Friday, January 24, 2014

Verbal guidance from CMS on coding Section K that is beyond what is published in the current RAI Manual

From the AANAC LTC Leader dated 1/23/14  (NOTE FROM JUDY:  THIS IS NOT IN THE CURRENT RAI MANUAL)

Officials with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) discussed several issues at the Jan. 16 Skilled Nursing Facility/Long-term Care Open Door  Forum (SNF/LTC ODF).


K07010 coding example

CMS officials provided an example to illustrate the proper coding of MDS 3.0 item K0710 (percent intake by artificial route) when the look-back period includes time prior to and after admission or reentry:
Mr. K has been able to take some fluids orally. However, due to his progressing multiple sclerosis, his dysphaghia is not allowing him to remain hydrated. Therefore, he received the following fluid amounts over the last seven days via supplemental tube feedings while in the hospital and after he was admitted to the nursing home.

Over four days in the hospital, Mr. K received the following:
• Monday, 400 cc;
• Tuesday, 520 cc;
• Wednesday, 500 cc; and
• Thursday, 480 cc.

Over three days in the nursing home, Mr. K received the following:
• Friday, 510 cc;
• Saturday, 520 cc; and
• Sunday, 490 cc.

In this scenario, K0710B (average fluid intake per day by IV or tube feeding) would be coded as follows:
• K0710B1 (while NOT a resident) would be coded 1, indicating 500 cc per day or less.
• K0710B2 (while a resident) would be coded 2, indicating 501 cc per day or more.
• K0710B3 (during entire seven days) would be coded 1, also indicating 500 cc per day or less.

“The rationale for this is that the total fluid intake in the last seven days while Mr. K was not a resident was 1,900,” said officials. “That is the sum of 400 on Monday, 520 on Tuesday, 500 on Wednesday, and 480 on Thursday. The average fluid intake while not a resident totaled 475 cc. Because that is less than
500, the correct coding is 1 for K0710B1 (while NOT a resident).” The total fluid intake within the last seven days while Mr. K was a resident of the nursing home was 1,520 cc, said officials. “That is the sum of 510 on Friday, 520 on Saturday, and 490 on Sunday. The average fluid intake was 507 cc for those three days. Since it is greater than 500, the correct coding for K0710B2 (while a resident) would be 2.”
Finally, “the total fluid intake during the entire seven days, and that includes while he was in the nursing home and prior to being in the nursing home while he was in the hospital, was 3,420 cc,” said officials. “The average for that entire seven-day period was 489 cc (dividing the total of 3,420 cc by those 7 days).

Because that 489 is less than 500, the correct code for K0710B3 (during entire seven days) would be 1.”

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

As HHS Moves To End Overload Of Medicare Claims Appeals, Beneficiaries Will Get Top Priority Print Share

JAN 21, 2014
This KHN story was produced in collaboration with wapo
Medicare beneficiaries who have been waiting months and even years for a hearing on their appeals for coverage may soon get a break as their cases take top priority in an effort to remedy a massive backlog.
Nancy Griswold, the chief judge of the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA), announced in a memo sent last month to more than 900 appellants and health care associations that her office has a backlog of nearly 357,000 claims. In response, she said, the agency has suspended acting on new requests for hearings filed by hospitals, doctors, nursing homes and other health care providers, which make up nearly 90 percent of the cases. She said that she expected the suspension would last about two years.
But beneficiaries’ appeals will continue to be processed, and officials are seeking to “ensure that the relatively small numbers of beneficiary-initiated appeals are being immediately addressed by prioritizing their cases,” the Department of Health and Human Services said in an announcement in the Federal Register.
“Because they are among our nation’s most vulnerable populations, OMHA is committed to being as responsive as possible to the Medicare beneficiary community, regardless of the challenges presented by the significant increase in the number of requests being filed,” Judge Griswold wrote in an email in response to a reporter’s questions. “Beneficiary appeals continue to be assigned as quickly as OMHA can process them, and processing times for beneficiary appeals are expected to decrease.”
From 2010 through 2013, the cases grew by 184 percent “while the resources to adjudicate the appeals remained relatively constant,” Griswold wrote in her memo last month. The office received 1,250 appeals weekly in January, 2012, but that has ballooned to more than 15,000 a week last November, and the average wait time is now 16 months. Since 2010, the number of administration law judges has increased by two to 65.
“We have elderly or disabled Medicare clients waiting as long as two years for a hearing and nine months for a decision,” said Judith Stein, executive director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy. They are typically appealing the denial of coverage for home care, nursing home care, challenging observation classification, ambulance trips and other services. Among them is a Connecticut man who requested a hearing a year ago to appeal the denial of nursing home coverage.  He has since died, but his family is still pursuing the case, which is scheduled for a hearing next October.
Hospitals also report that the wait time for decisions on their appeals exceed the legal limit of 90 days, said Melissa Jackson, senior associate director for policy at the American Hospital Association.  Adding two years to the process “is a violation of the statute.”  She blamed the stepped-up scrutiny of hospital charges by recovery audit contractors whose payments are based on the number of questionable claims they uncover.   Hospitals are then forced to appeal these denials, she said, “in order to get paid for medically necessary services.” And most of the time they win these challenges, she added.
Last Tuesday, the hospital association asked Medicare chief Marilyn Tavenner to suspend the audits until all pending appeals have been processed. Stopping the audits “would be the most straightforward solution, particularly since the next round of [audit] contracts has not yet been finalized,” wrote executive vice president Rick Pollack.
While the appeals office copes with the thousands of waiting cases and holds off handling new provider appeals, Stein was not sure if beneficiaries’ cases will move more quickly. Griswold revealed the suspension affected most hearings requested after April 1, 2013, but Stein said she had seen no improvement for seniors over that time.
“Most of my clients should not have to wait for a hearing as it is because they should have been granted coverage at the early stages of appeal,” she said. “There are too many people who can’t get a fair shake at the lower levels of appeals and that’s a big reason why so many have to go on to a hearing.”
A hearing before an administrative law judge is the third level of appeal and the first opportunity for appellants to present arguments to a person, since the first two appeals are decided by Medicare contractors who review case files. At the hearing, testimony can be provided, witnesses can be cross-examined, and new evidence can be introduced.
It also offers the best chance of winning, a 2012 investigation by the HHS inspector general found.  The judges reversed the lower level denials 56 percent of the time for all appellants, including 61 percent of the time for providers and 28 percent for beneficiaries. When investigators looked at the appeals by type of claim, they found that the judges reversed 72 percent of denials involving payment for hospital care, under Medicare’s Part A hospitalization benefit.
In addition to the increase in appeals filed in response to more stringent audits of hospital claims, the OMHA caseload has expanded along with the increased number of Medicare beneficiaries and because the agency now handles appeals of prescription drug coverage, a benefit that was added in 2006.
Next month, the OMHA is hosting a day-long forum to provide more details to appellants. 
Contact Susan Jaffe at Jaffe.KHN@gmail.com.
This article was produced by Kaiser Health News with support from The SCAN Foundation.

Nationwide Contract Therapy Providers to Pay $30 Million to Resolve False Claims Act Allegations

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, January 17, 2014
Nationwide Contract Therapy Providers to Pay $30 Million to Resolve False Claims Act Allegations
Contract therapy providers RehabCare Group Inc., RehabCare Group East Inc. and Rehab Systems of Missouri and management company Health Systems Inc. have agreed to pay $30 million to resolve claims that they violated the False Claims Act by engaging in a kickback scheme related to the referral of nursing home business, the Justice Department announced today.   Additionally, as part of this settlement, the entities have agreed to restructure their business arrangement.

“Health care providers that attempt to profit from illegal kickbacks will be held accountable,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division Stuart F. Delery.  “We will continue to advocate for the appropriate use of Medicare funds and the proper care of our senior citizens.”

Between March 1, 2006, and Dec. 31, 2011, RehabCare allegedly arranged with Rehab Systems of Missouri to obtain Rehab Systems of Missouri ’s contracts to provide therapy to patients residing in 60 nursing homes controlled by Rehab Systems majority-owner James Lincoln.   In exchange for this stream of referrals, RehabCare allegedly paid Rehab Systems a $400,000 to $600,000 upfront payment and allowed Rehab Systems to retain a percentage of the revenue generated by each referral.  

“The Anti-Kickback Statute is intended to protect patients and federal health care programs from fraud and abuse,” said Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota John Marti.   “We will remain vigilant in pursuing entities that improperly further their financial interest at the expense of the Medicare Trust Fund.”

“This settlement sends a message to those who seek to improperly take advantage of the Medicare program,” said U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General Special Agent in Charge Gerald T. Roy.   “The Office of the Inspector General, Kansas City Regional Office will continue to work aggressively to eliminate this type of misconduct from our health care system.”

“The FBI will continue to work with its partners to combat this type of abuse,” said Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Minneapolis Office J. Chris Warrener.   “It remains committed to the elimination of fraud to ensure the integrity of federal health care programs.”

This civil settlement illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud and marks another achievement for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which was announced in May 2009 by Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.  The partnership between the two departments has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation.  One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act.  Since January 2009, the Justice Department has recovered more than $17.1 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $12.2 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.

The settlement resolves allegations originally brought in a lawsuit filed by a whistleblower under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act, which allow private parties to bring suit on behalf of the government and to share in any recovery.  The whistleblower will receive $700,000 as its share of the recovery in this case.                

The case was handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota with assistance from the Justice Department’s Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General.  This action was supported by the Elder Justice and Nursing Home Initiative that coordinates the department’s activities combating elder abuse, neglect and financial exploitation, especially as they impact beneficiaries of Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health care programs. 

The lawsuit is captioned U.S. ex rel. Health Dimensions Rehabilitation Inc. v. RehabCare Group Inc., et. al., Case No. 4:12-cv-00848 AGF (E.D. Mo.).   The claims settled by this agreement are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability. 

Friday, January 17, 2014

From Center for Medicare Advocacy: Call to Repeal Therapy Caps

Medicare Therapy Caps: A Call for Repeal

Medicare-covered outpatient physical, speech and occupational therapy services are subject to an annual dollar-amount payment cap.  As a result, many Medicare beneficiaries have their therapy terminate prematurely when they reach the cap.  While there is an Exceptions process in place that allows beneficiaries to receive therapy in excess of the caps, it is set to expire on March 31, 2014.  Moreover, the existing process is burdensome and many providers of services are slow to assist beneficiaries in obtaining therapy cap Exceptions.
Current Congressional efforts to revise or replace the physician "Sustainable Growth Rate" (SGR) formula (which, left unchanged, would substantially lower physician reimbursements) provide an opportunity to eliminate the therapy payment cap, or raise the financial cap sufficiently so that Medicare beneficiaries are able to receive prescribed therapy services in an amount sufficient to address their medical needs.   Since the inception of SGR, there has been annual legislation called the "doc fix" to avoid the implementation of SGR and its draconian impact on physician reimbursement.
Therapy Caps and Exceptions Process - Overview
The Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 imposed a payment cap on the annual amount of Medicare coverage available for beneficiaries receiving outpatient therapy services. Two distinct caps were placed on therapy services: for physical therapy (PT) and speech language pathology service (ST) combined, the cap is $1,920 in 2014.  For occupational therapy (OT) services, the cap is also $1,920. The therapy cap applies to all Part B outpatient therapy settings and providers, including private practices, skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies, outpatient rehabilitation facilities, comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facilities, and hospital outpatient departments.[1] 
Although absolute Medicare payment caps were set to go into effect in 1999, since that time Congress has acted approximately ten times to prevent the implementation of the therapy caps either through a moratoria or by establishing an "Exceptions" process.   The Exceptions process, created through the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005, allows individuals and providers to seek Medicare coverage of therapy services above the cap.  Automatic Exceptions are available when therapists attest that ongoing therapy services are reasonable and necessary and must be justified by supporting documentation in the beneficiary's medical record. However, starting in 2012, claims exceeding a threshold of $3,700 (either for PT and ST combined, or separately for OT) are subject to a mandatory manual medical review by Medicare contractors.[2]
In recent years, extension of the Exceptions process has been included as an "extender" to the annual "doc fix" legislation preventing SGR from going into effect.  Most recently, as part of a broader year-end budget agreement in December 2013, Congress passed a temporary three-month patch to the SGR, preventing immediate cuts to physician payment starting in January 2014, and includes "extenders" such as the therapy cap Exceptions process.[3]  Without further Congressional action, the therapy cap Exceptions process will expire on March 31, 2014 and the therapy caps will remain in place.  According to an estimate by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), once the exceptions process expires and a hard cap is implemented, "about 20 percent of beneficiaries receiving outpatient therapy would have their therapy truncated at the cap."[4]
Current Policy is a Barrier to Care
According to many advocates and providers, the therapy caps serve as a significant barrier to accessing necessary therapy services for individuals with long-term, chronic conditions who require ongoing therapy services.[5]  Set at arbitrary dollar amounts, these caps are aimed at federal cost-savings rather than ensuring Medicare coverage of clinically appropriate services.
The Exceptions process is the only means for an individual to obtain needed therapy services that exceed the annual cap.  Although the existence of the Exceptions process is better than an absolute cap with no means to seek additional coverage, the current manual review process, triggered when someone reaches the $3,700 cap, serves as a de facto absolute cap for many beneficiaries.  Since the process requires significant and burdensome involvement on the part of providers, it is the experience of beneficiary advocates that the manual review deters many providers from processing Exceptions, thus limiting beneficiary access to needed therapy services.  As a result, many beneficiaries who need ongoing therapy go without therapy services altogether.
  • Also see ADDENDUM below regarding the application of the Jimmo settlement to the therapy caps and exceptions process.
Alternate Proposals Vary Greatly
The current debate in Congress about SGR has highlighted the plight of other policy "extenders" such as the therapy caps and the related exceptions process.[6]  Policy recommendations regarding the therapy caps range from repealing them altogether to making them more restrictive.
  • Senate Finance Committee: Repeal and Replace the Cap
The Senate Finance Committee (SFC) and the House Ways and Means (W&M) Committee have approved legislation to replace SGR.[7]   Unfortunately, only the Senate Finance Committee bill addressed extending the Exception process to Medicare outpatient therapy caps. 
As discussed in a previous Alert, the SFC bill would repeal the caps and replace them with a new medical review program including prior authorization.  The Secretary of Health and Human Services would identify the services for medical review, including factors such as outlier billing patterns and newly enrolled providers.[8]     
Although this proposal currently lacks detail necessary to assess its full potential impact on beneficiaries' access to care, it is clearly an acknowledgement that the current therapy cap policy is broken and needs to be repealed, along with instituting a more targeted approach toward medical review.  Unfortunately, not all policymakers and entities advising them agree.
  • MedPAC Recommendation: Lower the Cap
At a January 9, 2014 hearing held by the House Energy & Commerce Committee exploring the SGR extenders policies[9], the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) recommended that Congress reduce each therapy cap from $1,920 in 2014 to $1,270.[10]  This lower cap amount, suggested MedPAC, "would accommodate the annual therapy needs of most beneficiaries while restraining excessive utilization."  Further, MedPAC stated that "[u]nder a reduced cap, about two-thirds of therapy users could receive services before reaching the cap."
In addition to other recommendations to reduce Medicare expenditures on outpatient therapy, including increased physician oversight and certain program integrity measures, MedPAC endorsed retaining an Exceptions process with a more "streamlined" manual medical review process for therapy claims that exceed the cap.  In a statement that neither  comports with our experience assisting people with Medicare who need ongoing therapy services nor acknowledges the difference between automatic and manual review in the current exceptions process, MedPAC  noted that a "broad exceptions process  allows providers to deliver services above either spending cap relatively easily, limiting the effectiveness of the caps."
In short, MedPAC's solution to beneficiaries' current challenges accessing ongoing, medically necessary therapy services is to lower the therapy cap, eliminate the automatic review and apply manual medical review to all claims that exceed the cap.   With an eye toward limiting Medicare expenditures – while ignoring the welfare of Medicare beneficiaries – MedPAC adds:
"In addition, we note that if spending on outpatient therapy services is projected to be above current law, and the Congress wishes to further constrain spending, it could lower the therapy caps further and increase the number of services subject to medical review, reduce payment rates for longer episodes of care, or increase beneficiary cost sharing for longer episodes."
Conclusion
Many Medicare beneficiaries are already denied ongoing, medically necessary outpatient therapy services because of current therapy cap limitations and onerous Exceptions process that effectively serves as an absolute cap on coverage.
As recently highlighted by former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, longer-term, ongoing therapy can be the key to functionality and life-changing improvements:
"…This past year, I have achieved something big that I've not spoken of until now. Countless hours of physical therapy — and the talents of the medical community — have brought me new movement in my right arm. It's fractional progress, and it took a long time, but my arm moves when I tell it to. Three years ago, I did not imagine my arm would move again. For so many days, it did not. I did exercise after exercise, day after day, until it did. I'm committed to my rehab and I'm committed to my country, and my resolution, standing with the vast majority of Americans who know we can and must be safer, is to cede no ground to those who would convince us the path is too steep, or we too weak."[11]
It's time to reduce barriers to care, not exacerbate them.  We urge Congress to repeal the Medicare outpatient therapy caps.

ADDENDUM: Note on Jimmo Improvement Standard Settlement and Therapy Caps
Absent either a repeal of the therapy caps altogether, or an expiration of the exceptions process (leaving the caps in place), the current rules outlining the exceptions process present challenges to the implementation of the settlement ofJimmo v. Sebelius, the improvement standard case.   As discussed thoroughly elsewhere, the Center and Vermont Legal Aid reached a settlement with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in Jimmo.  The court approved settlement confirms a maintenance standard for skilled nursing facilities, home health care, and outpatient therapy, dispelling the myth that Medicare will pay for care and services only if a beneficiary is likely to "improve."[12]  In practice, this will allow beneficiaries with conditions like Parkinson's, MS and Alzheimer's to receive ongoing therapy services that likely exceed the current therapy caps.
As part of this settlement, CMS revised certain Medicare manual provisions which in turn should make it easier to obtain Medicare coverage for outpatient therapy because maintenance therapy is now specifically permitted if it is to maintain a person's condition or prevent deterioration.[13   While the Jimmo settlement does not undo the therapy caps, the improvement standard should not apply to therapy received either before the caps are met or to coverage of therapy obtained through the exceptions process.[14]   One provision in the Medicare Claims Processing Manual relating to the therapy cap exceptions process, however, remains of concern because of language suggesting the ongoing application of an improvement standard.[15]   Should the exceptions process remain in place, the Center will continue to work with CMS to address this language.
For more information, contact attorney David Lipschutz (dlipschu@medicareadvocacy.org) in the Center for Medicare Advocacy's Washington, DC office at (202) 293-5760 or Executive Director Judith Stein in our Connecticut office at (860) 456-7790.

Fighting Observation Status: Article from New York Times by Susan Jaffe

Fighting ‘Observation’ Status

Every year, thousands of Medicare patients who spend time in the hospital for observation but are not officially admitted find they are not eligible for nursing home coverage after discharge.
A Medicare beneficiary must spend three consecutive midnights in the hospital — not counting the day of discharge — as an admitted patient in order to qualify for subsequent nursing-home coverage. If a patient is under observation but not admitted, she will also lose coverage for any medications the hospital provides for pre-existing health problems. Medicare drug plans are not required to reimburse patients for these drug costs.
The over-classification of observation status is an increasingly pervasive problem: the number of seniors entering the hospital for observationincreased 69 percent over five years, to 1.6 million in 2011.
The chance of being admitted varies widely depending on the hospital, the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services has found. Admitted and observation patients often have similar symptoms and receive similar care. Six of the top 10 reasons for observation — chest pain, digestive disorders, fainting, nutritional disorders, irregular heartbeat and circulatory problems — are also among the 10 most frequent reasons for a short hospital admission.
Medicare officials have urged hospital patients to find out if they’ve been officially admitted. But suppose the answer is no. Then what do you do?
Medicare doesn’t require hospitals to tell patients if they are merely being observed, which is supposed to last no more than 48 hours to help the doctor decide if someone is sick enough to be admitted. (Starting on Jan. 19, however, New York State will require hospitals to provide oral and written notification to patients within 24 hours of putting them on observation status. Penalties range as much as $5,000 per violation. )
To increase the likelihood of being formally admitted, “get yourself in the door before midnight,” advised Dr. Ann Sheehy, division head of hospital medicine at the University of Wisconsin Hospital in Madison, Wisc. A new Medicare regulation — the so-called “pumpkin rule” — requires doctors to admit people they anticipate staying for longer than two midnights, but to list those expected to stay for less time as observation patients.
Although the rule applies now, Medicare officials won’t enforce it until April 1, having already pushed the deadline back. The American Medical Association and the American Hospital Association have called the pumpkin rule “impossible” to comply with and have urged that enforcement be delayed again until October.
“It doesn’t make any sense,” said Dr. Sheehy, who studied how the rule would have affected admissions at her hospital over an 18-month period and published the results in JAMA Internal Medicine. “Some patients will be admitted because they came in at the right time of day, not because they have more complicated medical problems.”
The two-midnight rule doesn’t change Medicare’s three-midnight rule, the one limiting post-hospital nursing home coverage. Officials at the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services declined comment for this story because of pending litigation seeking to eliminate observation status.
If you or a family member land in the hospital as an observation patient and think you should be admitted, it’s better to act sooner than later.
“I would talk to anyone who would listen to me,” said Terry Berthelot, a senior attorney at the Center for Medicare Advocacy, which offers a free self-help packet for observation patients. “Make as much noise as you can, because it’s much easier to change your status while you’re still in the hospital than to go through Medicare’s appeals process later.”
Ms. Berthelot suggests asking your regular physician to speak with the doctor treating you in the hospital about why you need to be admitted, based on your medical condition and risk factors.
“It’s got to be a medical argument,” said Ms. Berthelot. “You can’t say, ‘Mom will need rehab after this,’ or ‘We can’t take her home because no one can stay with her.’”
If that doesn’t work, sometimes a strongly worded letter or call from a lawyer describing the patient’s medical needs can be effective.
In some cases, help from a professional can make a difference. Shari Polur, an elder-law attorney in Louisville, Ky., recently hired a geriatric care manager to persuade a local hospital to admit her client. Since admission status can change from one day to the next, the manager, who is also a registered nurse, called the hospital every morning to make sure the patient was still officially admitted until she could be transferred to a nursing home.
If the situation isn’t resolved while you’re in the hospital and you require follow-up care at a nursing home, you’ll have to pay the bill of often thousands of dollars up front. At that point, Ms. Berthelot suggests, you should file what amounts to a special doubled-barreled appeal with Medicare.
It’s not for the faint of heart: the process is long and arduous, and it requires beneficiaries to first receive and pay for the care — often an expensive proposition — before seeking reimbursement.
And the legal arguments can be tangled. The Medicare appeals processtypically addresses disputes over whether certain treatments or services rendered should have been covered. Observation patients have actually received hospital coverage and services a doctor says is medically necessary — so they don’t really have anything to appeal, said Marc Hartstein, director of Medicare’s hospital and ambulatory policy group, at a recent briefing in Washington.
“My limited understanding of this is that the patient cannot appeal a decision not to order or not to do something,” he said.
But observation patients may claim that they received treatment usually provided to admitted patients only in a hospital. Therefore, the hospital incorrectly billed Medicare for an outpatient service instead of for inpatient services. The patient should have been admitted and therefore qualifies for nursing home coverage.
“It’s absolutely confusing as heck,” said Michael Sgobbo, an elder law attorney in Charleston, S.C., who recently won an appeal on behalf of a 98-year-old woman who will be reclassified as an admitted patient. That means Medicare will pay her nursing home bill of nearly $10,000.
Lawyers at the Center for Medicare Advocacy recommend fighting observation care on two fronts.
First, follow the appeal instructions in the Medicare summary notice, a quarterly statement of services. Circle the charges on the statement from the hospital and explain that these items were inappropriately billed under Medicare’s Part B as outpatient services. They should have been billed under Medicare’s Part A for hospital services, because the patient received treatment that could only have been provided in a hospital. Mail the statement within 120 days (from the date on the statement) to the address provided for appeals.
Second, after challenging the hospital’s observation designation, file a separate appeal to seek reimbursement for the nursing home charges, said Ms. Berthelot. To begin, ask the nursing home to bill Medicare. You should receive a Medicare summary notice indicating that it did not pay the nursing home charges because the patient didn’t have the required three-day hospital stay. Circle those charges, and explain that the beneficiary was hospitalized for three days and received an inpatient level of care. Then send it within 120 days to the address provided for appeals.
Be prepared to dig in. If either appeal is denied, you must appeal again to the next level, following the instructions in the denial letters.
“Both appeals can take at least a year and are fraught with difficulty,” said Ms. Berthelot. “The reality is that most people can’t get through and those who do, get lucky.”
Some observation patients appeal and never get decisions, warned Diane Paulson, senior attorney at Greater Boston Legal Services. Some of her clients’ cases were dismissed because they were not admitted to the hospital — the very point they were challenging.
“You can’t appeal if you don’t have a denial,” she said. When that happens, the case falls into “a black hole.”
But the chances of winning improve as you continue to appeal, as Nancy and George Renshaw, of Bozrah, Conn., discovered. After spending nearly four years going through the process, a Medicare judge decided last February that Mr. Renshaw’s father should have been admitted to the hospital instead of classified as an observation patient. Medicare finally paid his nursing home bill, and in November the Renshaws received a refund of $4,410.
“I was shocked,” said Ms. Renshaw. “I never expected to see a penny of it.”

