Friday, January 17, 2014

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

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

MEDICARE POLICY MANUALS UPDATED TO CLARIFY SKILLED CARE FOR MAINTENANCE


I. SUMMARY OF CHANGES: In accordance with the Jimmo v. Sebelius Settlement Agreement, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has agreed to issue revised portions of the relevant chapters of the program manual used by Medicare contractors, in order to clarify that coverage of skilled nursing and skilled therapy services "...does not turn on the presence or absence of a beneficiary's potential for improvement, but rather on the beneficiary's need for skilled care." Skilled care may be necessary to improve a patient's current condition, to maintain the patient's current condition, or to prevent or slow further deterioration of the patient's condition.

The following are some significant aspects of the manual clarifications now being issued:
• No "Improvement Standard" is to be applied in determining Medicare coverage for maintenance claims that require skilled care. Medicare has long recognized that even in situations where no improvement is possible, skilled care may nevertheless be needed for maintenance purposes (i.e., to prevent or slow a decline in condition). The Medicare statute and regulations have never supported the imposition of an "Improvement Standard" rule-of-thumb in determining whether skilled care is required to prevent or slow deterioration in a patient's condition. Thus, such coverage depends not on the beneficiary's restoration potential, but on whether skilled care is required, along with the underlying reasonableness and necessity of the services themselves. The manual revisions now being issued will serve to reflect and articulate this basic principle more clearly.
• Enhanced guidance on appropriate documentation. Portions of the revised manual provisions now include additional material on the role of appropriate documentation in facilitating accurate coverage determinations for claims involving skilled care. While the presence of appropriate documentation is not, in and of itself, an element of the definition of a "skilled" service, such documentation serves as the means by which a provider would be able to establish and a Medicare contractor would be able to confirm that skilled care is, in fact, needed and received in a given case. Thus, though the Jimmo settlement does not explicitly reference documentation requirements, CMS has nevertheless decided to use this opportunity to introduce additional guidance in this area, both generally and as it relates to particular clinical scenarios. An example of this material appears in new section 30.2.2.1 of the revised chapter 8, in the guidelines for SNF coverage under Part A.
• The Settlement Agreement. The Jimmo v. Sebelius settlement agreement itself includes language specifying that "Nothing in this Settlement Agreement modifies, contracts, or expands the existing eligibility requirements for receiving Medicare coverage." Rather, the intent is to clarify Medicare's longstanding policy that when skilled services are required in order to provide care that is reasonable and necessary to prevent or slow further deterioration, coverage cannot be denied based on the absence of potential for improvement or restoration. By contrast, coverage in this context would not be available in a situation where the beneficiary's maintenance care needs can be addressed safely and effectively through the use of nonskilled personnel. As such, the revised manual material now being issued does not represent an expansion of coverage, but rather, provides clarifications that are intended to help ensure that claims are adjudicated accurately and appropriately in accordance with the existing policy.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 7, 2014

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Largest SNF settlement to date: unnecessary rehab therapy services - $48 million

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Nursing Home Operator to Pay $48 Million to Resolve Allegations That Six California Facilities Billed for Unnecessary Therapy
The Ensign Group Inc., a skilled nursing provider based in Mission Viejo, Calif., that operates nursing homes across the western U.S. has agreed to pay $48 million to resolve allegations that it knowingly submitted to Medicare false claims for medically unnecessary rehabilitation therapy services, the Justice Department announced today. Six of Ensign's skilled nursing facilities in California allegedly submitted the false claims: Atlantic Memorial Healthcare Center, located in Long Beach; Panorama Gardens, located in Panorama City; The Orchard Post-Acute Care (a.k.a. Royal Court), located in Whittier; Sea Cliff Healthcare Center, located in Huntington Beach; Southland, located in Norwalk; and Victoria Care Center, located in Ventura.

"Skilled nursing facilities that place their own financial interests above the needs of their patients 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 January 1, 1999, and August 31, 2011, these six Ensign skilled nursing facilities allegedly submitted false claims to the government for physical, occupational and speech therapy services provided to Medicare beneficiaries that were not medically necessary. Specifically, Ensign provided therapy to patients whose conditions and diagnoses did not warrant it, solely to increase its reimbursement from Medicare. The government further alleged that Ensign created a corporate culture that 
improperly incentivized therapists and others to increase the amount of therapy provided to patients to meet planned targets for Medicare revenue. These targets were set without regard to patients' individual therapy needs and could only be achieved by billing at the highest reimbursement levels. The government also alleged that Ensign billed for inflated amounts of therapy it had not provided and that certain patients were kept in these facilities for periods of time exceeding what was medically necessary for treatment of their conditions.

"The case against The Ensign Group involves a company that regularly bilked Medicare by submitting inflated bills that, in some cases, sought money for services that simply were never provided to patients," said U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California André Birotte Jr. "This settlement - one of the largest Medicare fraud cases against a nursing home chain in U.S. history - demonstrates our commitment to protecting taxpayers who fund important programs that benefit millions of Americans, but don't want to see their hard-earned money wasted on fraud or abuse."

In addition to paying the settlement amount, Ensign also agreed that each of its skilled nursing facilities across the nation would be bound by the terms of a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG).

"Billing Medicare for costly, unnecessary skilled nursing services -- as the government alleged here -- inflates health care costs borne by taxpayers," said Special Agent in Charge for the Los Angeles Region of the HHS-OIG Glenn R. Ferry. "This settlement again puts on notice those who would consider defrauding federally funded 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 Health and Human Services Secretary 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 $16.7 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $11.9 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.


The allegations settled today arose from lawsuits filed by two former Ensign therapists under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, which allow private citizens to bring suit on behalf of the government and to share in any recovery. The dollar amount that the whistleblowers in this case, Gloria Patterson and Carol Sanchez, will receive has not been determined. The lawsuits are captioned as United States of America ex rel. Gloria Patterson v. Ensign Group Inc.,Case No. SACV 06-6956 CJC (ANx) (C.D. Calif.) and United States of America ex rel. Carol Sanchez v. Ensign Group Inc., Case No. SACV 06-0643 CJC (ANx) (C.D. Calif.).


The case was handled by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California, with assistance from the Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice 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, which 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 claims settled by this agreement are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability.