Showing posts with label MedPac. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MedPac. Show all posts

Thursday, October 17, 2013

United States: Hospice Face 2 Face Audit Update


Last Updated: October 17 2013
Article by Brian M. Daucher
Effective April 2011, CMS implemented the Affordable Care Act requirement that hospices conduct a face to face visit as part of any recertification of any beneficiary in the third or later benefit period.  With the forthcoming hospice and home health RAC auditor, hospices will face increasing audits on face to face compliance.  In this post, Sheppard Mullin examines some of the key requirements of the face to face requirement.
Palmetto reported recently that 49% of its ADR denials for hospice and home health stem from the face to face requirement.  Although the statutory requirement is fairly straightforward, specific regulatory timing and compliance requirements create significant pitfalls for hospice providers and, in turn, opportunity for Medicare contractors to recover alleged overpayments.
MEDPac originated the requirement in an effort to constrain expense by requiring closer doctor scrutiny before recertification. But, Medicare contractors see the face to face requirement as an opportunity to make simple denials of claims.
While prior hospice auditing required complex review of the six month diagnosis (a subjective doctor's determination), the face to face requirements provide contractors with objective, verifiable means to attempt to deny or recoup reimbursement (even where services are medically necessary).
Outside the government context, medical providers and other contracting parties can assert substantial compliance as a defense to small, technical breaches that cause trifling harm.  Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue v. Wrigley Co., 505 U.S. 214, 231 (1992) (noting general applicability of "venerable maxim de minimis non curat lex ("the law cares not for trifles")).
There are also principles in both Federal case law and Medicare policy manuals that suggest that technical violations should not lead to payment forfeitures.  United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) (setting aside as constitutionally excessive full forfeiture of $230,000 in cash as a civil fine for failure to report cash in excess of $10,000 to customs officials); Medicare Program Integrity Manual, § 3.1 ("When an error has been validated through MR, the corrective action imposed by the MACs should match the severity of the error");Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, §20.1 (allowing face to face to occur up to 2 days late in cases of documented emergency admission; waiving face to face where patients dies within 2 days of admission).
But, Congress, following MEDPac's lead, made the face to face visit a "condition of payment."  Under the statute, the failure to conduct a face to face can be grounds for payment denial.  Medicare contractors will ground payment denials and/or repayment demands not only upon the failure to conduct the face to face but also upon arguably minor variances from the specific face to face requirements.
Here is an updated checklist of the technical requirements that could lead to repayment demands:
  • Timing.  The face to face visit must be conducted in the window 30 days prior to and including the first day of the benefit period.  Because the face to face is to be utilized in recertification, the face to face should occur on or before the day the certification is executed.  If a certification is signed before the face to face, the hospice should redo the certification after the face to face.
  • Who.  Unlike home health where any doctor can conduct the required face to face, in hospice, Medicare only allows a hospice doctor (either employed or contracted to the hospice) or an employed W2 nurse practitioner to conduct the face to face.  Medicare's rational is that: (a) hospices have medical directors on hand; and (b) these doctors/NPs alone have sufficient experience to collect the right information from the face to face.
  • Where.  There is no requirement that the face to face be conducted at the beneficiary's home.  However, Medicare has cautioned that beneficiaries should not be required to travel for a face to face encounter if such travel would constitute any hardship.
  • Attestation/Signature.  The face to face must be signed by the doctor or NP that performs the face to face.  "Immediately above" the signature, there must be an attestation confirming that the face to face was performed, such as: "I certify that I performed a face to face visit with this beneficiary for purposes of assessing potential recertification of hospice care on the date indicated above."
  • Special Requirements for Nurse Practitioner face to face.  Where an NP conducts the face to face, Medicare requires the further attestation that the NP has provided the results of the face to face to the certifying physician (NPs cannot execute the certification).  Because many hospices use a single form for the face to face, this additional NP attestation could constitute a risk point.
  • Face to Face Findings Notes.  There is no specific requirement that doctors/NPs document the detailed findings from the face to face; however, because it is expected that face to face findings will be considered in the certification decision, face to face findings should be documented.  Such findings will bolster a hospice's defense of medical necessity in more traditional medical necessity audits.
  • Date Requirements.  In addition to including date of execution of the face to face attestation, the face to face form must also identify the date of the face to face visit as well as the dates of the upcoming benefit period.  Each of these dates is required by the regulation.  It may also be useful to identify the benefit period by number; but, benefit period should not be considered a substitute for benefit period dates.
  • Certification/Narrative Requirements.  Information gathered at the face to face is intended to be taken account in the subsequent certification decision.  Ideally, the certification narrative should cross-reference such face to face information.  Where a doctor performs the face to face, ideally that same doctor should write the narrative and sign the certification.  Such best practices remove any potential doubt as to whether face to face information has been considered in the decision to recertify.
As can be seen, there are many specific requirements that Medicare has set forth for the face to face.  Given Medicare's forthcoming nationwide RAC specifically for hospice and home health, providers should expect scrutiny on face to face documentation.
Although providers can contest denials that are more technical in nature, it is useful for providers to ensure that they are in full compliance to avoid otherwise lengthy, costly, and uncertain appeals processes.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.


