Reg's Blog

Senior and Post-Acute Healthcare News and Topics

SNFs and PBJ Article

Attached is a link a to a good PBJ (payroll based journal) article.  It covers the basic concepts of what is going on today with regard to staffing level reporting and the Five Star system.  Recall, staffing as a domain, is one of the stars in this system.  The article is posted here (re-published) with permission of the original publication.  Enjoy!

Excerpt_S3_BALTC_0618

Advertisements

June 13, 2018 Posted by | Skilled Nursing | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CMS Proposes Reintroduction of Pre-Payment Review for Home Health (with a twist)

In a memo set for release today, CMS is proposing to reintroduce pre-payment review (with a twist) for Home Health claims.  The memo version is here: HHA Pre Payment Recall, CMS first introduced pre-payment review in August 2016, starting in Illinois.  The process required agencies to submit claim-related data BEFORE receiving final payment or face an adjustment in their payment of minus 25%.  This reduction could not be appealed. Providers could resubmit additional data to achieve full affirmation of their claim PRIOR to submitting final billing for the claim.  After a certain threshold of claims was reviewed and determined proper, the pre-payment process would sunset for the agency.

The initial trial that began in Illinois was such a debacle for agencies and the industry due to the time delays and criterion laxity, slowing cash flow and increasing administrative burden that Congress finally stepped in and put the program on hiatus.  The Illinois experiment was so initially bad that further expansion to other states (Florida was next), never occurred.

In this new proposal which will open for comment (60 days) after publication in the Federal Register, CMS is keeping the program design constant with a couple of twists.

  1. Providers/Agencies in the demonstration states of Illinois, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and Texas will be able to choose whether to submit data to the MAC (Medicare Administrative Contractor) for review on a pre-claim or post-claim/payment basis.
  2. Providers/Agencies may opt-out of the payment review (pre or post) by accepting payments at a discounted rate – minus 25%.

As with the former program, providers/agencies will need to meet an acceptable level of affirmed claim submissions (pre or post) to move to an episodic review standard.  In effect, after the agency has been subject to sufficient claim reviews and found to be compliant with required documentation and billing standards, the agency transitions to an “every so often” sampling of claims.  As before, providers that fail to submit data or elect pre or post payment reviews will see claim payments automatically discounted by 25%.

The rationale from CMS to return to this review process is the same as before; assurance of claim accuracy and fraud reduction.  CMS continues to believe that HHAs are sloppy and negligent enough in their claims process that improper payments are too high (as a percent of all claims) and or fraud, still prevalent enough to warrant a program of systematic review. Of course, as of now, CMS can offer no assurance that the next incarnation of claim reviews will go smoother than the 2016 experience.  The belief is that lessons were learned and steps put in-place by the MAC to smooth out reviews and not harm agency financial status or create undue additional burden.  Frankly, I hold no such expectation or belief that the process will be markedly better.

May 31, 2018 Posted by | Home Health | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CMS Proposes New SNF Payment Model

Last Friday, CMS released the contents of its annual proposed rule updating the SNF PPS plus (as always), fine tuning certain related programmatic elements. Final Federal Register Publication is set for May 8.  (Anyone wishing the PDF version may download it from the Reports and Other Documents page on this site or access it here SNF Proposed Rule 4 2018 ).  The most watched information for providers is the proposed rate adjustment though lately, for the post-acute segments of health care, other elements pertaining to payment model changes have eclipsed rate “watching”.

Last year’s proposed rule for the SNF PPS contained the release of RCS-1.  After extensive commentary, CMS pulled back RCS-1, shelving it for some conceptual remake.  We now, as of Friday, know the remake – PDPM for short (Patient Driven Payment Model). As with all yearly releases similar, a comment period has begun, lasting until (if not otherwise extended) the last week of June (June 26).

PDPM as proposed, is designed to replace the current SNF payment methodology known as RUGs IV.  Unless date changes, etc. are made by CMS post commentary review, the effective date of the change (from RUGs to PDPM) is 10/1/19 (next October).   PDPM as an outgrowth of RCS-1 and received commentary, is a simplified payment model designed to be more holistic in patient assessment, capture more clinical complexity, eliminate or greatly reduce the therapy focus by eliminating the minute levels for categorization, and simplifying via reduction, the assessment process and schedule (reduced to three possible assessments/MDS tasks). Below is a summary of PDPM core attributes/features as proposed.  On this site in the Reports and Other Documents page is the PDPM Calculation Worksheet that provides additional details beyond the reference points below PDPM Calculation for SNFs.

  • PDPM uses five, case-mix adjusted components for classification and thus, payment: PT, OT, Speech, Non-Therapy Ancillary and Nursing.
  • For each of these components, there are separate groups which a resident may be assigned, based on MDS data.  For example, there are 16 PT groups, 16 OT groups, 12 Speech groups, 6 Non-Therapy Ancillary groups and 25 Nursing groups.
  • Each resident, by assessment, is classified into one of the group elements within the component categories. This means that every resident falls into a group within the five case-mix components of PT. OT, Speech, Non-Therapy Ancillary and Nursing.
  • Each separate case-mix component has its own case-mix adjusted indexes and corresponding per diem rates.
  • Three of the components, PT, OT and Non-Therapy Ancillary have variable per diem features that allow for changes in rates due to changing patient needs during the course of the stay.
  • The full per diem rate is calculated by adding the PT, OT, and Non-Therapy Ancillary rates (variable) to the non-adjusting or non-variable Nursing and Speech components.
  • Therapy utilization may include group and/or concurrent treatment sessions provided no more than 25% of the total therapy utilization (by minutes) is classified as group or concurrent.
  • PT, OT, and Speech classification by group within their respective components do not include any function of “time”.  The sole denominator of how much/little therapy a resident receives is the necessity determined by the assessment process and by the clinical judgment of the care team.  In this regard, the minimum and maximum levels are based on resident need not on a predetermined category (RUG level).
  • Diagnoses codes from the hospital on admission (via ICD-10) are important and accuracy on the initial MDS (admission) are imperative.
  • Functional measures for Therapy (PT, OT) are derived from Section GG vs. Section G as provided via RCS-1.
  • The Non-Therapy Ancillary component allows facilities to capture additional acuity elements and thus payment, for additional existing comorbidities (e.g., pressure ulcers, COPD, morbid obesity, etc. ) plus a modifier for Parenteral/IV feeding.
  • There are only three Medicare/payment assessments (MDS) required or predicated starting in October of 2019 – admission, change of condition/payment adjustment and discharge. NOTE: All other required MDS submissions for other purposes such as QRP, VBP, Quarterly, etc. remain unchanged.

For SNFs, the takeaways are pretty straight-forward. First, clinical complexity appears to be the focus of increased payment opportunity.  Second, therapies are going to change and fairly dramatic as utilization does not involved minutes and more is better, when clinically appropriate but less is always relevant (if that makes sense).  The paperwork via MDS submissions is definitely less but assessment performance in terms of accuracy and clinical judgment is increased.   MDS Coordinators, those that are exceptional clinicians and can educate and drive a team of clinicians, will be prized as never before.  RUG style categorization is over so the focus is not on maximizing certain types of care and thus payment but on being clinically savvy, delivering high quality and being efficient.  The latter is what I have been preaching now for years.  Those SNFs that have been trending in this direction, caring for clinically complex patients, not shunning the use and embrace of nursing RUGs, and being on the ball in terms of their assessments and QMs are likely to see some real benefits via the PDPM system.

More on this new payment model and strategies to move forward will be in upcoming posts.

May 1, 2018 Posted by | Policy and Politics - Federal, Skilled Nursing, Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Upcoming Webinar: Reduce Citation Risk

SNFs are just a little past one year since the new Conditions of Participation were implemented along with a new survey process.  Today, we are in the first-full quarter of Phase 2 implementation and facilities are just now getting surveyed on these requirements. As a result, we have some data on how the new survey process is going, what facilities are experiencing in terms of citations, how survey teams are looking at Phase 2 requirements, etc.

On Wednesday, March 7th I will be joined by Diane R. Hislop, RN, H2 Healthcare’s compliance expert and Senior Partner, presenting a webinar on the Phase 2 aspects of the SNF Conditions of Participation, the new survey process and how facilities can reduce citation risk.  The webinar will last an hour and there are some great handouts and tools that Diane has agreed to share with all participants.  I hope you can join me and Diane for what will be, an exceptionally informative update on SNF surveys and compliance trends.

The registration link is here:

http://hcmarketplace.com/reduce-citation-risk

February 14, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Presentation Materials from LeadingAge New Orleans

For those of you that could not attend, I have attached the presentation and handouts/tools from our session on Care Coordination.  In addition to the Power Point (last attachment), there are a number of documents including (but not limited to), clinical pathways, careplans, patient education materials, etc.  Anyone with questions on any of these materials, please contact me at hislop3@msn.com or via comment to this post.

Week Care Coordination Rounds Weekly Progress Note

Weekly Cardiac Assessment (2)

Living with Chronic lung disease

Pulmonary pathway

Knee Arthroplasty pathway

Hip Arthroplasty pathway

Energy Conservation

Decision for Ortho Surgery

Care Coordination Journey

Clinical Pathyways

Cardiac pathway

Care Coordination Updated

 

November 6, 2017 Posted by | Policy and Politics - Federal, Skilled Nursing | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

New Compliance/Survey Resource for SNFs

It is rare that I push or endorse any product on this site.  This is an exception worth making.

http://hcmarketplace.com/survey-success-for-long-term-care

The book is authored by my wife who also heads the Clinical Compliance practice within H2 Healthcare, LLC – the firm that I head.  She is our Senior Partner as well as the firm’s Chief Operating Officer.  Honestly, no one knows more about compliance from an operations perspective, in the post-acute industry, particularly SNFs, Hospice, Assisted Living, etc. than she does.

What makes this book a “must have” are the resources and tools contained, in one place.  She has shared a wealth of resources accumulated over her decades of practice, updated and put to use daily with clients, in her work.  For SNFs today, survey and compliance are linked and as so many of you have heard (or read) from me, the single most important aspect in obtaining quality-mix, keeping premium payments low on insurance packages, attaining favorable borrowing terms and eliminating unwarranted fines and forfeitures while having in-place, a de facto risk management and fraud prevention program is best-practice, clinical compliance.  This book will help a facility get there and stay survey ready; and clinically compliant.

This is a unique and worthy work as providers can gain first-hand insights on compliance and survey readiness from an expert who has led more deficiency free surveys, overturned more fines and forfeitures at the appeal and IDR level, and saved more clients and facilities untold millions of dollars in fines and forfeitures than perhaps, any other consultant and executive in the country.  I know, the word “biased” will come to mind but in this case, the work product will speak for itself.

September 22, 2017 Posted by | Policy and Politics - Federal, Skilled Nursing | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hospice, Hospital Readmissions and Penalty Implications

Late yesterday, a reader (who also happens to be a client from time to time), posed this question to me. “When hospitals discharge to hospice and if the hospice has to readmit to the hospital, the hospital doesn’t get penalized for the readmit?  Is this true?”  Since this question is not one that I have been asked, to my recollection, ever before my guess is that others may have a similar query or interest.  My answer to him/the question, follows.

The short answer is that the readmission penalty issue is not applicable for a hospice to acute hospital transfer/admission.  There is one single caveat that must be present, however: The patient in question must be on the Medicare Hospice benefit rather than traditional Part A and receiving services under some other Hospice offered program such as a Palliative Care program (a home health care style offering).  Below is the reason and regulatory/legal construct why the readmission penalty is not applicable.