Observation Status in the News

 (click here to watch NBC Nightly News Video.) Advocate and send a message to Congress to count all time in the hospital towards the Medicare skilled nursing care requirements.

CMS Announces 123 New Accountable Care Organizations


Doctors, hospitals and other health care providers have formed 123 new Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) in Medicare, providing approximately 1.5 million more Medicare beneficiaries with access to high-quality coordinated care across the United States, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced.
Doctors, hospitals and health care providers establish ACOs in order to work together to provide higher-quality coordinated care to their patients, while helping to slow health care cost growth. Since passage of the Affordable Care Act, more than 360 ACOs have been established, serving over 5.3 million Americans with Medicare. Beneficiaries seeing health care providers in ACOs always have the freedom to choose doctors inside or outside of the ACO. ACOs share with Medicare any savings generated from lowering the growth in health care costs when they meet standards for high quality care.
The ACOs must meet quality standards to ensure that savings are achieved through improving care coordination and providing care that is appropriate, safe, and timely. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) evaluates ACO quality performance using 33 quality measures on patient and caregiver experience of care, care coordination and patient safety, appropriate use of preventive health services, and improved care for at-risk populations.
The new ACOs include a diverse cross-section of health care providers across the country, including providers delivering care in underserved areas. More than half of ACOs are physician-led organizations that serve fewer than 10,000 beneficiaries. Approximately 1 in 5 ACOs include community health centers, rural health clinics, and critical access hospitals that serve low-income and rural communities.
Affordable Care Act provisions have a substantial effect on reducing the growth rate of Medicare spending. Growth in Medicare spending per beneficiary hit historic lows during the 2010-2012 period, and this trend has continued into 2013. Projections by both the Office of the Actuary at CMS and the Congressional Budget Office estimate that Medicare spending per beneficiary will grow at approximately the rate of growth of the economy for the next decade, breaking a decades-old pattern of spending growth outstripping economic growth.
The next application period for organizations interested in participating in the Shared Savings Program beginning January 2015 will be in summer 2014.
More information about the Shared Savings Program, including previously announced ACOs, is available at: www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/sharedsavingsprogram/News.html.

CMS to Update Providers on National Partnership to Improve Dementia Care in Nursing Homes — Register Now

CMS to Update Providers on National Partnership to Improve Dementia Care in Nursing Homes — Register Now
Wednesday, February 26; 2-3:30pm ET
To Register: Visit MLN Connects™ Upcoming Calls. Space may be limited, register early.
The CMS National Partnership to Improve Dementia Care in Nursing Homes was developed to improve dementia care through the use of individualized, comprehensive care approaches. The partnership promotes a systematic process to evaluate each person and identify approaches that are most likely to benefit that individual. The goal of the partnership is to continue to reduce the use of unnecessary antipsychotic medications, as well as other potentially harmful medications in nursing homes and eventually other care settings as well.
During this MLN Connects Call, a CMS subject matter expert will discuss the critical role of both state and federal surveyors in the implementation of the partnership. Additional speakers will be presenting on the importance of leadership, as well as the strong correlation that exists between proper pain assessment and antipsychotic medication use. A question and answer session will follow the presentation.
Agenda:
  • Role of surveyors
  • Importance of leadership
  • Proper pain assessment
  • Next steps
Target Audience: Consumer and advocacy groups, nursing home providers, surveyor community, prescribers, professional associations, and other interested stakeholders.
Continuing education credit may be awarded for participation in certain MLN Connects Calls. Visit the Continuing Education Credit Information web page to learn more.

Thursday, January 16, 2014

New Change to Chapter 8 BPM

Transmittal # R179BP
Issue Date 2014-01-14

Subject Manual Updates to Clarify Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF), Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF), Home Health (HH), and Outpatient (OPT) Coverage Pursuant to Jimmo vs. Sebelius


Transmittal 176, dated December 13, 2013, is being rescinded and replaced by Transmittal 179, to correct an error in Chapter 8, Section 30.4.1.1. The revisions in Transmittal 176 incorrectly indicated that skilled physical therapy services in the skilled nursing facility (SNF) setting must "...require the skills of a qualified therapist (not an assistant) for the performance of a safe and effective maintenance program." The regulations under 409.32(a) and (b) do not specify that an assistant cannot perform maintenance services in the SNF setting, unlike the home health and outpatient regulations which do make that distinction. Therefore, this updated transmittal corrects that particular language to eliminate the phrase "(not an assistant)". All other information remains the same.

Implementation Date 2014-01-07
CR # 8458
Publication # 100-02
MM Article # MM8458
MM Article Release Date 2013-12-06
MM Article Revised Date 2014-01-15
Related CR Release Date 2014-01-14
Related CR Effective Date 2014-01-07

http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Transmittals/Downloads/R179BP.pdf


http://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNMattersArticles/Downloads/MM8458.pdf