Saturday, September 14, 2013

Health Literacy Could Reduce Medicare Expenses

By Clara Ritger | Friday, September 13, 2013 | 1:09 p.m.Kathleen SebeliusPhoto: AP Photo/Anja Niedringhaus
Patients – particularly minorities and those on Medicare – are not actively making decisions about their treatments and procedures because doctor-patient communication is poor, according to a study presented Thursday to MedPAC, the Congressional advisory committee on Medicare.
The result is a greater expense for Medicare and a lack of empowerment among patients.
"Once patients understand the risks and benefits of expensive procedures, they tend to opt for more conservative treatment options," said Rita Redberg, a MedPAC member and professor at the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine.
It's the reason physicians and hospitals are resisting training programs that would teach care providers to include patients in the decision-making process, Redberg said, because they lose money when patients choose less-costly options.
The deliberations of the 17 MedPAC members will be presented as recommendations to Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services.
Improving health literacy, or the ability of patients to understand their health care and make informed decisions, is a stated priority for HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
It's a priority that could come with significant financial implications for the United States. In 2007, a team of researchers estimated that low health literacy costs the U.S. between $106 and $236 billion annually. A number of factors account for those costs, including a patient's inability to find the best provider, treatment and services for his or her condition. The researchers argue the savings would be enough to insure all of the more than 47 million patients who were uninsured in the U.S. in 2006.
There's room to grow – only 22 percent of Americans are reported to be "proficient" when it comes to their understanding of health care costs and services, according to a U.S. Department of Education study.
Low-income adults are disporportionally affected. Health literacy was lower on average for adults living below the poverty level than those living above, the DOE's 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy found. As income increased, so did health literacy.
Racial and ethnic minorities had lower average health literacy scores than White adults, the study showed. Forty-one percent of Hispanic adults and 24 percent of Black adults had below basic levels of health literacy, compared with 9 percent of White adults.
Those numbers complement MedPAC's findings that Hispanic and Black patients report poorer communication with providers than Whites and the 2012 National Healthcare Disparities Report which found that Hispanic and Black patients were less likely to be asked their preferences in treatment decisions.
The health literacy problem also poses a challenge for the success of the Affordable Care Act. Once the exchanges open on Oct. 1, the millions of new patients added to the system in the coming years are expected to have high rates of health illiteracy, as many of them may not have had health insurance before.
How to inform patients – and who to hold accountable for health information – remains controversial. Some MedPAC members argued that health literacy wasn't only the responsibility of the patient, but also the provider, to explain health options in ways patients can understand.
"What if patients were treated with dignity and respect?" said George Miller, a MedPAC member and CEO of CommUnityCare in Austin, Tex. "Maybe then they'd feel empowered."
The consensus among the group was that patient engagement was an important issue that needs to be addressed, but they were unsure how Medicare would play a role.
"Health literacy is a responsibility of the Medicare program in that we should be paying for care that supports shared decision-making," said Mary Naylor, MedPAC member and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing.
But that, commission members said, leaves the question of how MedPAC would measure success, and providing financial incentives for patient-inclusion appeared contentious.
The commission will wrap up its meeting Friday at the Ronald Reagan Building, International Trade Center in the Horizon Ballroom.

Sunday, June 16, 2013

The Future of Medicare Advantage: Are We on the Right Path?



Video:

Speakers discussed how Medicare Advantage plans are expected to respond to payment changes; if quality bonus payments created significant changes in patient care or plan choices; and what implications could these decisions have on beneficiaries with...

http://bcove.me/6yn7j2vo
+