  • When a patient elects and is qualified under the Medicare Hospice benefit, the patient opts (effectively) out of his/her traditional Medicare benefit structure – including the assumed coverage for inpatient hospital coverage offered under Medicare Part A.
  • The issue or applicability for readmission penalties for hospitals is only under traditional Medicare fee-for-service or qualified Medicare Advantage plans  It is also only applicable to certain originating DRGs (not all readmissions qualify for a penalty).
  • When a patient enrolls in the Medicare Hospice benefit, the assumptive relationship under Medicare with regard to the patient and his/her provider relationship changes.  The assumption becomes that the patient is effectively, now the “property” (bad word choice but illustrative nonetheless) of the Hospice.  This is so much so that no patient can receive the Hospice benefit under Medicare without becoming a patient of a qualified, certified Hospice provider. Unlike the relationship under traditional or managed Medicare, the patient care is thus the property and coordinated responsibility of the Hospice.  Prior to enrollment, the patient had no connective relationship to any provider – free (for the most part) to seek care from any qualified provider (Med Advantage networks notwithstanding).
  • By his/her enrollment in the Hospice benefit with a Hospice, the patient agrees to a set of covered benefits tied to his/her end-of-life care needs.  He/she also elects to have his/her care effectively provided by or through the Hospice exclusively.  In fact, the patient can’t really show-up at a hospital for an admission and expect to be admitted, without the approval of the Hospice.  The only option a patient has to receive care in this fashion is to “opt out” of the Hospice benefit.
  • Once a patient is enrolled in Hospice, there effectively is no “hospital” benefit left.  The use of a hospital by a Hospice patient is through the Hospice exclusively and any hospital or inpatient use is (only) technically via a GIP or other contracted event/need.  In fact, the hospital has no DRG or admission code nor records the GIP stay as a “hospital” admission.  It (the hospital) can’t create a bill to Medicare for this event and must seek all payment through the Hospice.  As no bill is generated to Medicare Part A with a corresponding DRG and billing code, no inpatient admission occurred and thus, no readmission occurs either applicable (or not) for a penalty.

Like most things Medicare, you won’t find a succinct “memo” to this effect.  Instead, you have to know and go through the detail on the program benefit side and understand how billing, coding and benefit eligibility/program payments work for each provider segment.

 

April 20, 2017 Posted by | Hospice | , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Five-Star Quality Rating Guide

A new book was just released – The Five-Star Quality Rating System Technical Users’ Guide.  Readers may find this resource exceptionally valuable, particularly in-light of how important the Five Star system is today (Value Based Purchasing, Quality Reporting, Bundled Payments, Network participation/formation, etc.).  For disclosure purposes, I am co-author along with Maureen McCarthy, RN.  The link to purchase/learn more about the book is below.

http://hcmarketplace.com/five-star-quality-rating-system-tech-user-guide?code=EB333371&utm_source=mktg&utm_medium=eml&utm_content=FSQRSTUG&utm_campaign=eml_LTC_EB333371_022717&spMailingID=10503291&spUserID=MTY3ODg3NjkxMzk3S0&spJobID=1101986339&spReportId=MTEwMTk4NjMzOQS2

 

February 27, 2017 Posted by | Policy and Politics - Federal, Skilled Nursing | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

IMPACT Act, VBP, Care Coordination and the SNF Landscape

Now into February, its time to take stock of the Post-Acute/SNF landscape, particularly as the same pertains to the evolutionary policy initiatives in-play and moving forward.  To start, there is little evidence on the horizon of an all-out retreat on the policy changes begat by the ACA.  While some framework is building to “Repeal and Replace” the ACA/Obamacare, the same will leave fundamentally intact, the changes started and wrought by Bundled Payments, Value-Based Purchasing, and the IMPACT Act.  The Republican majority, a smattering of Democrats, and the incoming Secretary of HHS have signaled support for these initiatives.  Should a Repeal strategy move forward any time soon, these elements, skeletal perhaps or whole in-flesh, will likely remain.

Reviewing thematically, these policy initiatives are centered on an intentional focal shift from episodic, fee-for-service payments to payments based upon performance.  Performance in each element is tied to cost and quality.  The objective is to create better outcomes (quality) in a more efficient manner.  Because these things are government policy, they are clunky – less than simple.  In some cases such as with Value Based Purchasing and readmission measures, the methodology is so cumbersome and disjointed (some diagnoses are OK, some are not) that a layman, even one well-educated, could have a hard time qualifying and quantifying an appropriate readmission (by diagnoses, by risk, etc.).

Below is a quick review of the current policy initiatives and what they mean for 2017 for SNFs.

IMPACT Act: The purpose of the Act is to create standardized reporting of quality measures and cost measures across the post-acute domain (HHAs, SNFs, LTCaH, IRF).  The objectives are to reduce avoidable readmissions to acute care settings and to create standardized, comparable quality measures to identify federal policy improvements and payment consistencies.  CMS of course, uses more floral language regarding the objectives and intent.  Ultimately, the translation of the standardized data allows CMS to target regulatory changes and payment initiatives that reward provider performance and streamline (a bit oxymoronic for government) payment systems (rate equalization models).  Below are the pertinent domains under the IMPACT Act

Quality Measures

  • Skin integrity and changes in skin integrity
  • Functional status, cognitive function, and changes in function and cognitive function
  • Medication reconciliation
  • Incidence of major falls
  • Transfer of health information and care preferences when an individual transitions

Resource Use and Other Measures

  • Resource use measures, including total estimated Medicare spending per beneficiary
  • Discharge to community
  • All-condition risk-adjusted potentially preventable hospital readmissions rates

Assessments

  • Functional status
  • Cognitive function and mental status
  • Special services, treatments, and interventions
  • Medical conditions and co-morbidities
  • Impairments
  • Other categories required by the Secretary

As is common in current health policy, reimbursement policy and other policy interweaves with laws such as the IMPACT Act.  Value Based Purchasing and  Quality Reporting for SNFs, integrates quality measure reporting and results along with readmission performance with incentives or penalties imputed via Medicare reimbursement for 2018.  Beginning in October of 2016, SNFs began to submit QRP (Quality Reporting) data via the MDS.  The first data collection period concluded on 12/31/16.  The Quality Measures reported and applicable under the IMPACT Act (cross setting measures) are:

  • Part A stays with one or more falls with major injury (fracture, joint dislocation, concussion, etc.)
  • Percent of residents with new or worsened pressure injuries
  • Percent of Long-Term Care Hospital patients with an Admission and Discharge Functional Assessment and a Care Plan that addresses function

The Claims Measures are:

  • Discharge to community
  • Potential preventable, 30 day post SNF discharge, readmission to hospital events
  • SNF Medicare spending per beneficiary

The Quality Measures are the elements that impute, based on performance, a reimbursement penalty in 2018 up to 2% of Medicare payments via a reduction in the SNFs reimbursement (rate) update.

Value Based Purchasing (VBP): SNFs are a tad late to this party as other providers such as hospitals, physicians and home health agencies already have reporting and measurement elements impacting their reimbursement.  Hospitals for example, have DRG specific readmission penalties (penalties applicable to common admitting diagnoses).  For HHAs, a nine state demonstration project is under way linking a series of measures (process, outcomes, claims) from the OASIS with customer satisfaction from the HHCAHPS to reimbursement via an accumulation tied to a Total Performance Score.  The measurement years (data gathered) beget payment changes (plus or minus) in outlying years – 2016 data nets payment adjustments in 2018.  The payment graduation increases over time (2018 = 3%, 2022 = 8%).

For SNFs, the VBP measure is 30 day, all cause, unplanned readmissions to a hospital. The measurement reflects a 30 day window that begins at the point of SNF admission from a hospital.  The 30 day window of measurement spans place of care meaning that the patient need not reside in the SNF for this measurement to still have an impact.  For example, a patient admitted to an SNF, subsequently discharged after 14 days to a HHA and then  readmitted to the hospital on day 22 (post hospital discharge) is considered a “readmission” for SNF VBP purposes.  CMS has offered guidance here regarding diagnoses that are excluded from the readmission measure.  Readers that wish this additional information can contact me via my email (on the Author page of this site) or via a comment to this post.  In either case, please provide a valid email that I can use to forward the information.

To avoid getting too technical in this post, a quick summary of how VBP will work is below (readers with greater interest can contact me as provided above for a copy of a Client Alert our/my firm produced last fall on VBP).

  • A SNFs readmission rate is calculated in separate calendar year periods – 2015 and 2017.  The 30 day readmissions (rate) applicable to an SNF is subtracted from the number 1 to achieve the SNFRM (Skilled Nursing Facility Readmission Measure).
  • The 2015 rate is called the Improvement Score and the 2017 rate is called the Performance Score.  Both scores are compared against a benchmark for the period applicable.
  • The benchmark equals 100 points.  The difference between the two (Improvement and Achievement) correlate to points plotted on a range – the Achievement range and the Improvement range.  The higher of the two scores is used to calculate reimbursement incentives or withholds – performance score.
  • Performance scores in terms of points correlate to reimbursement incentives/ withhold.  The maximum reduction or withhold is 2%.  CMS has yet to identify the incentive amount but under law, the amount must be equal in total value to 50-70% of the total withheld.  In effect, we envision a system that imputes a floor of minus 2% with points up to the threshold limit equaling a net of zero (plus 2%) and then climbing above the threshold to the benchmark (national SNF best readmission (average) decile).  This maximum level (and above) is likely to equal 100% of the available incentive.

