SNFs Get Ready – Claims Audits Start Soon!
Recently, CMS announced that its Medicare Audit Contractors (MACS) would soon commence (June 5) a five-claim audit process for every nursing home in the nation participating in the Medicare program. The reviews are set to occur on a rolling basis whereby each MAC in its region, will begin by pulling five Medicare claims from each provider in their region, assessing the claims for billing errors. The genesis of this program is a Health and Human Services report that noted that (approximately) one-fourth of all SNF claims were improper as supported by documentation. In CMS language improper means overbilling vs. underbilling.
The goal of the claims review program is purportedly a combination of recoupment when payment is too high combined with education. It is likely that providers with prior bad history of ADR (Additional Documentation Requests) or probes, if their performance on this review is poor, will receive additional follow-up attention. The claim reviews are pre-payment vs. post-payment.
From the Medicare FFS (Fee for Service) Improper Payment Report (all provider types) for 2022, I included two pages with data, illustrative of the SNF improper payment issue and the reasons why. The pages are located here:2022 Improper Payment Report – SNF The most common cause of impropriety was insufficient documentation. Some of this continues to relate to PDPM as SNFs in many regards, lag in terms of MDS coding knowledge and billing education. COVID did not help. Other issues are as simple as improper certification times, illegible signatures, improper Section GG (therapy coding) and improper diagnosis codes. Per CMS, the improper payment amount for 2022 is estimated to be $5.8 billion.
My caution here for all post-acute providers but especially for SNFs and Home Health Agencies, claims audits are here to stay. According to Altarum’s Health Economic Sector Index, SNFs spending increased 11.6% YoY (March) and Home Health spending increased 8.7%. Outlays, within programs with known billing impropriety issues, beget claims reviews. The full Altarum brief is here: https://altarum.org/publications/may-2023-health-sector-economic-indicators-briefs
As I have written before, compliance is a fairly new requirement for SNFs. Within the ethics and compliance Condition of Participation found at 483.85 (F- 895) SNFs must, among a number of requirements, implement a system (reasonable with policies and procedures) to find and correct, improper billing practices such that the same, could be fraudulent or could be in violation of federal law. The last element, violation of federal law is tricky. It is against the law to bill Medicare for care that is rendered improperly or is sub-standard. Technically, care provided to a resident, billed to Medicare, later determined to be harmful via a survey (G level violation or worse) is a violation of federal law. A decent overview of the compliance requirement is available here ComplianceandEthics 483.85
Essentially, post-acute care providers, particularly HHAs and SNFs need to develop a comprehensive ethics and compliance program that INCLUDES regular claim audits. The difficulty, however, is for the audits to be useful and proper, the same should be conducted by an independent auditor. This can be costly and often, non-helpful when the auditor is not uniquely familiar to normal provider operations and typical survey and certification processes. The goal of the audit process is detection and then, education. Incorporated properly within a well-developed ethics and compliance framework, the audits can be completed efficiently and wrapped within a proper QAPI (Quality Assurance) function. Done right, the ethics and compliance program dovetails into a QAPI program and vice-versa. This reduces separate work, enhances process improvement, focuses on resident/patient care and how the same is effectively provided, properly documented, and properly billed. Watch this site for more on this topic and for additional tools that I have developed and effectively used with H2 Healthcare clients.
A bit of travel awaits so I will not offer new posts/updates until next week. Until then, Vaya con Dios!
Home Health and Assisted Living: Compliance and Litigation Tips to Note
A growth, if you will, opportunity for many Assisted Living facilities is caring for a more clinically complex resident or resident group. The clinical complexity is very much tied to additional medical and physical frailty, necessitating access at times to skilled nursing and therapies. Most Assisted Living facilities, especially those not affiliated with a national or regional organization with infrastructure services such as therapies, seek services from Home Health Agencies when required. In this manner, the Assisted Living core staff are for resident ADL needs and care primarily, and the intermittent skilled needs of certain nursing interventions and therapies (OT, PT, etc.) are provided by the Home Health Agency.
What occurs when an Assisted Living and a Home Health Agency work collaboratively to serve certain residents with skilled needs, is a bifurcated relationship where roles and responsibilities for resident care and service can get murky. Briefly, here are the two organizational duties for resident care.
Assisted Living Facility:
-
- Room and Board accommodations including (typically) common areas, dining/meals, some level of furnishings, utilities, access/egress, outside areas, etc.
- Staff supervision of residents in general and the facility including maintenance and cleaning of the environment
- Resident assistance or direct provision of ADL cares such as dressing, toileting, bathing, mobility/transferring, eating but not generally, feeding assistance.
- Social activities for residents and certain social services.
- Medication management and administration. Facility may/may not accommodate medication ordering via a pharmacy relationship.
- Other services such as religion/pastoral care, beauty/barber, transportation, dietetics, physician, banking, etc. may/may not be available.
Home Health Agency:
-
- Physical, Occupational, and/or Speech Therapy as assessed by need and as ordered by a physician.
- Skilled nursing services if required, as assessed by need and as order by a physician. These services typically include education, various wound treatments, complex catheter care, IV services, ostomy care, pain management, etc.
- Services are provided as needed by the resident.
- The Agency must provide training/education to the Assisted Living Facility staff regarding the skilled services/care it is providing.
- The Agency is responsible for care coordination between the two organizations such that, its orders and services are reflected as required by law, in the resident Service/Care Plan.
- The Home Health Agency is also responsible for billing insurance or Medicare and for keeping its own medical record.
- The Agency is responsible for patient supplies as the same pertain to their provision of skilled services.
- The Agency is responsible for maintaining compliance with Medicare Conditions of Participation and it cannot delegate any related tasks or duties to the Assisted Living unless permitted by regulation. Examples include obtaining orders for care, updating physicians as needed, documenting service provision, reconciliation of medications, etc.
Think of the relationship this way. The Assisted Living serves as the resident/patient’s home. This is no different than if the resident/patient lived in the community, in their own residence. One could easily create the relationship via a mental picture of the Assisted Living staff as familial caregivers.
The Home Health Agency’s relationship is then, no different than if the patient resided in their own home. The Agency must assess, develop a plan of care, coordinate visit schedules, document the care, share info. with the patient and the family (Assisted Living staff), and when appropriate, discharge plan and coordinate care for any additional services.
The compliance and litigation perils occur when the relationships between the two become blurry or, when either entity fails to properly meet its separate obligations. Here are the common risks that I routinely see/encounter.
- The Home Health Agency fails to incorporate the Assisted Living in its plan of care and to educate the Assisted Living of the same, especially if follow-through is required on ADL education or support.
- The Assisted Living fails to update its Service Plan for Home Health services, as required. The biggest error I see here is typically with regard to therapy services and the introduction of any new devices (e.g., walkers, canes, support bars, adaptive equipment).
- The Home Health Agency delegates physician and family contact to the Assisted Living for Home Health related service needs.
- The Assisted Living fails to notify the Home Health agency of changes in resident care, conditions, etc. such as noticing a change in skin condition, a change in a medication order unrelated to the Agency’s skilled services.
- The Home Health Agency fails to coordinate care via discharge planning, even though the resident will remain at the Facility.
- The Home Health Agency does not do med reconciliation on each visit, believing that the Facility should update the Agency with any new medications or order changes.
- The Agency is not responsive on a timely basis to resident condition changes including, hospitalizations. The Agency must be on-call and connected to resident condition changes, documenting and addressed service/care plan updates as required, especially post-hospitalization.
The risks associated with caring for a more complex resident/patient in an Assisted Living environment when Home Health services are initiated are many, as indicated above. I suggest Assisted Living Facilities try to coordinate their Home Health offerings, where possible, with a few or even, one agency. With good collaboration between providers, the risks can be minimized. In any regard, both providers need to understand their roles in resident care and make sure, staff are well-versed in their respective responsibilities. I advocate tools/cheat sheets if you will, especially for AL staff, delineating “who does what” and where, resources can be sourced if need be.
Senior Housing/Post-Acute Insurance Update
With so much going on in the industry post-COVID, challenging labor markets, rising interest rate costs, high inflation, and supply chain issues still somewhat bothersome, insurers are rightfully skittish about senior housing and the post-acute environment. Of course, good provides with solid track records, high quality records, low to no recent claims, and evidence of financial stability will achieve continued coverage, at the best rates. This said, rates are trending up and even the best providers will experience the industry drag effects that afflict all, some more and some less.
As I’ve written before, litigation is still a big issue and growing. Drivers include staffing shortages, COVID policies that caused isolation and physical/social decline, state laws without liability caps, and a generalized negative view of certain provider segments (e.g., SNFs). Three recent posts address some of these issues: https://wp.me/ptUlY-sg , https://wp.me/ptUlY-sp , https://wp.me/ptUlY-sC .
One developing trend has major forward ramification for liability coverage and worker’s compensation coverage – COVID litigation. A California Supreme Court case argued this week centers on “COVID take-home liability”. Formally, the case is Kuciemba, et.al., v. Victory Woodworks. It centers on the question of whether a spouse that is thought to have acquired COVID at work and subsequently, infected a family member at home, can sue his/her employer. The essential point is whether an employer (under California law) has the duty to exercise extraordinary care to prevent the spread of COVID. If the petitioner succeeds, the door is wide-open for extensive litigation, especially for SNFs, hospitals, and other healthcare settings where COVID outbreaks were prevalent, and staff infections, equally prevalent. The issue will no doubt hinge on the ability to prevent the spread of highly contagious, aerosolized viruses and the ability to detect where and when, the infection occurred. Studies of contact tracing during COVID illustrate the difficulty of identifying sources of COVID. More on this case is here: https://www.mcknights.com/news/employer-protections-in-spotlight-as-court-considers-take-home-covid-liability/
We are currently seeing a widening bifurcation of the industry segments between good performers and facilities/organizations that are more challenged. We are also seeing insurers becoming a bit more leery of location risks within states with litigious history and limited tort reform laws (e.g., California, New Jersey, New York). Greater focus is being placed on risk mitigation programs and compliance programs, so much so that providers without these programs are finding themselves in difficult positions when it comes to renewals (pricing and competition). The big watch of course is as identified in the prior paragraph, COVID litigation and litigation in general.
Below is the generalized trends for renewals, in the senior housing/post-acute industries. The data comes from WTW – Williams Tower Watson.
- General and Professional Liability: Flat to 15% for providers with good history/performance. Higher for poor performers and/or poor venues/locations.
- Property Insurance with high, stable census: Plus 10% to 20%.
- Property with challenged occupancy: Plus 25% to 40%.
- Worker’s Comp: Minus 5% to plus 2%.
- Auto: Plus 5% to 10%.
The challenges on the property side are driven by a number of factors. Recent hurricane losses and winter storm losses hit providers hard though, the driver is more about restoration costs and valuation difference than the actual loss numbers. Loss numbers are on a bit of an upward cycle but the economic conditions of tight supply chains (replacement building supplies), labor cost and shortages in construction trades, and the cost of money/capital are the primary contributing cost drivers. Insurers are wary that valuations are perhaps, significantly understated today and as such, policies are being written with higher retention levels and reduced overall limits to mitigate, valuation (understatement) risks.
Looking forward, I believe more of the same increase trend is on the horizon. It appears that we will begin to see some softer property renewals going forward as valuation risks abate and repair/replacement costs ameliorate. If a recession occurs in the latter half of the year and into 2024, supply costs will reduce even greater and labor costs, the same. The bigger horizon risk remains on the liability side and perhaps worker’s compensation due to COVID litigation. What happens in California will no doubt, have an impact nationwide. Some states and locales are reasonably well positioned with tort reforms in-place while others, are not, To date, absence precedent, COVID related litigation in the future, is unknown and unknowable.
May 11 and PHE: Provider Alert
On May 11, the COVID Public Health Emergency (PHE) is set to end and along with it, a whole slew of requirements end or change, and regulatory waivers applicable to the Public Health Emergency, the same (ending). The end of the PHE will have positive and negative impacts on providers of all types though some things that were applicable during the PHE will continue via CMS rulemaking (tele-health provisions for example). One of the most negative impacts of regulatory waivers ending is the return of the three-overnight rule (3 day stay) for patients entering an SNF and potentially, receiving Medicare coverage for their qualifying stay. I wrote a post on this waiver change here: https://wp.me/ptUlY-w5
Among the most notable changes that will occur for providers with the end of the PHE are the requirements around masking, testing, and vaccination mandates for staff. Each of these conditions are effectively, eliminated with the expiration of the PHE. While other countries across the world have eliminated all or most of their pandemic restrictions/requirements over the past year, the U.S. and its health system have been slow to relax requirements with the Biden Administration extending the emergency up until May 11. Similarly, the emergency patchwork has followed through to states, some long ago abandoning masking requirements, vaccination mandates, testing, etc. What has been confounding is the myriad of rule interpretations and requirements that varied from municipalities to counties, to states, and ultimately, to the Federal government. For Medicare/Medicaid providers, Federal requirements superseded all other provisions in any other jurisdiction.
Within the Public Health Emergency period, even providers not participating in Medicare or Medicaid were impacted by the Federal policies. Many states chose to follow the Federal PHE provisions, layering the same over providers within the senior housing industry (aka Assisted Living and some CCRC/Independent Living under state law). Illinois is an example. In contrast, other states chose to ignore the Federal PHE provisions when not applicable to providers such as hospitals, nursing homes, home health, etc. Iowa, Florida, Texas are examples of states that early-on in the pandemic created rules or as in the case of Iowa, passed legislation prohibiting vaccine or mask mandates within state control.
Come May 11, confusion will no doubt remain prominent on COVID infection control/public health requirements. For example, the only updated CDC guidance on masking requirements dates back to September of 2022. In this guidance, the recommendation for masking requirements for visitors, patients, and staff is conditioned on a CDC tracking mechanism for the level of community concentration of COVID infection. Reporting from health departments, hospitals, SNFs, etc., fed this mechanism. Masking recommendations were tied to this level (high recommending masking vs. low, recommending optional masking). COVID testing requirements were also tied to this measure.
Effective with the end of the PHE, CDC has indicated that it would no longer report on the level of community infection/transmission. The PHE has deferred consistently to various agency recommendations for requirements and then subsequently, enforcement as needed. Clearly, we will see extensive confusion unless the CDC issues new guidance clearing up, the masking requirements tied to community COVID prevalence. I’ve watched many providers already move to a “no mask required” status, regardless of updated guidance. I’ve also watched many providers stuck and confused by virtue of state requirements vs. CDC requirements vs. where the community COVID prevalence really was in their area. The CDC guidance for long-term care (fundamentally the same for hospitals) is here: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-recommendations.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fhcp%2Fnursing-home-long-term-care.html
I’ve seen some news coverage/reporting on the end of the Public Health Emergency, but it is very spotty. I also know by virtue of travel, etc., the awareness of COVID among providers and the community is varied. As I routinely traverse Illinois, Wisconsin, and Iowa, I see wide differences in COVID precautions, alerts, monitoring, requirements being applied, etc. Some of this due to region and state policy and some of it is due to provider behavior. Iowa as I mentioned, long ago took a stance against most PHE COVID related mandates and recommendations whereas Illinois, has followed the PHE Federal recommendations consistently. Iowa hospitals required to follow CMS COVID regulations, maintained vaccination and masking conditions though recently, I have seen most hospitals end masking requirements.
For providers, May 11 is very near. I suggest providers adopt the following strategies realizing, come May 11, regulatory confusion will likely remain.
- Update internal infection control policies regarding vaccination, testing, masking to conform to the changes that will occur with the end of the PHE.
- Communicate these changes to staff ASAP.
- Communicate these changes to patients and families, ASAP. Remember, the end of a mandate does not mean a change in behavior. It may be that staff will want to maintain their masks in some cases and patients/families the same. Allow for flexibility.
- State agencies that are required to survey and enforce compliance may also be slow to adopt. Trade associations are your best bet to help with regulatory transition. Recognize, state agency behavior will not adjust in some cases, as quickly as provider behavior.
- Conduct ongoing public communication via your website, via newsletters, etc. One and done won’t work.
- Definitely, DON’T, follow a path of resisting the end of the PHE and its requirements. I’ve watched provider sometimes, fail to adjust and in this failure, more problems occurred. I know the old “an ounce of prevention” thinking may still apply when it comes to vaccines or masking but be careful. If the regulation is not there, a forced or strongly urged condition, can lead to regulatory problems, labor law problems, community relations problems, and potentially, litigation.
Medicare Advantage/Part D Final Rule
Early in April, CMS released the 2024 Medicare Advantage/Part D Final Rule and within, there are a number of interesting policy shifts that could benefit providers. The rule addresses a common practice that has been frankly, often abused by Med Advantage plans – prior authorizations or more commonly known as, “prior auths”. The crux is authorization provisions created delays in care and sometimes, denials for services that the patient and/or his/her physician believes are medically necessary. The SNF industry has most often been on the denial side of prior authorization requirements, either for the whole stay (initial transfer) or for a requested longer stay. The fact sheet for the final rule is here: https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/2024-medicare-advantage-and-part-d-final-rule-cms-4201-f
With respect to prior authorizations, the rule seeks to make their use more connected to national coverage determinations (NCDs) and local coverage determinations (LCD), common to traditional Medicare. Back in April of 2022, the HHS Inspector General issued a report that included findings of Med Advantage plans use of authorization provisions to issue fairly widespread denials for various care and services. The denials either bar access to care for the patient or in some cases, deny payment to the provider for care and services rendered, subsequently determined by the Med Advantage plan to be “not medically necessary”.
The study noted that the Med Advantage plans were using medical criteria more restrictive than criteria under traditional Medicare (the national or local coverage determinations). Among cases reviewed, 13% of the Med Advantage denials were for care or services that would be covered under traditional Medicare. Other denials were technical in nature whereby the Med Advantage plan denied an authorization as insufficient in documentation yet, the patient medical record contained sufficient documentation of the medical need. In the cases of payment denials, while the payment requests were proper in terms of meeting Medicare criteria, the denials that did occur were due to processing or human claim review error. At a rate of 18%, this is a bit alarming as Medicare fee-for-service claims, properly billed, don’t have such an error rate. The OIG report is here: https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/OEI-09-18-00260.asp
Another target within the rule with respect to Medicare Advantage plans has to do with marketing practices. The plans have become popular such that today, 45 % of all Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Med Advantage plans. Medicare anticipates this number to rise to 50% by 2025. Apparently, those annoying generic television ads promoting various Medicare Advantage plan features, some featuring celebrities like JJ Walker and Joe Namath, have gotten notice in Washington. No longer will that style of ad be permitted instead, requiring a specific plan to be identified and each ad, to eliminate images and language that is confusing or misleading (not sure how that will be monitored).
Another change or improvement relates to behavioral health access and coverage criteria. CMS is finalizing a new set of rules requiring Medicare Advantage plans to: “(1) add Clinical Psychologists and Licensed Clinical Social Workers as specialty types for which we set network standards, and make these types eligible for the 10-percentage point telehealth credit; (2) amend general access to services standards to include explicitly behavioral health services; (3) codify standards for appointment wait times for primary care and behavioral health services; (4) clarify that emergency behavioral health services must not be subject to prior authorization; (5) require that MA organizations notify enrollees when the enrollee’s behavioral health or primary care provider(s) are dropped midyear from networks; and (6) require MA organizations to establish care coordination programs, including coordination of community, social, and behavioral health services to help move towards parity between behavioral health and physical health services and advance whole-person care.”
I’m encouraging providers to read the rule’s fact sheet. Medicare Advantage providers will not simply or quickly, make wholesale adjustments to their existing practices because of this rule. Additionally, providers should always be aware of National and Local Coverage Determinations and use the same, as a “road map” for dealing with Med Advantage coverage and authorization issues. Providers will need to push the plans to make proper adjustments accordingly and to protect and advocate, for their patients. It will take time for the Med Advantage industry to adjust but, movement will happen quicker if providers hold the plans accountable.
SNFs: 3 Overnight Stay Requirement Returning
As the Public Health Emergency (COVID) ends, healthcare providers will revisit pre-pandemic policies as a slew of waivers expire. One waiver particularly impactful to hospitals and SNFs is the requirement of a 3 Overnight (3 Day Stay) for a patient to receive Part A Medicare benefits in a SNF. Recall, the rule pre-pandemic was that a person had to be admitted to an acute hospital with a stay of at least 3 overnights in the hospital prior to discharge to a SNF, in order to qualify for Medicare coverage applicable to the SNF stay. One little wrinkle, rarely experienced, is that the discharge could be to another location within a thirty-day window of the patient entering the SNF, and the patient still could qualify for Medicare benefits in the SNF. In other words, the patient could be sent home, and for whatever reason, subsequently enter the SNF within 30 days of the hospital discharge and still be eligible for Medicare SNF benefits.
While there has been support for the waiver of this requirement to remain via a continued policy change from CMS, it is now apparent that CMS will reinstitute the 3 overnight rule. The primary impetus for this? Of course, cost control. A study from the AMA, appearing in the JAMA Internal Medicine publication (released on Monday 4/24) basically provides CMS with its positional defense. The study is here for anyone interested: jamainternal_ulyte_2023_oi_230019_1681999138.05344
The study analyzed MDS data for patients admitted to a SNF between January 2018 and February 2020 (pre-pandemic) compared to admissions between March 2020 and September 2021 (pandemic period). During the pre- pandemic period, there were 130,400 care episodes per month, 59% of which were female. During the pandemic period, there were 108,575 episodes, again 59% were female. Per the study: “All waiver episodes increased from 6% to 32%, and waiver episodes without preceding acute care increased from 3% to 18% (from 4% to 49% among LTC residents). Skilled nursing facility episodes provided for LTC residents increased by 77% (from 15 538 to
27 537 monthly episodes), primarily due to waiver episodes provided for residents with
COVID-19 in 2020 and early 2021 (62% of waiver episodes without preceding acute care).”
What was interesting to me is where the predominant utilization of the waiver for non-prior hospitalized patients occurred. Per the study, the 80% v. 68% of the LTC waivers (non-prior hospitalized) were for-profit facilities. These facilities had lower overall star ratings on average with the for-profit average at 2.7 stars v. the non-profit average rating of 3.2 stars. The same kind of variance was found looking at the staffing star ratings – 2.5 v. 3.0. Skilled admission spending was $2.1 billion prior to the pandemic and $2.0 billion during but a big jump in LTC (Medicare covered) occurred from $301 million to $585 million. Hospital spending remained relatively unchanged, despite lower overall patient volumes (COVID incentive payments making up outlay differences).
Here is the key takeaway from the study:
Key Points
Question: Did skilled nursing facility (SNF) care volume and
characteristics change when the public health emergency (PHE)
waiver for 3-day qualifying hospitalization was introduced in March 2020?
Findings: In this cohort study of SNF care provided for 4 299 863
Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries from January 2018 to
September 2021, waiver episodes without preceding acute care increased from 3% to 18% during the PHE in 2020 to 2021. Among long-term care residents, such waiver episodes increased from 4%
to 49%, with 62% of episodes provided for residents with COVID-19.
Meaning: This study found that the use of SNF care for long-term
care beneficiaries without a preceding qualifying hospitalization
increased markedly during the PHE, primarily for care for patients with COVID-19.
So SNFs will return to a pre-pandemic point where coverage for SNF skilled services under Medicare will require a 3 overnight hospital stay as the Public Health Emergency ends. The study cites cost as the main driver, but I also believe, that cost on an escalatory basis is more the concern. As the pandemic has ended and hospital volumes are normalizing, we’ve seen SNF referrals increase. I noted this trend in a post on Monday…link is here: https://wp.me/ptUlY-vL What this means is that a shift toward more expensive post-acute care is happening and may be more longer-term in trend than not. In other words, while a bias toward discharge to home health was prevailing pre-pandemic, the factors of reimbursement policy, staffing dynamics, and increasing patient acuity on discharge have moved the needle (so to speak) toward SNF discharge. Staffing is of course, the main driver.
What does this mean for hospitals, if anything? Maybe a bit of shift in consciousness about length of stay, inpatient admission, and discharge planning will occur. The growing use of observation stays vs. inpatient admits was always a sore spot for SNFs and patients and families. I saw lots of confusion a few years ago among SNFs and, then unfortunately families, when a patient arrived for admission and lo and behold, the majority of the stay was classified as observation vs. an inpatient admission, not meeting the 3-day inpatient admission requirement.
Medicare Advantage plans will also need to rethink some approaches in their care coordination. While the preference may be a discharge to home health, admission acceptance is still on the lower side (lots of rejections). it may just require a shift in focus from Med Advantage plans toward better coordinated SNF stays.
For SNFs, the loss will be felt among facilities that were able to “skill” typically, long-term care Medicaid patients. The missing revenue will be felt without a counterbalance pick-up readily available. For good performing SNFs that have focused on building strong value propositions and positioned themselves well for value-based care, options are plentiful, but they had been prior to the pandemic. Staffing remains the challenge. My advice for these folk? Get your care pathways together and your algorithms and be efficient in cost and length of stay. Use your data to drive partnership referral bases with hospitals and in particular, Med Advantage plans. Now is a good time to take advantage of the shifting policy dynamics.
Friday Feature: The Supreme Court and Medicaid Beneficiary Rights to Sue
TGIF! In a little known but important case argued in November of 2022, the family of a Medicaid nursing home resident in Indiana began a suit against a publicly owned nursing home (originally 2016), Valparaiso Care and Rehabilitation. The nursing home is operated by the Health and Hospital Corp. of Marion County. The corporation’s board is appointed by the mayor of Indianapolis and the Marion County Commission and city council. A ruling is expected from the Court soon.
The Talevski family sued the Health and Hospital Corp. after their father was denied readmission to the facility, alleging he was cared for by Valparaiso and other facilities, negligently. He passed away due to complications from dementia but during his initial stay and subsequent travels among nursing homes, the family argued that he was excessively drugged – six psychotropics. The nursing home claimed that the elderly gentlemen became violent, sexually aggressive, necessitating a transfer to another facility more capable of caring for him. The other facility was an hour away from the family. The family said the facility tried to transfer him to another facility even farther away – 2 plus hours. The facility, Valparaiso, refused to take him back.
After the facility refused to accept the readmission, the family sued. One of the daughters is an attorney. The basis of the suit against the Health and Hospital Corp. is that the extensive use of medication, unwarranted and against federal law (SNF Conditions of Participation), and his unauthorized transfers against his rights, violated his rights under federal law. This law, the Federal Conditions of Participation for SNFs, regulates care provided to Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries. The suit alleges that it is fundamentally illegal to harm patients, provide substandard care, and received Medicaid reimbursement. The suit seeks redress for the rights violations against the County.
At issue is whether a beneficiary can sue a governmental entity for breaches of rights under a federal program or denial of benefits under a federal program such as Medicaid. The argument against the suit is that programs like Medicaid are a joint federal-state funding contract and as such, beneficiaries don’t have the right to sue based solely on this relationship. The question thus is, can individuals interfere with or become a party to, a contractual relationship between the state and federal government?
The implications of this suit are enormous for seniors in the Medicaid program and for providers that care for Medicaid beneficiaries. For beneficiaries, the risk of loss in this case is that they would not be able to sue a government or governmental agency for things as simple as a denial of benefits, even if they are eligible under Medicaid criteria. Administrative procedure may be the only method for addressing complaints or benefit issues.
Providers and governments take the opposite approach indicating that a codification of a right of a beneficiary to sue could create havoc for key programs such as Medicaid waiver (home, community-based services) programs, PACE, Special Needs Plans, etc. They say that lawsuits don’t create a remedy but do ultimately, push unnecessary litigation costs and damage claims into the program such that funding elements would be harmed.
Court watchers see parallels with a decision and the recent Dobbs abortion ruling – a question of rights and access to certain care and services. Some believe the Court may attempt to place limits around certain beneficiaries and litigation such as the ability to sue nursing homes using provisions in the Federal Conditions of Participation as a basis; a patient/resident rights violation. The thought here is that rule enforcement or rule violations when not enforced or addressed, is a regulatory function. There is no likelihood that the Court would speak to any issue of harm due to poor care which, is a different matter and not part of this suit directly.
I’m fascinated by this case as there is so much at stake for Medicaid beneficiaries and providers in the Medicaid program. Its nuances and challenges are many. It is a poster case, in my opinion, for the overall argument that these programs, Medicaid and Medicare, have become too bureaucratic, over-regulated, and incapable of truly supporting and addressing, the real needs of their beneficiaries.
A good synopsis of the case and the issues is here: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/11/28/supreme-court-case-could-curtail-rights-of-medicaid-patients
Executive Order – Staffing and Medicare Implications Update
Yesterday I wrote a post regarding a significant (and large) Executive Order coming via the Biden Administration concerning long-term care, child care, staffing in nursing homes, expanded supports under Medicaid for long-term care and childcare, etc. The post is here: https://wp.me/ptUlY-uM . While I have yet to obtain the text of the order, I have watched and read various reports on the Order, the most direct being the White House Press Release on the order. It is here, in case anyone is interested: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/04/18/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-most-sweeping-set-of-executive-actions-to-improve-care-in-history/
What fascinates me about Biden’s Executive Order is how disconnected from reality it truly is. For example, it comes with no projected additional funding. Biden claims no additional money is needed; in fact, his quote is: “The executive order doesn’t require any new spending. It’s about making sure taxpayers will get the best value for the investments they’ve already made.” I for one would argue that he is half-right as there is ample money in Medicare and Medicaid to improve direct care reimbursement for staff wages, etc. The problem, however, is that both programs are so bureaucratically mired in politics and regulatory agenda that money is misallocated. Unless both programs undergo significant reform, the reality is, additional funding is necessary to improve access and staffing.
The other major disconnect Biden/Washington has is at the provider level, community level. I’ve written about this disconnect before. Mandates don’t make reality change. There simply are not enough staff (supply) to meet demand. If increased access is desired, mandates that are anathema to more provider capacity, are a drag to progress. In other words, more access can only be achieved by creating more staff to care for people yet, the Executive Order offers no incentive or policy initiative to increase supply (nurses, nursing assistants, etc.). Further, penalizing providers by reducing reimbursement for turnover when most turnover is out of their control, will further worsen the staffing crisis. I’m truly perplexed at this Order and the logic (if any) behind it.
Below is an excerpt from a statement issued by LeadingAge’s CEO, Katie Smith Sloan, on the Executive Order. I think this sums up the industry view fairly well.
“LeadingAge has long advocated for an all-of-government approach to ensuring greater access to aging services—and addressing the workforce crisis must be the top priority. Today’s announcement shows that the Biden White House has been listening—but, sadly, the order does not meet the ever-growing needs of America’s older adults and families.
- The focus on home and community-based services is too limited and must extend beyond care in the home to address the breadth of the aging care continuum. It doesn’t provide support for other care settings like adult day programs, assisted living, hospice and more, on which millions of older adults and families rely.
- What’s worse, the administration’s approach favors one part of the continuum over another. The order bolsters the home care workforce, while punishing nursing home providers for shortages—despite the reality that employers in both care settings navigate the same challenges in a competitive labor market.
- The administration is still getting it wrong on nursing homes. Over a million older adults rely on the specialized care only nursing homes provide. Already, nursing homes around the country are closing or limiting admissions due to staffing shortages. Why take that option away from the people who need it by implementing punitive policies that potentially worsen, rather than remedy, the ongoing staffing crisis? We are particularly concerned by the threat of withholding Medicare payment if providers don’t have workers – when workers simply don’t exist.
Without staff there is no care. We still desperately need to remedy the severe workforce crisis in long-term care. In addition to increasing reimbursement and wages, the country must address immigration to build a pipeline of new workers through proven programs and pathways for those ready and willing to work in our field”.
Staffing and Turnover: Medicare Payment Implications?
This morning, I caught some reporting on the Biden Administration’s plan to issue an executive order, a rather large order, that will include several provisions related to jobs and long-term care. Recall in recent articles on staffing on this site, I’ve noted that the Biden Administration and CMS are working on promulgating rules under Medicare for required direct care staffing levels in SNFs and ultimately, tying these levels and turnover to Medicare payment in some regard. This is an off-shoot or addition to other non-staffing related VBP (Value Based Purchasing) elements already in-place or soon to be added. See my post here on the recently released SNF Proposed 2024 rule: https://wp.me/ptUlY-tj
The order is expected to include direction to DHHS (Dept. of Health) to adopt a series of rules that add to minimum/mandatory staffing levels for SNFs (these levels yet unknown) and to condition some elements of Medicare reimbursement to staff turnover at the SNF. The expectation remains that DHHS and CMS release the proposed staffing rule yet this year (some say spring, but I doubt that timing).
Also within the order is a directive to cabinet level agencies (e.g., Interior, Commerce, Energy, Education, etc.) to expand access to long-term care and childcare and, provide financial support to workers for these services. The objective is to improve access to care and support for people such that the same with financial support, will allow caregivers to thus, be employed rather than staying at-home to support childcare or adult care. The rule will also seek to have Medicaid dollars apply to fund an increase in home care workers to support additional seniors and the disabled accessing care under Medicaid.
The devil, as always, will be in the details. I’ll be watching for the final order once it is signed and released. Typically, these kinds of Executive Actions/Orders come with little detail as they are a series of directives to cabinet agencies to develop the rules and apply them going forward. What is clear is that the Biden Administration is heavily invested in creating some kind of staffing mandate for SNFs and tying the same to reimbursement. As I have written before, I’m not sure a mandate in an environment with a caregiver supply problem is going to do anything other than create additional economic hardship for providers that already, can’t obtain enough staff. Similarly, while I know turnover is a problem in the industry, many of the turnover drivers (regulations, aged facilities, inadequate numbers of staff, negative regulatory environment, etc.) are beyond control of the industry.
Medicare Claims, Audits, Denials and AI
AI or Artificial Intelligence has been in the news a lot over the past few months. ChatGPT is the program that I’ve seen the most about. Elon Musk has come forward warning of the advance of AI and its implications for societies. I’ve seen story after story about how AI has the potential to be a “game changer” in medicine and in science advances but also, how it has the potential to produce scary outcomes. Heck, even Joe Rogan is sounding the alarm after a full version of his podcast was done through an AI creation.
As one would suspect, the advances in AI are finding their way into Medicare and Medicaid to adjudicate claims and to detect potential fraud. The first and most prominent use (for AI) is within Medicare Advantage plans. In an analysis published in the health and life sciences publication STAT, the authors found insurers in the Medicare Advantage plans using AI based algorithms to determine post-acute lengths of stay as well as for prior authorizations for certain levels and amounts of care. The purpose is to place a “best practice” construct around certain diagnoses and conditions, reducing variability. Sounds good in theory.
I have been a proponent of the development of clinical algorithms based on certain diagnoses and patient comorbidities. Readers can find some of those algorithms posted on this blog. I also received a U.S. patent for the development of a web based chronic disease management system that involved a highly integrated series of algorithms and pathways to assist patients and physicians with the management of Type 2 diabetes. What I have never been a proponent of is rigidity such that the pathway or the algorithm is the sole determinant of a patient’s care journey and treatment regimen. Every patient is different and some because of the influence of non-medical issues in their life, will require more integrated approaches in their care and treatment plans. For example, where a patient lives (environment, stairs, etc.), who the patient lives with (caregiver?), and what resources the patient has for assistance are all important factors in determining length of stay in a post-acute setting. In other words, some folks need more time, some can advance to discharge sooner.
The government/CMS has been integrating evidence-based algorithms/pathways/protocols into claims reviews and claim adjudication for several years. InterQual Criteria, a McKesson Health Solutions product has been used by MAC (Medicare Administrative Contractors), QIOs (quality improvement organizations) and Administrative Law Judges for years; two plus decades (https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20161219005102/en/CMS-to-Continue-Use-of-InterQual-Criteria). The theory is that highly researched and fine-tuned, evidence-based data tools can provide a proper roadmap for treatment that emphasizes efficiency and reduced variability and negative outcomes. Code words for “reduce costs”, primarily. I haven’t seen a whole lot of better care, especially in terms of reductions in repeat utilization patters (re-hospitalizations, etc.) among the elderly, especially those with multiple comorbidities.
A rather good report was done on the heels of the STAT article by the Center for Medicare Advocacy. That report can be downloaded here: AI-Tools-In-Medicare What I noticed as most interesting in the report is the discussion around slippery-slopes and the gaps between what AI does/doesn’t do and what role humans and policy, play. For example, the Jimmo v. Sebellius case and its implications. Jimmo’s decision is fundamentally contrary to how AI is being used to determine continued coverage. Where AI is used to factor when care (and thus coverage) should end under Medicare, Jimmo basically says that coverage is not dependent on improvement or potential for improvement and can continue if the goal is to resist deterioration or is required by the patient’s need for skilled care.
Coverage does not depend “on the presence or absence of an individual’s
potential for improvement, but rather on the beneficiary’s need for skilled care.” The settlement
re-emphasized what was already provided for by regulation: restoration potential is not the
deciding factor in determining whether skilled care is required. Skilled nursing or therapy
services are coverable when an individualized assessment of the beneficiary’s clinical condition
indicates that the specialized judgment, knowledge, and skills of a nurse or therapist are
necessary to safely and effectively deliver services. The settlement applies in the skilled
nursing facility, home health, and outpatient physical therapy settings.
As AI use advances within reimbursed health care, the likelihood of a continued disconnect between providers and insurers and ultimately, patients will grove. We have an aging society that will continue to demand and utilized, more health care resources. The federal govt. is intent to continue to drive enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans as traditional Medicare Parts A and B continue to have funding challenges and face, default conditions as tax revenues and fees are headed to a condition of inadequacy to fund the outlays. While evidence-based medicine and the algorithms it can produce have great promise in many regards, reliance on overly broad, one size fits all approaches can cause unintended consequences in terms of overall patient care and quality. When reducing utilization and thus, saving dollars is the primary goal, a short-sighted impact is likely – the forest for the trees adage applies. A good article to wrap this post is here: https://skillednursingnews.com/2023/03/ai-use-by-medicare-advantage-blamed-for-increased-denial-of-nursing-home-services/
-
Archives
- June 2023 (1)
- May 2023 (19)
- April 2023 (23)
- March 2023 (2)
- February 2020 (1)
- June 2019 (2)
- April 2019 (1)
- January 2019 (1)
- November 2018 (5)
- October 2018 (2)
- August 2018 (2)
- July 2018 (2)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
Reg's Blog 