Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (“MedPAC”) held its monthly public meetings in Washington, D.C., on November 1-2, 2018. The purpose of this and other MedPAC public meetings is for the commissioners to analyze existing challenges and issues within the Medicare program and to provide future policy recommendations to Congress. MedPAC issues these recommendations in two annual reports, one in March and another in June. These meetings offer a comprehensive perspective on the current state of Medicare as well as future outlooks for the program.

As thought leaders in healthcare law, Epstein Becker Green monitors MedPAC developments to determine how regulations and policies will impact the health care marketplace. Here are our five biggest takeaways from the November meeting:

  1. MedPAC Reviewed Mandate Related to Long-Term Care Hospitals and Presented Initial Findings Using Data Through 2016

In response to a congressional mandate due in June 2019, the Commission reviewed operational changes made by Long-term Care Hospitals (LTCHs) in response to policy changes and performance trends, patterns of post-hospital discharge to other post-acute care and hospice providers, and LTCH quality data since the implementation of the new dual-payment rate structure.  For operational changes, the degree of change that occurred varied from facility to facility.  It was reported that some LTCHs either changed their admission patterns to admit only patients who met criteria, continued to take beneficiaries who do not meet the criteria, or halted admitting cases that did not meet criteria.  It was also reported that some LTCHs made efforts to contract with private payors, including Medicare Advantage plans, in order to expand the mix of patients and payors.  Additionally, facilities examined increased their capabilities adding bariatric and ICU beds as well as telemetry services.  However, these changes often led to a decline in occupancy and closures.  Over 40 facilities closed (roughly 10% of the industry) – most located in an area with other LTCHs.

In terms of discharges, the share of cases that met the criteria for the new dual-payment rate structure increased from 50% to 64% over the last few years.  This was attributed to some facilities having the capacity to change their admission patterns and take a higher share of cases that meet the criteria.  Finally, LTCH quality data showed that measures of unadjusted direct acute-care hospital re-admissions, in-LTCH mortality, and 30-day mortality remained stable since 2015.  Whereas 30-day mortality and re-admissions have remained at similar rates, the rate for in-LTCH mortality has increased.  However, the Commission could not conclude whether these changes in quality were the result of implementing the dual-payment rate structure.

  1. MedPAC Discusses Ways CMS Could Improve the Use of Functional Assessment in the Medicare Program

MedPAC staff examined the pros and cons of the use of functional assessment in the Medicare program to improve functional assessment usage in the Medicare Program.  MedPAC highlighted that patient assessment data does not always reflect the actual care needs of patients.  Concerns relative to function data reported by Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities (IRFs), Home Health Agencies, Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs), and Long-term Care Hospitals (LTCH) were expressed in regards to payment incentives received by these entities.  When reporting rules changed relative to financial incentives, the mentioned entities changed the amount of therapy they offered and how they coded therapy modalities.  MedPAC believed that if providers were making these changes based on financial incentives, the recording of disability would likely increase since payments are tied to functional status.  Thus, the Commission suggested that CMS could help improve the accuracy of these provider-reported data or collect information about patient function by (1) improving monitoring of provider-reported assessment and penalize providers found misreporting; (2) requiring hospitals to complete discharge assessments to patients referred to post-acute care; and (3) gathering patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

  1. Promoting greater Medicare-Medicaid integration in dual-eligible special-needs plans

MedPAC presented potential policies that would promote greater Medicare-Medicaid integration in dual-eligible special needs plans (“D-SNPs”) to improve care coordination and health outcomes.  Under the existing structure, D-SNPs only enroll dual eligible beneficiaries compared to regular plans which open up to all beneficiaries in their service area.  D-SNPs are required to follow an evidence-based model of care and must take steps to integrate Medicaid coverage by forming contracts with states that meet certain minimum standards.  However, there are D-SNPs that require higher standards for integration that are known as fully integrated D-SNPs, or FIDE SNPs, which enables such plans to receive higher Medicare payments.  Under the FIDE SNP framework, the plan must have a capitated Medicaid contract, which includes acute and primary care services along with services like nursing home care.  Currently, the challenge has been the low levels of integration as most plans either do not provide Medicaid services or provide a limited subset, such as Medicare cost sharing.  Factors that have limited Medicaid integration in D-SNPs include the large number of D-SNP enrollees that are partial-benefit dual eligible as well as misaligned enrollment.

MedPAC proposed a couple of changes that could assist in achieving greater integration.  First, it was proposed that there should be a limit on the ability of partial dual beneficiaries to enroll in D-SNPs.  Secondly, the Commission proposed requiring D-SNPs to follow an aligned enrollment practice where beneficiaries cannot enroll in a D-SNP unless they were enrolled in a Managed Long Term Services and Supports (“MLTSS”) plan offered by the same parent company.  The goal is that this policy would ensure that all D-SNP enrollees are receiving both Medicare and Medicaid benefits from the same parent company while laying the foundation for integration into other areas, such as developing a single care coordination process overseeing all Medicare and Medicaid service needs.

  1. MedPAC Reviews Its Recommendations for Improving the Medicare Advantage Quality Bonus Program and Provides Potential Next Steps

MedPAC led off its presentation by summarizing the Medicare Advantage (“MA”) quality bonus program, which has been implemented since 2012. This program pays bonuses to MA plans based on their overall “star rating,” which tracks and weighs forty-six quality measures. MA plan contracts greater than or equal to a 4-star rating receive the bonus, which ultimately increases a plan’s ability to receive rebate dollars (and therefore attract beneficiaries by reducing enrollee premiums and/or offering coverage to a greater variety of services). Overall star ratings and the breakdown of MA plans’ individual quality measures are publicly reported and can be accessed via Medicare’s Health Plan Finder. MedPAC then expressed its concern for the effectiveness of these star ratings and resulting bonus payments. Notably, these star ratings are awarded at the MA contract level, meaning that the star rating often applies to a vast geographical region. Indeed, according to MedPAC, “about 40 percent of enrollees of MA [Health Maintenance Organizations] and local [Preferred Provider Organizations] are in contracts that include enrollees from non-contiguous states.” Moreover, MedPAC stated that boosted star ratings are the result of health care “consolidations,” where the acquired MA contract inherits the star rating of the “surviving” MA contract. These factors have led to “unwarranted bonus payments” and decreased reliance on star rating as an indicator for plan quality in the enrollee’s region.

In its March 2018 report to Congress, MedPAC recommended two courses of action to address these flaws: (1) freeze quality reporting units at pre-consolidation so these plans do not inherit the ratings of their acquirer and (2) require quality reporting at local market level instead of the large MA contract level. In the meeting, MedPAC stated that the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 partly addressed the first recommendation—the act requires an average of quality results for consolidated contracts effective in year 2020.[1]

MedPAC then provided its current recommendations for improving the MA quality bonus program. MedPAC advocated for (1) restructuring the MA bonus evaluation system to remove the current seventeen “process measures”[2] and (2) implementing a “claims-based” outcome measures based on MA claims and encounters, which would, according to MedPAC, improve accuracy and uniformity, align more closely with fee-for-service quality results, and lessen reporting burdens. MedPAC also presented “cliff” and “plateau” issues with the bonus cutoff[3] and offered the potential solution of “a continuous scale for bonus payments” similar to its hospital value incentive program (“HVIP”).[4] MedPAC also presented this solution to address the “tournament model” of the current star system.[5] Finally, MedPAC proposed solutions to various issues with the quality measures (e.g., uneven measure adjustments, narrow differences in measure results, etc.). MedPAC plans to further discuss how to move the MA quality bonus program towards budget neutrality.

  1. MedPAC Reviews Medicare Advantage Encounter Data and Introduces Proposed Policy Options for the Program

In 2012, CMS started to collect “encounter data”[6] from MA plans, mainly for purposes of risk adjustment. MedPAC stated that it has access to this encounter data for 2012–2014 (and “preliminary files” for 2015) for six provider types/settings.[7] For each of these settings, MedPAC validated encounter data by comparing it with other data sources of MA utilization. MedPAC uncovered three broad categories of MA encounter data issues in its review: (1) MA plans “are not successfully submitting encounters for all settings,”[8] (2) “about 1 % of encounter data records attribute enrollees to the wrong plan,”[9] and (3) there were substantial differences in encounter data from other data sources used for comparison. MedPAC focused its discussion on addressing this third issue.

MedPAC compared encounter data with four other MA utilization sources that originate from provider reports (including hospitals, home health agencies, skilled nursing facilities, and dialysis facilities). Encounter data was not consistent with these reports. In 2015, the percentage of MA enrollees reported in encounter data were consistent with the following reports:

  • 90% encounter data consistency with data reported by hospitals (for inpatient stays)
  • 89% consistency with data reported by dialysis facilities (for having dialysis services)
  • 49% consistency with data reported by skilled nursing facilities (for skilled nursing stays)
  • 47% consistency with data reported by home health agencies (for home health services)

These results, combined with MA plans’ lack of encounter data submissions, demonstrate a need for CMS to better assess encounter data completeness and ensure consistency and ability to utilize this data for risk adjustment. MedPAC then gave three policy options to incentivize MA plans to submit complete encounter data: (1) to expand the performance metric framework (e.g., to include specific information about missing encounter data); (2) to apply payment withholds proportional to degree of incomplete encounter data submissions; and (3) to collect encounter data through Medicare Administrative Contractors (which already process fee-for-service claims for all Part A and B services). By enforcing complete encounter data through these methods, MedPAC hopes to learn more about how care is provided to MA enrollees and ensure Medicare benefits are properly administered.

______

[1] MedPAC expressed concern that various “consolidation strategies” may still result in unwarranted higher star ratings and accompanying bonus payments.

[2] MedPAC asserted that these administrative measures could effectively be monitored by compliance activities.

[3] Currently, the 4-star requirement for bonus acquisition causes two distinct issues. Contracts with a overall rating of less than 3.75 stars (which is rounded to 4 stars) do not receive any bonus payments (i.e., the “cliff”), and contracts with an overall rating above 4 stars receive “the same benchmark increase” as those with 4-star ratings (i.e., the “plateau”) and there are minimal incentives to reaching star rating above a 4.

[4] A recent blog post discussed MedPAC’s review of its new HVIP in the September meetings.

[5] Under this tournament model, 5-star plans exist despite decreases in overall quality. MedPAC also suggested the establishment of pre-set objectives to promote improvement.

[6] Health care providers generate this “encounter data,” which includes detailed documentation of diagnosed clinical conditions and items and services furnished to treat these conditions.

[7] The six provider types/settings MedPAC referred to are “physician/supplier Part B,” inpatient hospital, outpatient hospital skilled nursing facility, home health, and durable medical equipment.

[8] According to MedPAC, only 80% of MA contracts have “at least one encounter record for each of the six settings.”

[9] MedPAC asserts that this issue may be corrected by changing data processing.

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 November 2, 2018 CMS announced the finalization of the 2019 OPPS and ASC payment rules which were initially proposed in July of 2018.[1] [2] While the final document will not be officially published until November 21st, an Inspection Copy is available for the public to review on the Federal Register website. These new payment rules in many ways expand the range of services that CMS will reimburse when performed at Ambulatory Surgical Centers (ASCs), most notably, by including certain cardiac catheterization procedures on the approved list, and by lowering the threshold that determines allowable device intensive procedures.

Increase in Covered Cardiac Catheterization Procedures:

The Final Rule will add 17 procedures relating to cardiac catheterization to the list of ASC Covered Surgical Procedures.  The final list includes five procedures that were not included in the July 2018 proposed rule, due in part to commenters requesting that additional procedures be added to the list, and CMS adopting their request, at least in part.[3] [4] [5] The expanded list reflects the growing trend of cardiac procedures being transitioned from an inpatient to an outpatient setting. This shift will have a continuing business impact on inpatient providers and may also lead to state-level regulatory changes. States that currently prohibit cardiac catheterization procedures at outpatient facilities may decide to adopt changes to allow certain procedures that have been deemed acceptable by CMS to be performed at facilities without on-site inpatient services, including ASCs.[6] Furthermore, these additions could be a springboard for CMS to later add more complicated procedures to the list of ASC covered services.

Decrease in Device Offset Percentage:

CMS has also taken steps to make device-intensive procedures more accessible in the ASC setting. Procedures categorized as “device-intensive” are paid at the higher OPPS rate, even if performed in an ASC.  However, a procedure only qualifies as “device-intensive” if the portion of the procedure’s cost related to the device falls within a predetermine percentage. The Final Rule decreases the device offset percentage threshold from 40 percent to 30 percent, meaning that procedures utilizing lower-cost devices will now be eligible for reimbursement as “device-intensive.”  As a result, ASCs will have the financial capacity to perform more procedures that involve lower cost medical devices.[7] CMS directly states its purpose behind this move saying “We believe allowing these additional procedures to qualify for device-intensive status will help ensure these procedures receive more appropriate payment in the ASC setting, which will help encourage the provision of these services in the ASC setting.”[8] The implementation of the new payment rules will undoubtedly lead to an increase in the amount of device-intensive procedures performed in the ASC setting as ASCs expand their scope of services to include more device-intensive procedures and patients choose to have these procedures performed in an outpatient setting. This change may also indicate future moves by CMS to encourage complex, device intensive procedures, such as joint replacements, in the ASC setting.

Government Shift to Outpatient Providers

These rule changes reflect Medicare’s continued shift towards encouraging services to be provided in the less costly outpatient setting. Anticipating a continued incline in the amount of individuals eligible for federal programs based on the expectation that 10,000 baby boomers will retire per day for over the next decade, CMS is likely to continue making changes to its payment rules to encourage the provision of care in lower cost settings.[9] These changes provide opportunities for ASCs and physicians to expand their business, but also threaten more “bread and butter” revenue streams on which hospitals have historically relied. Thus, hospitals, ASCs and physicians should consider addressing these changes in their long-term strategic plans, including possible joint ventures for outpatient services, in general, or specific service lines, such as cardiac catheterizations.

____

[1] CMS Inspection Copy

[2] 83 Fed. Reg. 37046.

[3] CMS Inspection Copy (at page 746)

[4] 83 Fed. Reg. 37046, 37160.

[5] CMS Inspection Copy (at page 743-44)

[6] N.J.A.C. 8:33E-1.3.

[7] 83 Fed. Reg. 37046, 37108.

[8] Id.

[9] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2010/12/29/baby-boomers-retire/

On October 25, 2018, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit feedback on its newly proposed International Pricing Index (IPI) model for Medicare Part B drug reimbursement.  The IPI model will be tested by the CMS Innovation Center as a potential means to dismantle and replace the current buy-and-bill model and advance the Trump Administration’s agenda for drug pricing reform, as described in its May 2018 Blueprint to Lower Drug Prices and Reduce Out-of-Pocket Costs.  The framework of the IPI model is characterized by three components designed to achieve the following objectives:

  • Utilize private sector vendors to purchase and take title (but not necessarily possession) over single source drugs and biologicals (including biosimilars) and bill Medicare.  The vendors would then have flexibility to offer a variety of delivery options to ordering physicians.  This concept, which was inspired by Medicare Part D’s use of competing private-sector companies to facilitate the provision of Medicare-covered items and supplies, would leverage and improve upon the Competitive Acquisition Program (CAP) previously implemented in the mid-2000s.
  • Phase in, over a five-year period, a reduced Medicare payment for selected drugs based on a composite of international prices.  CMS would reimburse vendors for drugs purchased from manufacturers based on international pricing (except where the ASP is lower), as benchmarked against more than a dozen other nations with economies comparable to the United States that have significantly lower acquisition costs for physician-administered drugs.
  • Replace the percentage-based Part B add-on payment (i.e., ASP+6% (ASP+4.3% post-sequestration)) with a set payment amount, which would be based on 6% of a Part B drug’s historical drug costs.  Under the new model, physicians would continue to receive payment for drug administration.  Because physicians would be obtaining drugs from vendors, and no longer assuming financial risk, the add-on payment would be decreased to remove physicians’ incentive to prescribe higher cost drugs but be calibrated to hold providers harmless to the extent possible.

CMS plans to issue a proposed rule fully describing the IPI model in Spring 2019, with the goal of testing the model over a five-year period, from Spring 2020 to Spring 2025.  The IPI model would involve selected Part B-covered single source drugs and biologicals (including biosimilars) and would apply to all physician practices and hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) in certain designated geographic areas.  Providers, beneficiaries, and drugs not included in the model will remain under the current Medicare Part B reimbursement system.

The ANPRM signals the Administration’s determination to dramatically overhaul the Medicare Part B drug reimbursement system through a new competitive acquisition program based on international pricing that would seek to reduce government and beneficiary costs while keeping providers revenue neutral.  While CMS appears committed to the general outlines of the IPI model, it has invited industry feedback on a wide range of matters pertaining to the configuration and details of each of the model’s components as well as certain quality measures that CMS will consider in assessing the impact of the model on beneficiary access and quality of care.  Stakeholders have until December 31, 2018 to submit comments on the ANPRM.

Epstein Becker Green (EBG) will be closely analyzing the proposed IPI model and related developments while working with its clients to assess its impact and formulate and advance new ideas to shape the model and its future implementation.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced this week that it has entered into a settlement agreement with Davita Medical Holdings (Davita) for $270 million dollars to resolve certain False Claims Act liability related to Medicare Advantage risk adjustment payments.

As the settlement agreement describes, Davita acquired HealthCare Partners (HCP), a large California based independent physician association in 2012. HCP, subsequently Davita Medical Group (or Davita), operated as a medical service organization (MSO) who contracted with Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs) to provide services and manage the care of its beneficiaries. Davita would provide beneficiary diagnostic information to its MAOs which would be used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) to calculate the MAO’s risk adjusted capitated payments under the program’s risk adjustment payment methodology. Payments would then be made by MAOs to DaVita under the terms of its risk sharing arrangements.

The settlement resolved allegations raised in the qui tam action filed in District Court for the Central District of California, United States ex rel. Swoben v. Secure Horizons, et al., by James Swoben, a former employee of a MAO that contracted with HCP. Swoben alleged that HCP hired coding companies to perform “one-way” retrospective reviews of member records, whereby the MAO would submit additional diagnosis codes to CMS but not validate previously submitted codes.

The settlement further resolves allegations related to incorrect coding guidance, unsupported but un-retraced codes identified during audits, in-home assessments, incorrect diagnosis mapping to appropriate ICD-9 codes in its electronic medical record, and acute condition codes in the primary care setting.  In its press release, the DOJ emphasized that the failure by Davita to delete unsupported or undocumented diagnosis codes caused the MAOs to retain payments from CMS that they were otherwise not entitled.

Importantly, Davita as downstream provider to MAOs, did not directly submit claims to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. Accordingly, this settlement is extremely significant to downstream entities such as MSOs, IPAs, physician practices and risk adjustment vendors who can themselves potentially be subject to “causes to be submitted” and other theories under the FCA.

Epstein Becker Green’s Jason Christ, Teresa Mason and Tom Hutchinson served as counsel and advisor to the Member Representative of the former owners of HCP. Epstein Becker Green was actively involved in co-defending this matter.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) issued on April 2, 2018, an advanced copy of the final rule title “Medicare Program; Contract Year 2019 Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage, Medicare Cost Plan, Medicare Fee-for-Service, the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Programs, and the PACE Program” (“Final Rule”). This Final Rule will be published in the April 16, 2018 issue of the Federal Register.

This Final Rule implements provisions of the proposed rule that CMS released titled “Medicare Program; Contract Year 2019 Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage, Medicare Cost Plan, Medicare Fee-for-Service, the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Programs, and the PACE Program” (“Proposed Rule”), which was published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2017.

Upon review of over 1,600 comments, CMS finalized many of the provisions as proposed or with minor revisions, deferred addressing some proposals until a later date, or opted not to finalize some provisions as proposed in the Proposed Rule.

We have summarized major provisions of the Proposed Rule in a three part Client Alert which EBG published earlier this year. For the provisions summarized in our Client Alert, the following chart reflects CMS’s actions in the Final Rule:

Provision CMS Action
Part 1 Client Alert: Negotiated Prices
Request for Information Regarding the Application of Manufacturer Rebates and Pharmacy Price Concessions to Drug Prices at the Point of Sale

 

Not Finalized

 

CMS is not finalizing any proposal at this time. Any new requirements would be addressed through future rulemaking.

Part 2 Client Alert: Beneficiary Cost, Access, and Protection
Part D Tiering Exceptions Finalized as proposed
Expedited Substitutions of Certain Generics and Other Midyear Formulary Changes Finalized with minor revisions
Treatment of Follow-On Biological Products as Generics for Non-Low Income Subsidy (“LIS”) Catastrophic and LIS Cost Sharing Not Finalized

 

CMS is not finalizing its proposed revision to the definition of generic drug. Instead, CMS is finalizing a different approach by modifying language at 42 § 423.782(a)(2)(iii)(A) and § 423.782(b)(2), to achieve the same desired goal of setting the copay amounts for biosimilars and interchangeable products to those of generics.

“Any Willing Pharmacy” Standard Terms and Conditions and Better Definitions of Pharmacy Types Finalized with minor revisions
Elimination of Meaningful Difference Requirement Finalized as proposed
Medicare Medical Loss Ratio Finalized with minor revisions
Part 3 Client Alert: Implementation of Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 (“CARA”)
Drug Management Program for At-Risk Beneficiaries-
1. Identification of “At-Risk Beneficiaries” Finalized with minor revisions
2. Requirements of Drug Management Programs:
  • Written policies and procedures
Finalized with minor revisions
  • Case management/clinical contact/prescriber verification
Finalized with minor revisions
  • Limitations on Access to Coverage for Frequently Abused Drugs
Finalized with minor revisions
  • Requirements for Limiting Access to Coverage for Frequently Abused Drugs
Finalized with minor revisions
  • Beneficiary Notices
Finalized with minor revisions
  • Provisions Specific to Limitations on Access to Coverage of Frequently Abused Drugs to Selected Pharmacies and Prescribers
Finalized  with minor revisions
  • Drug Management Program Appeals
Finalized with minor revisions
  • Termination of a Beneficiary’s Potential At-Risk or At-Risk Status
Finalized with minor revisions
  • Data Disclosure and Sharing of Information for Subsequent Sponsor Enrollments
Finalized with minor revisions
Special Enrollment Period Limitations for At-Risk Dually-Eligible or Low-Income Subsidy-Eligible Beneficiaries Finalized with minor revisions
Part D Opioid Drug Utilization Review Policy and Overutilization Monitoring System Finalized as proposed[1]

The Final Rule will be effective for Medicare Advantage and Part D plans for the 2019 contract year. For additional information about the issues discussed above, please contact one of the authors or the Epstein Becker Green attorney who regularly handles your legal matters.

[1] Additional policies for plan year 2019 related to opioid drug utilization review controls were included in the Final Call Letter issued on April 2, 2018, available at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Health-Plans/MedicareAdvtgSpecRateStats/Downloads/Announcement2019.pdf.

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.

All titles in this series can be viewed below. Subscribe to our blog to receive these future updates. Prior installments of this series can be accessed using the links provided.

This post is the first in a series from Epstein Becker Green on the growing area of enforcement of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP). There has been a recent growth in enforcement actions and regulatory interest that may not have yet attracted the attention of many providers and traditional and non-traditional payers. Noncompliance with the MSP can result in monetary penalties and government enforcement action. In particular, the MSP is garnering attention as an enforcement tool under the False Claims Act (FCA).  This series of blogs provides a general overview of the MSP, discusses requirements for compliance for differing entities, describes recent MSP enforcement actions under the False Claims Act (FCA), and sets forth  key takeaways to potentially reduce liability.

The Medicare Secondary Payer Act: The Basics

In order to understand why the MSP is relevant and may create new risks for payers and providers, we’ll start with an overview of the law and why Congress wanted to remedy a problem with the Medicare program. Before the MSP was enacted, Medicare made payments on behalf of its beneficiaries for any medical services, except those covered by workers’ compensation.  In many cases, claims were paid by the Medicare program even though beneficiaries had other sources of coverage for their care. This resulted in a rapid depletion of the Medicare Trust Fund, and in 1980 Congress passed the MSP statute to cut health care costs and reduce Medicare disbursements. The MSP currently affects providers, employer sponsored group health plans (GHPs), liability and no-fault insurers, workers’ compensation funds and plans (collectively, Non-Group Health Plans, or NGHPs), and Medicare beneficiaries.  Generally, the MSP:

(1) requires that Medicare be a secondary payer if a beneficiary carries certain types of employer sponsored health plans[1];

(2) prohibits the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) from making payments for Medicare-covered services if payment has been made, or can reasonably be expected to be made, by a another payer[2]; and

(3) permits CMS to make “conditional payments” to the beneficiary if there is a delay in reimbursement from another entity for a covered service.[3]

Congress also enacted a parallel MSP provision that applies to state Medicaid plans.[4]

Special rules apply to Medicare beneficiaries covered under a GHP,[5] and Medicare is generally the secondary payer for these covered services when:

  • A beneficiary is entitled to Medicare on the basis of age, but is covered under a GHP by virtue of his or her current employment or the current employment status of a spouse of any age; or
  • A beneficiary is entitled to Medicare on the basis of End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) for the first 18 months of eligibility; or
  • A beneficiary is entitled to Medicare on the basis of disability, but is covered under a GHP by virtue of his or her current employment status or the current employment status of a family member.[6]

In order to help primary payers and providers in meeting their MSP obligations, CMS established a Coordination of Benefits (COB) system that collects beneficiary coverage data.  The Benefits Coordination & Recovery Center (BCRC) administers the COB by ensuring the accuracy of the Common Working File (CWF), a CMS database that stores information regarding MSP data and investigations.  CMS shares this data with other payers to ensure proper claim submission to Medicare.  The COB collects data from a variety of sources, including:

  • IRS/SSA/CMS Claims Data Match – By law, the IRS, Social Security Administration (SSA) and CMS must share information regarding beneficiaries. Employers must complete the IRS/SSA/CMS Claims Data Match questionnaire for each GHP that Medicare eligible beneficiaries and their spouses choose.
  • Voluntary Data Sharing Agreements (VDSAs) – These agreements allow employers and CMS to exchange GHP enrollment information.
  • COB Agreement (COBA) Program – This program established a national standard contract between the BCRC and other health insurance organizations for the purpose of transmitting beneficiary eligibility data and Medicare paid claims data.
  • Section 111 Required Reporting Requirements – Under this law, GHPs, workers’ compensation, self-insurance, and no-fault insurance (collectively, non-group health plans, or NGHPs) must register as a Responsible Reporting Entity (RRE) and report certain information pertaining to each enrollee’s Medicare eligibility, as discussed in more detail below.
  • Other Data Exchanges – CMS has created data exchanges with other entities, such as Pharmaceutical Benefit Managers, State Pharmaceutical Assistance Programs, and other prescription drug payers for the purpose of educating these entities regarding COB processes and the MSP framework.

Through these databases, the COB coordinates efforts between CMS, primary payers, and providers to ensure that Medicare is billed properly.

This wide variety of reporting sources may be daunting for many providers and payers who are required to report. However, these  fears can be overcome by incorporating these tasks into the organization’s existing compliance program if the requirements for reporting are known. In the next blog post, we will be addressing compliance with conditional payment requirements provided by Medicare.

Andrew Kuder, a Law Clerk (not admitted to the practice of law) in the firm’s Newark office, contributed significantly to the preparation of this post.

[1] 42 USC § 1395y(b)(2)(A)(i); 42 CFR § 411.20.

[2] 42 USC § 1395y(b)(2)(A)(ii); 42 CFR § 411.20.

[3] 42 USC § 1395y(b)(2)(B); 42 CFR §§ 411.21 & 411.24.

[4] 42 USC § 1396a(a)(25); 42 CFR §§ 433.135-140.

[5] 42 USC § 1395y(b)(1); 26 USC § 5000(b)(1).

[6] 42 CFR § 411.20

In the last couple of months, ballot initiatives have significantly affected health policy and the health industry as a whole. Constituents are becoming more involved in policy matters that have traditionally been left to elected officials in state legislatures. On January 25, 2018, Oregon held a special election for a ballot initiative that asked whether Oregonians would support funding the state Medicaid program by taxing health plans and hospitals. The ballot initiative passed with a margin of 62 percent of voters supporting the measure. The measure proposed a 1.5 percent tax on insurance premiums and a .7 percent tax on large hospitals to help fund Medicaid expansion. Proponents argued that 350,000 people who receive health coverage through Medicaid expansion would lose coverage if the measure was not supported.

Oregon is not the only state that has used a ballot initiative to substantially affect health policy. On November 7, 2017, Maine was the first state to use a ballot initiative to expand Medicaid coverage. The ballot measure overwhelming passed without the support of the Governor. The Governor is now withholding the implementation of the measure due to fundamental issues on how to fund Medicaid expansion.

Traditionally, ballot initiatives are frequently used to amend state constitutions or topics regarding public health. Health policy issues such as Medicaid and funding for health care seldom had direct input from constituents. However, as many states are faced with one party legislature, ballot initiatives have become a way to circumvent the traditional means of legislating. Constituents are actively using ballot initiative to help shape policy issues that directly affect the health industry. About 24 states have ballot initiative processes that allow constituents to bypass state legislatures by placing proposed statutes on the ballot. Although states have different processes, a ballot initiative requires a specific number of signatures for an initiative to be placed on a ballot. In states with an indirect initiative process, such as Maine, ballots with enough signatures are submitted to the legislature where elected officials have an opportunity to act on the proposal. If the legislature rejects the measure, submits a different proposal or takes no action, the measure goes to the ballot for a vote. In states with direct initiatives, such as Oregon, proposals go directly on the ballot for a vote.

With the success of Oregon and Maine, other states may utilize the ballot initiative process to substantially change health policy in their state. For example, after years of failing to expand Medicaid in Utah, advocates have already begun to gather signatures needed by April 15, 2018 to put Medicaid expansion on the 2018 ballot. Additionally, advocates in Idaho have filed paperwork for a ballot initiative to expand Medicaid.

As more states consider ballot initiatives as a legislative tool for health policy, stakeholders should not only look to legislative assemblies for changes in health policy but ballot initiatives that can affect the industry. Grassroots advocacy has always played a major role in shaping state policy and now substantial health policy can be added to the list.