fewer records requests for hospitals with low denial rates and postponing RA fees until the second level of appeal. Meanwhile, hospitals still have to comply with records requests issued before February.

Don't ignore the two-midnight rule. It's still in effect

A bill signed into law on April 1 directs the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to postpone post-payment audits of the two-midnight rule until after March 31, 2015. In the meantime, CMS has implemented pre-payment "probe and educate" reviews to determine if hospitals are in compliance. The rule is still in effect, and hospitals have to meet its requirements. Legislation pending in Congress would direct CMS to develop criteria for short inpatient stays. Case managers need to make sure documentation is detailed and complete, that all admissions have a signed order by a physician, and that the physician estimates the length of the patient stay and includes a plan for care.

Pressing pause: CMS slows RAC... for now

The federal government plans some tweaks to the Medicare audit program. Hospital officials say it's a good first step, but want larger reforms.

The Affordable Care Act, remedy, and litigation reform

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) rewrote the law of private health insurance. How the ACA rewrote the law of civil remedies, however, is a question largely unexamined by scholars. Courts everywhere, including the U.S. Supreme Court, will soon confront this important issue. This Article offers a foundational treatment of the ACA on remedy. It predicts a series of flashpoints over which litigation reform battles will be fought. It identifies several themes that will animate those conflicts and trigger others. It explains how judicial construction of the statute's functional predecessor, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), converted a protective statute into a uniquely effective piece of federal litigation reform. Ultimately, it considers whether the ACA--which incorporates, modifies, and rejects ERISA in several notable ways--will experience a similar fate.