Access to Health Care

Subscribe to Access to Health Care
globe_environemnt_health_shutterstock_1191021868_1280x720

Did you know that your zip code is a better predictor of your health than your genetic code? Public health experts – and your health insurance provider – have long known that the air you breath, the education you receive, your net worth, and even the music that you listen to are strong indicators of your overall health – and the possibility that you might need expensive medical procedures in the future. By some measures, up to 50% of your overall health is determined by social, economic, and environmental factors. As the movement to value-based payment continues in health care, there has been a renewed focus from policymakers and payors on “social determinants of health” in an attempt to curtail health care costs by addressing the root problems of poor health; before the patient is at-risk and when the interventions may be cheaper than medical care.

The concept that social determinants of health play a crucial role in limiting health care costs is hardly new, but has been more prominently incorporated into payment reform programs recently. New York, for example, has established the Health and Recovery Plan (“HARP”), a program designed for Medicaid beneficiaries with serious mental illness or substance use disorders. The HARP program combines traditional medical care with “Home and Community Based Services,” with the intent to ensure that HARP beneficiaries also receive care for underlying social factors that exacerbate their mental health or substance use issues. HARP now includes, as part as the Medicaid managed care premium paid by New York State to managed care organizations administering the program, coverage for services ranging from assistance in accessing transportation, locating and securing housing, instruction on personal budgeting, and both general and vocational education services. While HARP is intended for beneficiaries over 21, New York is launching a similar program for children with behavioral health needs. New York has recently also implemented a rule for Medicaid managed care organizations requiring them to include services offered by “community-based organizations,” such as food programs or job training programs, in value-based contracts between Medicaid managed care organizations and downstream providers with the intent to address social factors in “traditional” health care payment arrangements.

While policymakers and payors are expanding attention to social determinants of health to shape health programs (and in so doing decrease money spent on medical interventions), so too are they eyeing social factors in determining the cost of health care. Companies, such as LexisNexis, are aggregating personal data and developing risk scores that are based almost entirely on an individual’s socioeconomic factors, and marketing that information to health care payors. Though LexisNexis states that it does not intend for the scores to be used to price insurance products, experts have identified risk scores as a potentially useful tool in pricing health plans. Since social factors tend to benefit wealthier individuals, with pricing health plans based on socioeconomic data has a potential to exacerbate disparities in health care access between the rich and poor. The connection between steady employment and better health outcomes has been used to justify Medicaid work requirements in states that have recently requested waivers from the federal government to implement such requirements. Others have pointed that this approach may confuse cause and effect; people with jobs are in a better socioeconomic position than those who aren’t, and therefore are generally healthier. These programs and products simply demonstrate the wide-ranging effect “social determinants of health” already have on health care and the opportunity for their role to grow substantially.

Social determinants of health are not a new idea, but they have a renewed focus as a cost-effective way to decrease health care expenditures. For providers, it may mean incentives or requirements to incorporate external factors into their delivery of care. For organizations that address such social issues, it may portend increased funding. Attention to this area may provide a unique opportunity to realize savings for providers in risk-based agreements and allow providers to get ahead of the curve in a “new” trend in health care.

Cassie Chang, a Legal Intern (not admitted to the practice of law) in the firm’s New York office, contributed significantly to the preparation of this post.

health_money_shutterstock_507267880_1280x720

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a final rule on November 1, 2018 that updates physician fee schedule (PFS) payments for calendar year (CY) 2019 and finalizes several policies. The final rule includes amendments to the regulations promulgated under Section 216 of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (“PAMA”) intended to increase the number of clinical laboratories that qualify as an “applicable laboratory” for reporting purposes; specifically (1) removal of payments received from Medicare Advantage (MA) Plans for determining applicable laboratory status and (2) the use of the Form CMS-1450 14x Type of Bill (TOB) to define an applicable laboratory.

Before the start of the next data collection period (starting January 1, 2019) clinical laboratories will need to determine how these amendment may have impacted their applicable laboratory status.  Epstein Becker Green is working with our clients to provide counsel how to comply with these amendments and determine how to record and report its billing data to CMS.

Medicare Advantage (MA) Plan Payments. The first amendment is simple and straight forward.  CMS has removed MA Plan payments to laboratories from the calculation of total Medicare revenues.  The change would remove such Medicare revenue from the denominator of the fraction that is used to determine whether a laboratory received more than 50 percent of its revenues from PFS and Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS) services.  CMS explained that it was not logical to consider MA Plan payments in calculating Medicare revenues received by a laboratory, while also requiring the applicable laboratory to report such payments as an MA Plan is defined as a private payor under PAMA (42 C.F.R. § 414.502).  As such, laboratories that furnish Medicare services to a significant number of beneficiaries enrolled in MA plans may now meet the majority of Medicare revenues threshold criterion, and therefore, qualify as an applicable laboratory.

CMS 1450 14X Type of Bill (TOB).   This amendment is more complicated. The definition of an “applicable laboratory” now includes clinical laboratories that receive at least $12,500 of Medicare revenues from the CLFS for claims submitted using the CMS 1450 14X bill type, which is used by some hospital outreach laboratories to bill for laboratory services provided to non-patients.  CMS has essentially created a de facto entity (“hospital outreach laboratory”) that meets the definition of an applicable laboratory based on how the hospital laboratory bills Medicare Part B for a sub-set of test services.

The problem is that the 14X bill type is a billing mechanism for claim submission to Medicare Party B and is not used by all private payors. This poses the question of how a hospital laboratory will correctly identify and collect applicable information associated solely with this de facto entity (hospital outreach laboratory). CMS does not adequately address in the final rule how the term “non-patient” is defined for purposes of determining private payor rates that the hospital laboratory must report.  CMS needs to provide clarity in sub-regulatory guidance and provider education materials on this issue.

Interestingly, in its response to the proposed rule, the American Hospital Association included data that showed hospital outpatient claims reported using 14X bill type was only 12.20%, whereas the percentage of hospital outpatient claims billed using the 13X bill type represents was 87.37% of all hospital outpatient claims.

In 2014, CMS created narrow exceptions for circumstances when hospitals function as independent laboratories and instructed hospitals to use the 14X TOB to obtain separate payment only in the following circumstances: (1) non-patient (referred specimen), (2) hospital collects a specimen and furnishes only the outpatient labs on a given date of service; or (3) hospital conducts outpatient lab tests that are clinically unrelated to other hospital outpatient services furnished for the same day. “Unrelated” means the laboratory test is ordered by a different practitioner than the one who ordered the outpatient services and for a different diagnosis.  However, CMS permits hospitals to bill under 13X TOB in circumstances (2) and (3) above when non-referred laboratory tests are eligible for separate payment.  Most hospitals likely opt to bill under 13X TOB when eligible as those revenues are not taxed as income, as compared to revenues under a 14X TOB which are taxable income as an unrelated business expense.

Ironically, CMS has argued in a federal lawsuit and proposed rules that Congress did not intend hospital outreach laboratories to qualify as applicable laboratories.  Moreover, CMS has repeatedly argued in a federal lawsuit and the final rule that there is no reason to believe that increasing the level of participation would result in a measurable cost difference under the Medicare Part B CLFS payment rate.  In the final rule, however, CMS states “[w]e believe that we will only know the impact of the data on CLFS rates by collecting data from hospital outreach laboratories. . . . [h]owever, if it becomes apparent that data from hospital outreach laboratories do not result in a significant change in the weighted median of private payor rates, we will revisit the use of the CMS-1450 14x TOB through future rulemaking.”   Ultimately, CMS suggests that these amendments were actually made to placate stakeholder concerns regarding the number of applicable laboratories reporting applicable information from the initial data reporting period.

On October 24, 2018, President Trump signed sweeping bipartisan legislation to combat the opioid epidemic. The Substance Use–Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act, or the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act (“H.R. 6” or “the Law”), aims to “reduce access to the supply of opioids by expanding access to prevention, treatment, and recovery services.”[1] Congress has already appropriated $8.5 billion to implement this “landmark legislation” in 2018 and 2019.

In a series of Client Alerts, Epstein Becker Green will provide an overview of key components of H.R. 6, focusing on substantive requirements impacting an array of providers, manufacturers, health care professionals, community services organizations, and other health care entities. Forthcoming topics include the impact on treatment measures for opioid use disorders, addiction prevention measures, clarifications to U.S. Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration regulation and enforcement authority over opioid products, Medicare and Medicaid funding provisions, enhanced health care fraud protection, new data & reporting provisions, and telehealth requirements.

H.R. 6’s breadth requires impacted entities to take careful note of the Law’s requirements and varying effective dates.

____

[1] Press Release, The White House, President Donald J. Trump Signed H.R. 6 into Law (Oct. 24, 2018), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-signed-h-r-6-law/.

[2] Press Release, U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, President Trump Signs Alexander Bill to Fight Opioid Crisis (Oct. 24), available at https://www.help.senate.gov/chair/newsroom/press/president-trump-signs-alexander-bill-to-fight-opioid-crisis.

Are you ready traffic sign 223838977 1280x720

Earlier this year, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed into law HB7099 and SPB7028 (collectively referred to as the “Bills”), ratifying emergency rules that require nursing homes and assisted living facilities to acquire alternative power sources- such as generators- and fuel in preparation of the upcoming hurricane season. See Rule 59A-4.1265 and Rule 58A-5.036. These rules were enacted after 14 residents died from heat-related illnesses and complications during Hurricane Irma last year when a Florida nursing home lost power to its air conditioning units for three days.

The Bills went into effect on March 28, 2018, and required qualifying facilities to come into compliance by June 1, 2018, unless granted an extension by the Governor whereby compliance is expected by January 2019. Facilities that can show delays caused by necessary construction, delivery of ordered equipment, zoning, or other regulatory approval processes are eligible for an extension if the facility can provide residents an area that meets the ambient temperature requirements for 96 hours. Extensions are granted on a case-by-case basis, although so far a majority of Florida facilities have been granted an extension. Indeed, it appears that over 77% of nursing homes received an extension in the first week of June. Additionally, facilities located in an evacuation zone pursuant to Chapter 252, F.S., must either evacuate its residents prior to the arrival of any emergency event, or have an alternative power source and no less than 96 hours of fuel stored onsite at least within 24 hours of the issuance of a state of emergency. Failure to comply with any provision may result in the revocation or suspension of a facility’s license and/or the imposition of administrative fines.

Nursing Homes and Assisted Living Facilities Must Develop Emergency Plans that Provide for Alternative Power Sources and Fuel Capable of Maintaining an Ambient Temperature of No Greater Than 81 Degrees Fahrenheit for At Least 96 Hours.

Nursing Homes and Assisted Living Facilities must prepare a detailed plan (“Plan”) that provides for the acquisition and maintenance of alternative power sources- such as generators- and fuel. The Plan will supplement a facility’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and must be submitted to and approved by the requisite agency. While the Bills do not require facilities to maintain a specific type of power system or equipment; the alternative power sources utilized by a facility must be capable of maintaining an ambient temperature of no greater than 81 degrees Fahrenheit for at least 96 hours after the loss of primary electrical power. This temperature must be maintained in areas of sufficient size to shelter residents safely. Alternative power sources and fuel should be maintained in accordance with local zoning restrictions and the Florida Building Code.

Moreover, the Bills set forth additional requirements for nursing homes and assisted living facilities in evacuation zones, as well as for single campus and multistory facilities.

  • Facilities in Evacuation Zones – A facility in an evacuation zone pursuant to Chapter 252, F.S. must provide in their Plan for the maintenance of an alternative power source and fuel at all times when the facility is occupied but may utilize mobile generators to facilitate evacuation.
  • Single Campus – Single campus facilities under common ownership may share alternative power sources and fuel space if such resources are sufficient to maintain the ambient temperature required under the rules.
  •  Multistory Facilities – Multistory facilities, whose Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan comprises of moving residents to a higher floor during flood or surge events, must place their alternative power source and all additional equipment in a location protected from flooding or storm surge damage.

Fuel Storage Requirements Vary by Facility Size and Location.

The Bills require facilities to provide for storage of a certain amount of fuel based on their size and location. Assisted living facilities with 16 beds or less must store a minimum of 48 hours of fuel, while assisted living facilities with 17 beds or more a required to store a minimum of 72 hours of fuel. All nursing homes must store a minimum of 72 hours of fuel. Nursing homes and assisted living facilities located in a declared state of emergency area pursuant to Section 252.36, F.S., that may impact primary power delivery, must secure 96 hours of fuel; these facilities may utilize portable fuel storage containers for the remaining fuel necessary for 96 hours during the period of a declared state of emergency.

Emily Budicin, a 2018 Summer Associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office, contributed significantly to the preparation of this post.

aca and microscope

Since the inauguration of President Trump, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has taken quite a few significant jabs and blows. When Congress failed to repeal the ACA, Congress instead eliminated the individual mandate penalty through the GOP tax bill. The individual mandate penalty was one of the main pillars of the ACA because it effectively widened the pool of participants who buy health insurance in order to keep costs down. While removal of this penalty hit the ACA where it hurt, the true threat to the stability of the ACA arose when the Trump Administration announced that it would no longer defend the ACA against a challenge filed by twenty states that believe the individual mandate itself is unconstitutional and that key parts of the act are invalid. What is the outlook for the ACA?

Congressional Efforts to Repeal

The House has voted to repeal or amend the ACA at least 50 times, but their efforts have never made it past the Senate. Despite this history of failure, there are still Republicans pushing for the repeal of the ACA.  On June 19, 2018, a coalition of conservatives released the outline of a new plan for repealing and replacing the ACA. The plan emphasizes the use of block grants, implementing risk pools, removing essential health benefits, and minimum loss ratio requirements.  As it stands, the plan will likely succumb to the fate of its predecessors.  Even if the bill passed the House, there are fewer Republicans in the Senate than the last time the repeal went to a vote. However, if after the upcoming mid-term elections the Republicans win Senate seats in Montana and Missouri and keep the majority in the House, the ACA could truly be in jeopardy.

Lawsuits

Meanwhile, twenty states have filed a lawsuit against the ACA’s individual mandate arguing that the elimination of the tax penalty without the elimination of the mandate is unconstitutional because it leaves the mandate without the exercise of Congress’s taxing power. The Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling may come back to haunt ACA proponents. The Supreme Court held that the individual mandate is constitutional because it constitutes a tax and that the ACA could not function without the mandate in place. Those filing suit argue that because the tax penalty is eliminated it is a tax-less mandate and thus unconstitutional because Congress cannot exercise its taxing power. As such, the mandate is such a key provision that the whole ACA should be thrown out if the provision cannot be severed.  In other words, the whole cannot exist without the entirety of its parts.

States Embrace Medicaid Expansion

Amid the slew of blows taken by the ACA, there is one provision left unscathed—Medicaid expansion.  The number of states expanding Medicaid continues to grow. For example, Virginia recently passed an expansion of Medicaid, and the Governor of Utah signed a Medicaid expansion bill.  Interestingly, some Republican-leaning states have embraced the expansion due in part to the current Administration’s support of work requirements. In fact, Maine is currently in a dispute with its Governor about the implementation of the expansion of Medicaid that was approved by Maine voters.

The Outlook

With the ACA constantly under attack from multiple vantage points, it is safe to say that the Act will have to fight to survive. Although heavily dependent on the November elections, it is possible that the ACA will survive additional congressional efforts to repeal the bill.  Further, the popularity of Medicaid expansion would make it difficult to repeal the bill in its entirety. More states are embracing Medicaid Expansion, and there is evidence available of the positive effects expansion has on access to care. The survival of the ACA really hinges on how U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor interprets the law as he presides over the twenty-state suit, especially considering that the Trump Administration has already stated that it does not intend to defend the ACA. Stakeholders will have wait patiently to see how the outcome of the upcoming elections and the pending lawsuit will affect the ACA’s future.

HCCAci

The Health Care Compliance Association (HCCA) kicked off its 22nd Annual Compliance Institute on Monday, April 16, 2018. During the opening remarks, Inspector General Daniel Levinson, of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General Office (OIG), announced the rollout of a new public resource to assist companies in ensuring compliance with Federal health care laws. The Compliance Resource Portal on the OIG’s website features:

  • Toolkits
  • Advisory opinions
  • Provider Compliance Resource and Training
  • Voluntary Compliance and Exclusions Resources
  • Resources for Health Care Boards and Physicians
  • Accountable Care Organizations
  • Special Fraud Alerts, Other Guidance, and Safe Harbors

The main benefit of the portal is that it streamlines public access to helpful compliance guidance resources, and allows for OIG to highlight new materials and updates.  For example, the portal already indicates that a Toolkit to Identify Patients at Risk of Opioid Misuse is “coming soon.”

In addition to announcing the portal, the Inspector General also touched on the dynamic shift in compliance considerations due to changes in the health care industry. Shifts such as the move towards value based care and the increase in role of technology create new risks and issues for providers, which makes user-friendly public access to compliance resources increasingly more important.

The Inspector General also emphasized the OIG’s focus on the “power of data” when it comes to compliance.  Mr. Levinson’s remarks indicated that data-driven decision making is crucial to navigating risk-mitigation waters, and that consequently the OIG places high value on the diligent collection and review of data in the compliance context.

Faced with the inability to repeal the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) outright, the Trump Administration and Congress have taken actions to provide more health insurance options for Americans.  Thus far, the Administration announced that they would no longer make cost sharing reduction (“CSR”) payments to insurers on the Exchanges and extended the time period in which short-term, limited-duration insurance (“STLDI”) plans could be offered.  Meanwhile, Congress removed the individual mandate in the 2017 tax bill. The Administration asserts that these efforts are all solutions geared toward helping more Americans receive care as premiums are rising.  A March 28, 2018 Gallup poll showing that health care costs are a higher concern for Americans, over the economy supports the Administration’s asserted justification. However, some states have recently taken their own steps to provide more health coverage options for their citizens while discounting the ACA, possibly reflecting a sense of dissatisfaction with the seemingly dragging feet of the Federal Government.

Idaho

The Governor of Idaho released an Executive Order on January 5, directing the Idaho Department of Insurance to approve options that follow all state-based requirements, even if not all ACA requirements are met, so long as the carrier offering the option also offered an exchange-certified alternative in Idaho and authorized the Director of the Department of Insurance to seek a waiver from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in conjunction with this Executive Order, if the Director believed it is appropriate or necessary.

Idaho officials then released Bulletin No. 18-01 on January 24, which provides new provisions for “state-based plans” for those individuals who do not qualify for premium subsidies under the ACA. Under Idaho’s proposal, insurers would be allowed to (1) sell plans with 50% higher premiums for people with pre-existing conditions; (2) exclude coverage for pre-existing conditions for people who had a gap in coverage; (3) vary premiums by 5-to-1 based on age; (4) exclude coverage for some ACA essential benefits such as maternity care; and (5) set a $1 million annual cap on benefits. All of these provisions are prohibited by the ACA.

In February, Idaho sought approval for the Bulletin by Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”); however, CMS denied the proposition. CMS Administrator Seema Verma wrote a letter stating that Idaho’s proposed requirements are not in compliance with the ACA and warned that, if Idaho did not enforce the ACA standards, CMS would be forced to step in and directly enforce the ACA protections in the Idaho market.  If any health insurance issuer that is subject to CMS’s enforcement authority fails to comply with the ACA requirements, it may be subject to civil monetary penalties for each violation of up to $100 each day, for each responsible entity, for each individual affected by the violation.  Despite the response from CMS, Idaho still seeks to expand coverage options for Idaho residents.

Iowa

In a similar fashion, Governor Kim Reynolds urged the Iowa legislature to make health insurance affordable for Iowa residents in the Condition of the State Address.  On April 2, the Governor signed into law a bill that allows small businesses or self-employed individuals to band together to buy coverage through association health plans that do not comply with ACA plans.  The legislation would allow insurers to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, create lifetime caps, and does not offer maternity care.   However, proponents of the bill emphasize that the coverage would not be considered insurance, but rather would simply function as a “health benefits plan”.  Proponents also note that these plans are cheaper alternatives for small employers or the self-employed.

Key Takeaways

States creating affordable health coverage with blatant disregard for the ACA is a note-worthy development in today’s tense healthcare climate. The outcome of the push of these initiatives by states is crucial because they are challenging the Administration’s willingness to enforce the ACA. Tolerance of such state plans would lead to cherry-picking, which would inevitably cause further destabilization of the market. Notably, CMS and Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar have each emphasized upholding ACA as the law of the land. Stakeholders should pay attention to the outcome of these proposals because not only would the implementation of these plans destabilize markets, but the plans could also incentivize more states to follow suit and create their own plans.

On February 20th the Department of the Treasury, Department of Labor, and Department of Health and Human Services (together the “tri-agencies”) released a proposed rule which would alter how long short-term, limited-duration insurance (“STLDI”) plans could be offered. Under current rules the maximum duration that a STLDI plan can be offered is less than 3 months, if the proposed rule is enacted that period would be extended to less than 12 months.  The tri-agencies are accepting comments on the proposed rule until April 23rd.

What are short-term, limited-duration health insurance plans?

STLDI plans were designed to provide temporary coverage for consumers who otherwise could not access longer-term health insurance products (such as a consumer transitioning between jobs). Coverage offered by STLDI plans is not considered Minimum Essential Coverage and because STLDI plans do not meet the definition of “individual health insurance coverage” established by the Public Health Service Act they are exempted from many of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) requirements. Due to the fact that STLDI plans don’t have to comply with ACA requirements they commonly feature preexisting condition exclusions, annual and life time limits, feature higher cost-sharing requirements, and are medically underwritten they tend to be less expensive and attract younger, healthier enrollees.

Why are the regulations changing?

The proposed rule was issued in response to President Trump’s October 12, 2017 executive order which, among other things, instructed the tri-agencies to reconsider the Obama era rule which limited the time period STLDI plan could be offered to less than 3 months. The presumed intent of proposed rule is to foster more and less expensive health insurance options for individuals in the individual market.  However, the Obama administration initially issued the regulations limiting STLDI plans after observing that the plans were adversely impacting the marketplace risk pools, and the political motivation to adversely impact those risk pools and through them “Obamacare” can’t be fully discounted.

What is the likely impact?

The consensus among policy makers is that extending the duration of the coverage period that STLDI can be offered is likely to increase the number of consumers who elect to enroll in these plans over health insurance that constitutes Minimum Essential Coverage. The number of people enrolling in STLDI plans is likely to increase further in 2019 when consumers will no longer face a tax penalty for failing to maintain minimum essential coverage. One estimate suggests that if the proposed rule is enacted in 2019, 4.2 million consumers will enroll in the STLDI plans and 2.9 million fewer people will maintain Minimum Essential Coverage. While we don’t know the scope this would have on the risk pools in the individual market, it warrants monitoring by plans and providers moving forward.

On February 9, 2018, President Trump signed into law the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (“BBA”). Among the most notable changes that will occur with the enactment of the BBA is the inclusion of certain provisions taken from the Creating High-Quality Results and Outcomes Necessary to Improve Chronic (“CHRONIC”) Care Act of 2017 bill (S.870) which the Senate passed in September 2017. Among other things, the CHRONIC Care provisions will have the effect of redefining new criteria for special-needs plans (“SNPs”), in particular the special-needs Medicare Advantage (“MA”) plans for chronically ill enrollees. The CHRONIC Care provisions also will expand the integration and coverage under Medicare for certain telehealth-based chronic care services.

Impact on MA Special Needs and Other MA Plans

The BBA includes provisions taken from the CHRONIC Care Act that largely affect MA SNPs, though other types of MA plans may also be affected by the enacted changes.

The critical issue Congress finally settled through the enactment of the BBA is the long-term status of the MA SNP Program (the “Program”).  Congress created the Program through the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (enacted Dec. 8, 2004).  However, the Program was time limited, with a scheduled end date of December 2008.  The Program has since been extended a total of 7 times, with Congress generally pushing out the Program’s end date by a year or two but never giving stakeholders a clear signal of support for the Program, leaving many stakeholders hesitant in making large investments in a program that was scheduled to terminate.[1]

The amendments made by the BBA have provided not only a more secure future to encourage plan sponsors and other stakeholders to further invest in the Program, but have also made changes to strengthen these programs. With respect to those SNPs targeting the dual eligible population (“Dual SNPs”), statutory changes provide for:  increasing integration through use of mechanisms to better coordinate contact with and information dissemination to State partners; requiring the Secretary to develop a unified grievances and appeals process for Dual SNPs to implement by 2021; and imposing more stringent standards to demonstrate integration. With respect to those SNPs focused on serving the chronically ill (“Chronic SNPs”), the BBA broadens the definition of beneficiaries who qualify to enroll in a Chronic SNP, imposes more stringent care management standards, and authorizes Chronic SNPs to provide certain Supplemental Benefits. The BBA further amends the Social Security Act to authorize the Secretary to require quality reporting at the plan level for SNPs, and, subsequently, for all MA plan offerings.

Impact on Accountable Care Organizations

The BBA makes several statutory changes impacting Accountable Care Organizations (“ACOs”) and beneficiary participation in such entities. Specifically, under the terms of the Act, fee-for-service (“FFS”) beneficiaries will be able to prospectively and voluntarily select an ACO-participating professional as their primary care provider and for purposes of being assigned to that ACO. The BBA further authorizes ACOs to provide incentive payments to encourage fee-for-service beneficiaries to obtain medically necessary primary care services.

Expansion of Medicare FFS Telehealth Coverage for Chronic Care Services

Additionally, the BBA includes certain provisions taken from the CHRONIC Care Act that will provide a needed expansion of Medicare FFS coverage for certain telehealth-based chronic care services. The BBA preserves many of the telehealth-focused aspects of the original 2017 bill equivalent and, seemingly, reflects a commitment by the federal government to improving access to telehealth services for qualified Medicare beneficiaries and further integrating these services into the U.S. health care system. For example, with the enactment of the BBA, Medicare coverage of telehealth services will be expanded to include services provided at home for beneficiaries dealing with end-stage renal disease (“ESRD”) or those being treated by practitioners participating in Accountable Care Organizations (“ACOs”). Additionally, with the enactment of the BBA, some of the geographic requirements traditionally required by Medicare’s coverage rules for telehealth services (e.g., originating sites, rural health professional shortage areas, counties outside Metropolitan Statistical Areas) will be lifted if such telehealth services are rendered to beneficiaries with ESRD, or who are being treated by ACO practitioners, or who are being diagnosed, evaluated, or treated for symptoms of an acute stroke. There are some important caveats to these changes in the coverage rules. For example, for ESRD beneficiaries who utilize telehealth services from their homes, an in-person clinical assessment will be required for such beneficiaries every month for the first 3 months and then once every 3 months thereafter. Likewise, payments will not be made for any telehealth services rendered by ACO practitioners to beneficiaries in their homes if such services typically are furnished in inpatient settings (e.g., hospitals).

As part of increasing benefits offered to special needs MA plan enrollees (as discussed above), the enactment of the BBA also will allow MA plans to offer more telehealth services to its enrollees, including services provided through supplemental health care benefits, starting in the year 2020. However, this provision requires that the same types of items and services an MA plans offers to its enrollees via telehealth are also offered to enrollees in-person. CMS is required to solicit public comments regarding this particular provision by November 30, 2018.

*          *          *

With the BBA establishing a long-term MA SNP Program, we are more likely to see increased investment into the Program by stakeholders and plan sponsors, thus growing and strengthening the Program. But, as explained above, the BBA also introduces several amendments that will certainly affect Dual and Chronic SNP standards, benefits, and coordination of care.  Although CMS has not formally solicited public comments regarding implementation of the referenced changes to SNP requirements, stakeholders and plan sponsors may want to consider the impact these changes may have on them and their industry and submit comments and input to help CMS in developing its proposed regulations.

For telehealth advocates, the inclusion of so many meaningful provisions in the BBA signals a newly energized willingness on the part of policymakers to work to expand use of telehealth services for Medicare beneficiaries, even in an environment where there are financial incentives for providers and health plans to restrain costs. Although lawmakers have historically resisted expanding these types of services in a FFS context, the belief being that doing so would add to (and not replace) services already otherwise being delivered, the enactment of the BBA signals strong potential for change in this regard.  As telehealth integration into various Federal programs increases, the enactment of the BBA being a critical step in this process, stakeholders and plan sponsors may want to consider the various implementation strategies by which telehealth items and services will be offered since each program carries its own set of standards and requirements.

[1] Pub. L. 110–173, §[  ], substituted ‘‘2010’’ for ‘‘2009’’; Pub. L. 110–275, §164(a), substituted ‘‘2011’’ for ‘‘2010”; Pub. L. 111–148, § 3205(a), substituted “2014” for “2011”;  P.L. 112-240, §607, struck out “2014” and inserted “2015”; P.L. 113-67, §1107, struck out “2015” and inserted “2016”; P.L. 113-93, §107, struck out “2016” and inserted “2017”; P.L. 114-10, §206 struck “2017”, inserted “2019″.

 

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (“CMS”) recently announced its intent to expand what may be considered “supplemental benefits,” broadening the scope of items and services that could be offered to Medicare Advantage (“MA”) plan enrollees over and above the benefits covered under original Medicare. However, in articulating the standards for covering this broadened group of items and services, CMS proposed a new requirement that could greatly limit enrollees’ ability to access all types of supplemental benefits and increase the already substantial burden on MA participating providers; CMS now proposes to require that the supplemental benefits be ordered by a licensed provider.

Under current CMS guidance, supplemental benefits may not be a Part A or Part B covered service, must be primarily health related in that “the primary purpose of the item or service is to prevent, cure or diminish an illness or injury,” and the plan sponsor must incur a non-zero cost for the benefit. Medicare Managed Care Manual, Ch. 4, Sec. 30.1. Within the draft 2019 Call Letter, released on February 1, 2018, CMS proposes to expand the scope of items and services considered “primarily health related” to now include items and services to help maintain health status and not only those that “prevent, cure or diminish illness or injury.” According to CMS, under its new interpretation, in order for a service or item to be primarily health related “it must diagnose, prevent, or treat an illness or injury, compensate for physical impairments, act to ameliorate the functional psychological impact of injuries or health conditions, or reduce avoidable emergency and healthcare utilization.” Current CMS guidance explicitly excludes from being a supplemental benefit those items or services which are solely for daily maintenance purposes.  CMS’s broadened definition follows medical and health care research studies which have shown the value of certain ‘maintenance’ items and services in diminishing the effects of injuries or health conditions and decreasing avoidable emergency and health care services.

While broadening the scope of items and services eligible to be considered supplemental benefits, CMS concurrently proposes to add a more stringent standard to an enrollee’s receipt of such benefits. “Supplemental benefits under this broader interpretation must be medically appropriate and ordered by a licensed provider as part of a care plan if not directly provided by one.” Although current guidance specifies medical necessity as a standard for supplemental benefits that extend the coverage of original Medicare, there is no requirement that supplemental benefits be ordered by a licensed provider. Depending upon the nature of the supplemental benefit, such a rule could prevent an enrollee from accessing certain benefits. For example, plan sponsors may provide acupuncture or other alternative therapies as supplemental benefits, but enrollees would only be able to access such services if their provider accepts the value of such services and agrees that they are medically necessary. Given that many in traditional medicine do not support the use of alternative therapies, it is likely that at least some enrollees will be unable to access these benefits under this newly proposed standard.  Also, requiring a provider to review and order other types of supplemental benefits would likely create a paperwork burden with no benefit, including, for example, with respect to a supplemental transportation benefit, fitness benefit or over-the-counter drug benefit.

Although CMS should be applauded for seeking to expand the definition of “health related” in identifying eligible supplemental benefits, its proposal to require that such benefits be ordered by a provider as part of a treatment plan will decrease plan flexibility and increase burden for providers and enrollees alike, with minimal benefit.

CMS is accepting comments on the draft Call Letter through 6pm EST, Monday March 5, 2018.