The 2015 data is already “baked” but 2017 is just beginning. SNFs need to be diligent on monitoring their readmissions as this window is the Improvement opportunity.  Reimbursement impact isn’t until 2019.

Care Coordination: This catch-all phrase is now in “vogue” thanks to the IMPACT Act and VBP, along with the recently released, new Conditions of Participation.  The implication or applicability for Care Coordination is found in the new COPs.  Care Coordination elements are located in 483.21 (a new section) titled Comprehensive Resident-Centered Care Plans.  Specifically, the references to  Discharge Planning (Care Coordination) in this section are implementation elements for the IMPACT Act requirements.  Below are the regulation elements for Care Coordination.

  • Requires documentation in the care plan of the resident’s goals for admission, assessment of discharge potential and discharge plan as applicable
  • Requires the resident’s discharge summary to include medication reconciliation of discharge meds to admission meds (including OTC)
  • Discharge plan must incorporate  a summary of arrangements for post-discharge care including medical and non-medical services plus place of residence
  • All policies pertaining to admission, transfer, discharge, etc. must be uniform, regardless of payer source
  • Requires the facility to provide to resident/resident’s representative, data from IMPACT Act quality measures to assist in decision-making regarding selection of post-acute providers

The above elements are in Phase 1 meaning providers should be in-compliance by now (regulation took effect 11/28/16).

February 15, 2017 Posted by | Policy and Politics - Federal, Skilled Nursing | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

SNF M&A: The Provider Number Trap

Over my career, I have done a fair amount of M&A work….CCRCs, SNFs, HHAs, Physician practices, hospice, etc. While each “deal” has lots of nuances, issues, etc. none can be as confusing or as tricky to navigate as the federal payer issues; specifically, the provider number.  For SNFs, HHAs, and hospices, an acquisition not properly vetted and structured can bite extremely hard post-closing, if provider liabilities existed pre-close and were unknown and/or unknowable.  Even the best due diligence cannot ferret out certain provider number related liabilities.

The Medicare provider number is the unique reference number assigned to each participating provider.  When initially originating as a provider, the organization must apply for provider status, await some form of accreditation (for SNFs it is via a state survey and for HHAs and hospice, via private accreditation) and then ultimate approval by Medicare/DHHS.  As long as the provider that has obtained the number, remains in good standing with CMS (hasn’t had its provider status/agreement revoked), the provider may participate in and bill, Medicare and Medicaid (as applicable).

Provider numbers are assignable under change of control, providing the assuming party is eligible to participate in the Medicare program (not banned, etc.).  Change of control requires change of ownership or control at the PROVIDER level, not the facility or building level.  The building in the case of an SNF, is not the PROVIDER – the operator of the SNF is.  For example, if Acme SNF is owned and operated by Acme, Inc., then Acme, Inc. is the Provider so long as the SNF license in Acme’s state is to Acme, Inc.  Say Acme decides to sell the SNF property to Beta REIT and in turn, Beta leases the facility back to Acme.  Acme no longer owns the building but remains the Provider as it continues to hold the license, etc. consistent with the operations of the SNF.  Carrying this one step further.  Acme decides it no longer wants to run the SNF but wishes to keep the building.  It finds Zeta, LLC, an SNF management/operating company, to operate the SNF and leases the operations to Zeta.  Zeta receives a license from the state for the SNF and now Zeta is the PROVIDER, even though Acme, Inc. continues to own the building.

In the example above regarding Zeta, the typical process in such a change of control involving the operations of a SNF is for Zeta to assume the provider number of Acme.  The paperwork filed with CMS is minimal and occurs concurrent to the closing creating change of control (sale, lease, etc.).  What Zeta has done is avoid a lengthier, more arduous process of obtaining a new provider number, leaving Acme’s number with Acme and applying as a new provider at the Acme SNF location. While taking this route seems appealing and quick, doing so comes with potential peril and today, the peril is expansive and perhaps, business altering.

When a provider assumes the provider number of another entity at change of control, the new provider assumes all of the former provider’s related liabilities, etc. attached to the number.  CMS does not remove history or “cleanse” the former provider’s history. The etc. today is the most often overlooked;

  • Star ratings
  • Quality measures including readmission history
  • Claim error rate
  • MDS data (submitted)
  • Federal survey history
  • Open ADRs
  • Open or pending, probes and RAC audits

The above is in addition to, any payments owed to the Federal government and any fines, forfeitures, penalties, etc.  The largest liability is or relates to, the False Claims Act and/or allegations of fraud.  These events likely preceded the change of control by quite a distance and are either impossible to know at change of control or discoverable with only great, thorough due diligence.  The former in my experience such as whistleblower claims may not arise or be known until many months after the whistleblower’s allegation.  During the interim, silence is all that is heard.  Under Medicare and federal law, no statute of limitation exists for fraud or False Claims.  While it is possible via indemnification language in the deal, to arrest a False Claims Act charge and ultimately unravel the “tape” to source the locus of origin and control at the time of the provider number, the same is not quick and not without legal cost.  Assuming the former provider is even around or can be found (I have seen cases where no such trail exists), winning an argument with CMS that the new provider is blameless/not at fault is akin to winning the Battle of Gettysburg – the losses incalculable.  Remember, the entity that a provider is dealing with is the Federal government and as such, responsive and quick aren’t going to happen.  Check the current status of the administrative appeal backlog as a reference for responsive and quick.

Assuming no payment irregularities occur, the list preceding is daunting enough for pause.  Assuming an existing provider number means assuming all that goes with it.  On the Federal side, that is a bunch.  The assuming party gets the compliance history of the former provider, including the Star rating (no, the rating is not on the SNF facility but on the provider operating the SNF).  As I have written before, Star ratings matter today.  Inheriting a two Star rating means inheriting a “dog that doesn’t hunt” in today’s competitive landscape.  It also means that any work that is planned to increase the Star rating will take time especially if the main “drag” is survey history.  The survey history comes with the provider number.  That history is where RAC auditors visit and surveyors start whenever complaints arise and/or annual certification surveys commence.

The Quality Measures of the former provider beget those of the assuming provider.  This starts the baseline for Value Based Purchasing.  It also sets the bar for readmission risk expectations, network negotiations and referral pattern preference under programs such as Bundled Payments.   Similarly, all of the previous MDS data submissions come with that same provider number, including those that impact case-mix rates under Medicaid (if applicable).  And, not exhaustively last but sufficient for now, all claims experience transfers.  This includes the precious error rate that if perilously close to the limit, can trip with one more error to a pre-payment probe owned, by the assuming provider.  Only extreme due diligence can discover the current error rate – perhaps.

Avoiding the peril of all of the above and rendering the pursuit or enforcement of indemnification (at the new provider’s expense) a moot issue is simple: Obtain a new provider number.  It is a bit time-consuming and does come with a modicum of “brain damage” (it is a government process) but in comparison to what can (and does) happen, a very, very fractional price to pay.  In every transaction I have been directly involved with, I have obtained a new provider number.  In more than one, it has saved a fair amount of go-forward headache and hassle, particularly on the compliance end.  Today, I’d shudder to proceed without a new provider number as the risks of doing so are enormous, particularly in light of the impact of Star ratings, quality measures and survey history.  Additionally, the government has never been more vigilant in scrutinizing claims and generating ADRs.  Inheriting someone else’s documentation and billing risks genuinely isn’t smart today.

While inappropriate for this post, I could list a plethora of examples and events where failure to obtain a new provider number and status has left the assuming provider with an absolute mess.  These stories are now, all too common.  Even the best due diligence (I know because my firm does it), cannot glean enough information to justify such a sweeping assumption of risk. Too much cannot be known and even that which can, should be rendered inconsequential by changing provider status.  Reliance on a definitive agreement and litigation to sort responsibilities and liabilities is not a prudent tactic. Time and resources are (always) better spent, applying for and receiving, a new provider number and provider status.

February 1, 2017 Posted by | Home Health, Hospice, Policy and Politics - Federal, Skilled Nursing | , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments