Government Affairs Archives - Page 16 of 19 - American Ambulance Association

President’s Perspective: July 2017

Written by Mark Postma on July 14, 2017. Posted in Annual Conference & Tradeshow, Legislative.

Dear Fellow AAA Member,

I am proud to share with you that just yesterday legislation was introduced in the House on a long-term extension of Medicare ambulance add-ons. The House bill follows introduction of the Medicare Ambulance Access, Fraud Prevention and Reform Act (S. 967) in the Senate, giving us a bill in both houses of Congress.

The Ambulance Medicare Budget and Operations Act (H.R. 3236) would extend for five years the 2% urban, 3% rural, and super rural bonus increases. The bill would also direct CMS to collect cost data from ambulance service suppliers. The AAA has been working with Congressman Nunes (R-CA) and Upton (R-MI) as well as the House Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce Committees on the bill language. You will soon receive a Call to Action to reach out to your Representatives to cosponsor the new House bill.

967 would make the add-on payments permanent and direct CMS to collect cost data from ambulance service suppliers using a survey methodology. Since its introduction, four additional Senators have signed on to co-sponsor S. 967, Senators Sanders (VT), Cochran (MS), Tester (MT) and Gillibrand (NY), bringing the total number of cosponsors to nine. While this is good progress, we need our member’s continued assistance in getting more co-sponsors on both of our bills.

While both bills meet the needs of our industry, the language in the two bills is different. That being said, it is not uncommon for the Senate bill and the House bill to have minor differences in their respective language that have to be worked out before getting final approval. When this happens, a special conference committee made up of members from both houses will work together to come to consensus about the different provisions in the bill. It is unlikely that our bills will be passed as stand-alone legislation. Instead, our provisions will likely be included in a larger bill similar to how the extenders were passed last time as a part of the CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) Reauthorization Act. It is crucial that we have as many co-sponsors on both of our bills so that we can again be included on a larger piece of legislation.

The Medicare ambulance add-on payments will expire on December 31, 2017. To ensure continued access these critically-necessary extenders, we need the collective advocacy of ambulance services across the country. We ask that you please add your voice to the AAA’s by writing your Senators in support of Bill S.967. Additionally, you will soon receive a Call to Action to reach out to your Representatives to cosponsor the new House bill.

As always, the AAA Board, Government Affairs Committee, advocacy consultants, and staff are working diligently to build support on Capitol Hill to ensure that this vital revenue remains in place. If you missed our June 29 government affairs update webinar, I invite you to watch it on-demand now.

Annual Conference

The Education Committee recently finalized programming for the 2017 AAA Annual Conference & Trade Show. This year, we welcome three exciting keynotes—Steven M.R. Covey, Mel Robbins, and Dr. Zubin “ZDoggMD” Damania—as well as dozens of industry leaders and experts. I hope that you will join me and hundreds of our colleagues in ambulance leadership in Las Vegas in November! Online registration is open now.

Educational Events

AAA will host its inaugural SimLab workshop in Tulsa, Oklahoma on September 28. We are excited to share with members this immersive learning experience. AAA SimLab content will also be featured at the Mississippians for EMS Conference October 2–4 in Biloxi, Mississippi.

Save the date for AAA’s newest educational partnership, the Midwest EMS Expo May 2–3, 2018 in La Crosse, Wisconsin. Co-hosted with the Minnesota Ambulance Association and the Professional Ambulance Association of Wisconsin, the Midwest EMS Expo will bring together the best in national and regional education.

AAA is also proud to offer learning on-the-go, in the form of engaging webinars on human resources, reimbursement, compliance, and other topics. Don’t miss upcoming sessions on drug use, the OIG Safe Harbor on Cost Sharing, and the management of airborne medical emergencies.

Website

I am happy to share with you that AAA has a new URL, www.ambulance.org. This updated domain should assist us in clearly communicating our identity to the world, as well as in attracting new members not previously familiar with our organization.

Capital Campaign

To date, we have raised more than $255,000 of our $1mm Capital Campaign goal through the generous contributions of our fellow members. Our deepest thanks to all who have given. If you have not done so already, please consider donating today. Funds contributed to this campaign are managed separately from operating accounts, and can only be accessed after a full Board vote.

Stars of Life

It was a privilege to see many of you at Stars of Life in Washington in June. This year’s Stars program recognized 108 EMS providers from across the nation who have served their communities with distinction. The Stars, accompanied by their executive-level Hosts, met with their Senators and US Representatives to shine a light on the importance of ambulance services to our healthcare infrastructure. Nominations for the 2018 class of Stars will open in January. We hope to meet your Stars in D.C. next year.

As always, please don’t hesitate to contact the AAA at 703-610-9018 or info@ambulance.org if we can be of assistance to your service.

Thank you for your service to your communities, and have a great summer.

Mark Postma
President
American Ambulance Association
“Representing EMS in America”
www.ambulance.org

Talking Medicare: CMS Transmittal 236

Written by Brian Werfel on June 30, 2017. Posted in Government Affairs, Member Advisories, Regulatory, Talking Medicare.

On June 16, 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released Transmittal 236. This Transmittal makes some minor changes to Chapter 10 of the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual. Specifically, CMS is clarifying its definitions related to the “ALS assessment” and “locality.” The change to the locality definition has prompted some discussion within the industry as to the impact on Medicare’s reimbursement for mileage beyond the nearest appropriate facility. In this month’s blog, I will explain the recent change, and hopefully convince you that this isn’t something that should cause you undue concern.

Medicare’s Definition of “Locality”

The definition of “locality” appears in Section 10.3.5 of Chapter 10 of the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual. That definition reads as follows:

The term “locality” with respect to ambulance service means the service area surrounding the institution to which individuals normally travel or are expected to travel to receive hospital or skilled nursing services.

CMS then includes the following example to explain how that definition should be applied to real world situations:

EXAMPLE: Mr. A becomes ill at home and requires ambulance service to the hospital. The small community in which he lives has a 35-bed hospital. Two large metropolitan hospitals are located some distance from Mr. A’s community and both regularly provide hospital services to the community’s residents. The community is within the “locality” of both metropolitan hospitals and direct ambulance service to either of these (as well as to the local community hospital) is covered.

Conceptually, the locality definition is intended to address situations where there are several local options that residents of a community could choose for the receipt of necessary medical care. CMS recognizes that a strict adherence to its general policy of only covering mileage to the nearest appropriate facility would undermine a patient’s right to choose from these various institutional health care providers. The locality definition ensures that, when the two or more facilities are reasonably close to one another, the patient can safely choose the further facility without fear that they may end up being responsible for some incremental portion of the mileage.

The Proposed Clarification

Effective September 18, 2017, Transmittal 236 adds the following sentence to the end of the current definition of locality:

The MACs have the discretion to define locality in their service areas.

Analysis of the Proposed Clarification

The first question that should be asked is whether this clarification is actually a change in CMS policy? I would argue that it not, as Medicare Administrative Contractors have always had the discretion to define what constitutes the “locality” for an ambulance transport. For that reason, I view the purpose of this Transmittal as simply clarifying “who” (i.e., CMS vs. the MACs) has the primary responsibility for making these determinations.

Nor do I believe that this clarification is being made in response to potential abuse of the locality issue, either by providers billing for excess mileage under an expansive reading of “locality” or by the MACs in processing claims. Rather, I think this clarification is being made in response to repeated questions from the provider community, both on Open Door Forums and at state association meetings with their MACs. In other words, I think CMS is simply making clear that concerns regarding locality should be raised with the MACs, rather than CMS itself.

The Transmittal does leave open the possibility that MACs could impose their own definitions of locality. However, as I noted above, they already have this authority. I am not aware of any MAC ever electing to define the issue. Typically, the MAC will simply restate the CMS Manual definition of locality in its LCD.

So why have MACs been reluctant, up to this point, to define localities? I think it has to do with the administrative burden that would be involved. First and foremost, the MAC would need to have a sense of the larger demographic trends that dictate patient referral patterns in any given area. While that information is available, in theory, it is not available in any way that is readily useable by the MAC. Moreover, as the test focuses on what is “normal” or “expected” for patients, this would be a moving target, as patient preferences change over time, new facilities open, other facilities close or change the services they offer, etc. Thus, to the extent a MAC defined a locality, it would be constantly forced to revisit that definition every so often. Finally, the MAC would have to make allowances for transports that are outside the locality, but where the patient is seeking specialized care that may not be available within the locality.

In sum, defining the locality for even a single community would be a significant administrative burden on the MAC. When you consider that there are hundreds, if not thousands of distinct communities within each state, you can understand the MACs reluctance to offer specific guidance on this approach.

Instead, I believe that the MACs will continue to address the mileage issue in the same way they have done up to this point. Most MACs have imposed an upper limit on the mileage they will pay without question. This upper mileage limit may be for its entire MAC Jurisdiction, it could be statewide, or it could have two or more mileage limits for a particular state. For example, some MACs use a smaller mileage edit for transports that originate in and around a major metropolitan center, and a larger mileage edit for transports in the more rural areas of a state.

This approach offers a number of administrative benefits to the MAC. First, it limits the number of claims that run afoul of the edit, and therefore that potentially may need to be reviewed by the MAC on appeal. It also offers clarity to the provider community.

So, if your MAC has previously indicated that it has a mileage edit, I think you can safely assume that this will continue to be the guiding principle used by the MAC after the effective date. If the MAC doesn’t have a published mileage edit, I don’t think that is likely to change come September.

I would suggest that ambulance providers continue to monitor their remittances. If you are seeing mileage over a certain amount consistently denied by the MAC, that is their mileage edit. Please note that the MAC is not indicating this mileage is never covered, just that it has determined that it will not necessarily pay this higher number of miles without seeing the underlying documentation. In other words, the MAC is putting the burden on you to prove that the entire mileage was covered. If you are not seeing mileage being denied, I wouldn’t expect that to change either. I hope this helps to put everyone’s mind at ease.

Have a wonderful Fourth of July.

Have an issue you would like to see discussed in a future Talking Medicare blog? Please write to me at bwerfel@aol.com.

Now On-Demand: Member Government Affairs Webinar

Written by Matt Swift on June 30, 2017. Posted in Executive, Government Affairs, Legislative, Regulatory.

The American Ambulance Association (AAA) hosted the Government Affairs and Member Forum on June 29 to provide an update on legislation on the expiring temporary Medicare ambulance add-on payments, the immediate and long-term goals of AAA on Medicare reform, and how members can get involved with ambulance service-related issues. Mark Postma, president of AAA, and a panel of experts covered varied topics, including where Senate Bill S.967 stands and what changes might occur within the industry, and then fielded questions from members to offer a better understanding of regulatory issues and what’s happening in Washington.

“We put a forum together at this critical time because we currently have a Senate bill to make the add-on permanent, and we’ve been working on a House bill for a long-term extension of the add-ons to be dropped soon,” said Postma. “We have been working diligently to get the appropriate bills introduced, to keep the Medicare extenders and other items that we’ll discuss in this forum.”

Capitol Hill Landscape

The Senate “Medicare Ambulance Access, Fraud Prevention and Reform Act” (S.967) has bipartisan support and is currently being championed Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT). The bill would make permanent the temporary Medicare add-ons, treat ambulance service suppliers more like providers, cut down on dialysis transport fraud and abuse, and implement our preferred cost-data collection system that is beneficial, not burdensome, to ambulance services.

The AAA is currently working on the language for a bill to introduce the House of Representatives. While the bill has yet to be introduced, the AAA is collaborating with our House supporters and Committee staff to put together a bill that, at the very least, extends the Medicare add-ons for five years. The bill will also include cost-data reporting on which the AAA is negotiating the final details.

“This year really is critical for us,” said Tristan North, senior vice president of government affairs for AAA. “We need to make sure the Medicare add-on payments don’t expire on December 31.”

Going Forward

The panel discussed immediate, intermediate, and long-term goals to improve the ambulance fee schedule in the foreseeable future. The pending legislation covers many of the immediate goals, but AAA consultant Kathy Lester offered information that could impact the industry in the future.

Lester talked about better defining nonemergency services, the “Uber-ization” of medical transport, and what community paramedicine means to ambulance service providers.

The panel agreed that members and the community need to show their support for legislation, causes, and issues that will shape the future of ambulance services. It was suggested that members advocate to their representatives and leaders—offering to take them on ambulance “ride-alongs,” writing letters, or showing up at government functions—and explain to them how important these pieces of legislation and resources are to the EMS profession.

“We’re working hard and hoping for change in the future,” AAA’s Chair of Government Affairs, Jamie Pafford-Gresham, said. “We need you professionals and the relationships you have with your elected officials… your voices matter to Congress and they matter to us.”

Watch On Demand

Download the PowerPoint

EMS Education – A Look Forward

Written by Scott McConnell on June 29, 2017. Posted in News, Professional Standards, Regulatory.

I have always believed EMS parallels the career trajectory of nursing. This is especially true when you look at the infancy of nursing—1750 to 1893—in what was a subservient apprenticeship with no didactic education. “Most nurses working in the States received on-the-job training in hospital diploma schools. Nursing students initially were unpaid, giving hospitals a source of free labor. This created what many nurse historians and policy analysts see as a system that continues to undervalue nursing’s contribution to acute care.” (History Lesson: Nursing Education has evolved over the decades, 2012, para. 5).

We reached a turning point in 1893 when the Columbian Exposition met, and although Ms. Florence Nightingale was unavailable to attend, she did have a paper presented at the exposition. In essence, the paper proved that a well-educated nursing workforce with standards of practice was needed to improve the health care of the United States.

This is exactly where EMS is now. Young enough to have moved through our growing pains of the late ’60s and early ’70s, but lucky enough to be in an age of extensive medical growth where all levels of providers are looking to enhance the care being provided.

So where do we go from here? We can choose to keep the status quo or we can move forward, hopefully, at a much greater speed than our nursing brothers and sisters. We should consider moving away from being governed by the Department of Transportation and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. A much more appropriate body is the Department of Health, which gives us the ability to stop thinking of our discipline as transport to the hospital, and more like bringing a hospital-like service to the to the sick and injured.

“EMS is a critical component of the nation’s healthcare system. Indeed, regardless of where they live, work or travel, people across the US rely on a sufficient, stable and well-trained workforce of EMS providers for help in everyday emergencies, large-scale incidents and natural disasters alike.” (“Education,” 2015, para. 1)

To get there, our education needs to reflect growth, and evidence-based medicine should be the law of the land. If this is proven to be effective, then let’s adopt it. If not, let’s stop teaching the worthless skills of yesterday, just as we have seen with the near extinction of the Long Spine Board. Let’s increase the minimum requirements for every level of provider. Let’s give Paramedics an associate’s degree, a diagnosis’s language, and a licensure, not a certification. Let’s all take the reins of our chosen career paths and have better continuing education that is challenging and accessible, and not an alphabet soup of certifications.

Yes, these are my musings about the future of EMS education. I know places that are very progressive in this country exist. I know there are protocol driven areas too. So let’s stop the segregation and become a health care group with a real mission, an everyday purpose. A place where we act as a group, not as individuals. A place where we treat our patients with the skill, compassion, and talent I know exists. Are you ready to join me?

Scott F. McConnell is Vice President of EMS Education for OnCourse Learning and one of the Founders of Distance CME. Since its inception in 2010, more than 10,000 learners worldwide have relied on Distance CME to recertify their credentials. Scott is a true believer in sharing not only his perspectives and experiences but also those of other providers in educational settings

References

Education. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.ems.gov/education.html

History Lesson: Nursing Education has evolved over the decades. (2012, November 12th, 2012). History Lesson: Nursing Education has evolved over the decades Blog post. Retrieved from https://www.nurse.com/blog/2012/11/12/history-lesson-nursing-education-has-evolved-over-the-decades-

Medicare “Locality” Rule & ALS Assessment

Written by David Werfel on June 22, 2017. Posted in Government Affairs, Member-Only.

“Locality” Rule – MAC Discretion – Since the inception of the CMS Internet Only Manual (in 2003), the Benefit Policy Manual 100-02, Chapter 10, section 10.3.5 has always defined “Locality” as:

The term “Locality” with respect to ambulance service means the service area surrounding the institution to which individuals normally travel or are expected to travel to receive hospital or skilled nursing services.

An example is then listed to indicate that the ambulance transportation to either of two large metropolitan hospitals that regularly provide services to the small community where the emergency arose would be covered destinations.

On June 16, 2017, CMS issued Transmittal 236 to add the following at the end of the paragraph before the example:

The MAC’s have the discretion to define locality in their service areas.

Effectively, there is no change as Carriers and Intermediaries (now MACs) have always had discretion to determine the “locality” around each facility. Often, they did this with mileage edits, e.g. in an urban area, they may have set a parameter of 15 miles, but in a rural area, they have allowed a much larger area. Nevertheless, it is a good time to ask your MAC for their definitions of the localities in their service area or the mileage edits that they use.

A copy of the Transmittal can be obtained at: https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Transmittals/2017Downloads/R236BP.pdf

ALS Assessment

The same Transmittal made two changes to the CMS definition of “ALS Assessment”, as listed in the Benefit Policy Manual, 100-02, Chapter 10, section 30.1.1, as follows:

1. Assuming the ALS assessment is performed and meets the definition, this section now states that the services provided by the supplier or provider “shall” be covered at the ALS emergency level. Previously, the definition indicated the services “may” be covered at the ALS emergency level. This change was needed as some MACs thought they did not have to pay ALS emergency when the ALS assessment is performed in accordance with the definition.

2. The other change was to add to the end of the paragraph “and all other coverage requirements are met”. In other words, aside from providing the ALS assessment in accordance with the definition, there must also be ambulance transportation, the origin/destination requirements are met, the provider/supplier must meet all vehicle and crew requirements, transportation was medically necessary, the ALS assessment was medically necessary, etc.

The effective date for the changes noted above is September 18, 2017.

Write to Your Senators! Support S.967

Written by Aidan Camas on May 8, 2017. Posted in Advocacy Priorities, Government Affairs, Legislative, Member Advisories, News, Reimbursement.

Take Action for Permanent Medicare Ambulance Relief

Ask your Senators to Support S.967 – 2017 Medicare Ambulance Access, Fraud Prevention, and Reform Act

The current 33-month extension of the Medicare add-on payments is set to expire at the end of December 2017. Losing these add-on payments would be a devastating blow to ambulance services across the country. It is crucial that the payments be made permanent as we push for a long-term solution. More details about the Bill can be found below. Let your Senators know that you support S. 967 — Here are three quick and easy ways to get involved!

Writing to your members of Congress only takes 2 clicks, follow these simple steps:

1. Enter contact information below (required by Congressional offices) and click “Submit”
2. On the next page you’ll see the letter(s) to your Senators – click “Submit Messages”

Active on Social Media? Tweet at your Senators asking for their support of S. 967!

Authorize Your Account
Enter Contact Information
Tweet! (Tweet will be auto-generated with your Senators tagged)

Know your Senators’ Twitter accounts already? Tweet:
“#ambulance svs in your state need you, @[your Senators]! Please co-sponsor S. 967 to help us continue to provide quality #EMS!”

Post on Facebook why S. 967 is important! Be sure to tag your Senators and encourage others to share your post! Ask others to write letters of support as well! http://bit.ly/AAAbill

More About Our Bill S. 967, the 2017 Medicare Ambulance Access, Fraud Prevention, and Reform Act:
Permanent ambulance relief legislation has been introduced by Senators Stabenow, Roberts, Schumer, Collins, and Leahy (S. 967). This legislation will allow ambulance service providers to maintain high quality ambulance services and budget for the future.
Specifically, the bill:

Provides Medicare Ambulance Relief, by permanently incorporating the current temporary 2 percent urban, 3 percent rural, and super rural bonus payments into the Medicare ambulance fee schedule rates.
Requires the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to submit a report to Congress detailing the features of a reformed payment system for ambulance services under the Medicare program no later than July 1, 2019.
Modifies the process for the transport of dialysis patients by requiring the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a process for the prior authorization of coverage for such patients.
Treat ambulance services designated as “suppliers” as “providers” for certain purposes under Medicare.
Specifies CMS to work with stakeholders in the development of a data collection system for ambulance entities that defines the various types of ambulance entities as well as the relevant cost and data elements required for submission.

CMS Letter Regarding Merit-Based Incentive Payment System

Written by Brian Werfel on May 5, 2017. Posted in Medicaid, Medicare, Member Advisories, Member-Only, News, Regulatory.

Over the past week, multiple members have contacted the American Ambulance Association to report that they have received a letter from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) related to their participation in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). The letter appears to have been sent to any entity with a taxpayer identification number (TIN) that is enrolled in the Medicare Part B Program. The stated purpose of the letter is to inform the provider whether it is exempt from participation in the MIPS program.

This member advisory is being issued to advise ambulance suppliers that:

(1) they are not eligible to participate in the MIPS program
(2) no positive or negative adjustments will be made to the ambulance suppliers Medicare payments
(3) no further action is required on their part

Therefore, AAA members that received this letter can safely disregard it.

Support AAA’s Medicare Relief Legislation, S. 967

Written by Mark Postma on April 27, 2017. Posted in Government Affairs, Legislative, Medicare, Member Advisories.

Dear Fellow Members,

As you know, the Medicare ambulance add-on payments are set to expire on December 31, 2017. I’m proud to share with you that today, due to AAA advocacy efforts, permanent ambulance relief legislation was introduced by Senators Stabenow, Roberts, Schumer, Collins, and Leahy.

This bill, S.967, “Medicare Ambulance Access, Fraud Prevention, and Reform Act” would make permanent the vital urban and rural Medicare add-ons and super-rural bonus payments. Although some changes are likely during the committee markup process, we are cautiously optimistic that it will also carry through proposals to reclassify ambulance organizations as providers of health care (not suppliers of transportation), as well as a cost data collection system that does not place undue burden on ambulance services.

On behalf of the AAA, I’d like to extend my deepest thanks to Senators Stabenow, Roberts, Schumer, Collins, and Leahy for sponsoring the legislation, as well as the AAA Board, Government Affairs Committee, advocacy consultants, and staff who worked so diligently to build support on Capitol Hill.

Over the coming months, AAA will continue to connect with policymakers to build support for sustainable ambulance Medicare reimbursement. However, we need your help to ensure that this critical revenue remains in place. We ask that you please contact your Senators to voice your support for S. 967. AAA makes it easy to connect with your legislators through our online advocacy tool—please use it today to quickly send messages expressing the importance of the legislation to your ambulance service and the communities you serve.

If possible, we ask that you also work with fellow ambulance providers in your area to schedule in-person meetings with your legislators’ offices. If you arrange a meeting in your home state, please contact AAA staff at info@ambulance.org for talking points to support your conversation.

Now, more than ever, we need the active participation of each member organization to ensure our collective future! Thank you in advance for your assistance with advocacy outreach, as well as for your continued membership to the American Ambulance Association.

Mark Postma
President, American Ambulance Association
“Representing EMS in America”

ACA Repeal and Replace Update

Written by John Jonas on April 21, 2017. Posted in Executive, Government Affairs, Legislative, Member-Only, News.

Congress returns to Washington next week, and House Republican Leadership maintains an ambitious agenda to pass the American Health Care Act (AHCA) despite an unclear path navigating its moderate and conservative factions. President Trump, who refuses to let health care reform disappear from the agenda, is especially eager for a victory, and today predicted AHCA would pass within the next few weeks.

During the in-district work period these past two weeks, the White House, House Leadership and Republican committee staff have kept conversations going with the two disagreeing factions within their caucus – the moderate Tuesday Group and the conservative Freedom Caucus. At this stage, there appears to be no agreement within the Republican Caucus, and there are varying reports on how close are discussions. The wild card is whether President Trump and his team can help force a deal. As soon as a deal materializes, the House will move the bill to the floor.

In addition to health care, the discretionary aspects of the Federal government are under a temporary continuing resolution which expires at the end of next week. An effort is underway to pass a measure that will fund the government through the remainder of the 2017 Fiscal Year, which ends September 30. This effort is not without controversy, and includes an attempt by the Trump Administration to appropriate funds to build its border wall. However, Republicans will need at least eight Senate Democrats to vote with them to pass an omnibus spending bill, so compromise will be required. There may be a series of short-term funding patches as Congress considers spending priorities.

One of the more interesting issues Congress and the Trump Administration face is what to do with Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies that were meant to help reduce cost sharing (deductibles, co-payments) for especially poor, non-Medicaid eligible individuals buying insurance on the exchange. House Republicans had successfully sued the Obama Administration in district court arguing that Congress must appropriate the money before the ACA’s Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) subsidies could be paid. With an injunction from the district court in place, Congress must decide whether to appropriate the money in the upcoming spending bill. Some Democrats have stated they will not vote to pass any budget without funds for the CSR program included. If Republicans can pass a budget without funding the CSR subsidies, they aren’t out of the woods yet on the CSR program. Specifically, the President still has to decide whether to appeal the district court decision on May 22. If President Trump chooses to accept the district court decision and there is no appropriation, the President could unilaterally shut down the CSR subsidy program. The President has threatened to use this court decision to bring Democrats to the negotiating table, in the event that the program is not appropriated and AHCA is not passed.

The AAA will continue to keep members up to date on these issues.

President’s Perspective April 2017

Written by Mark Postma on April 13, 2017. Posted in AAA HQ, Government Affairs, News.

Dear Fellow AAA Member,

As you know, the Medicare ambulance add-on payments are set to expire on December 31, 2017. The AAA Board, Government Affairs Committee, advocacy consultants, and staff have been working diligently to build support on Capitol Hill to ensure that this critical revenue remains in place.

As we continue to connect with policymakers in preparation for the introduction of our legislation, I ask that you pay special attention to the requests for advocacy action you receive from the AAA. Now, more than ever, we need the active participation of each member organization to ensure our collective future!

Capital Campaign and Financial Status

In addition to representing our members’ current interests in Washington, AAA strives to serve ambulance providers over the longer term. It is key that the Association build a pool of capital for use in case of an unexpected legislative or regulatory threat, or once-in-a-blue-moon strategic opportunity. For these reasons, I announced the creation of a Capital Campaign the day I assumed the office of President. Funds contributed to this campaign are managed separately from other assets, and can only be accessed after a full AAA Board vote.

To date, we have raised more than $250,000 of our $1mm goal through the generous contributions of our fellow members. My deepest thanks to all who have given. If you have not done so already, please consider donating today.

In addition to the Capital Campaign, we continue to build the overall financial strength of our association. Through close management of the budget, streamlined regional meetings, and increased membership, AAA continues to thrive. Thank you to Shawn Baird, Finance Chair, and David Tetrault, Membership Chair, and both committees for your hard work. It is paying off!

Stars of Life

I look forward to seeing many of you in Washington, DC in June at Stars of Life. Stars recognizes EMS providers from across the nation who have served their communities with distinction. The Stars, accompanied by their executive-level Hosts, meet with legislators to shine a light on the importance of ambulance services to our healthcare network.

I hope you will enjoy meeting the 2017 class of Stars as we share their stories and accomplishments on our website and social media.

Education

The Education Committee has been hard at work developing the program for the 2017 AAA Annual Conference & Trade Show. We look forward to announcing the full agenda in June, and hope that you will join us in exciting Las Vegas this November.

In the meantime, why not learn from our experts at an AAA Live! Workshop here at Sunstar Paramedics on May 3, or at Superior Air-Ground Ambulance in Illinois in July? If you’re short on time, AAA is also proud to offer a wide variety of engaging webinars on human resources, reimbursement, compliance, and other topics.

It continues to be my pleasure to serve so many talented, dedicated health care professionals. Thank you for your service to your communities, and I wish you continued success in 2017!

Mark Postma
President
American Ambulance Association
“Representing EMS in America”

ACA Repeal & Reform – What it Means (Part Two)

Written by Kathy Lester on March 20, 2017. Posted in Government Affairs, Member Advisories.

By: Tristan North and Kathy Lester, JD, MPH

This is the second part of a two part Member Advisory by Tristan North and Kathy Lester on ACA Repeal & Reform. Read Part One: ACA Repeal & Reform – What It Means for Ambulance Services (Pt. 1).

The remainder of this alert provides more detail about the House legislation, as well as key bills that have been introduced in the Senate. It also provides background on the process to date.

House Legislation, The American Health Care Act (AHCA)

While three House Committees have referred the ACHA to the full House, over the weekend it became clear that there Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) will entertain amendments to the current text. As these agreements become available, we will provide an updated analysis.

The AHCA seeks to redefine the ACA in significant ways. First, it would repeal the penalties related to the individual and employer mandates. It would allow insurance companies to apply a 30 percent late-enrollment surcharge on individual and small group market applicants who have not had coverage in the previous 63 days. It would phase out the Medicaid expansion program, shifting it to a per capita cap model. It would also eliminate many of the taxes implemented under the ACA. It would delay implementation of the “Cadillac Tax” on high cost health plans until 2025. It would repeal the cost sharing subsidies program.

The AHCA would retain certain popular ACA provisions, including allowing children to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26 and requiring insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

Some additional highlights of the plan include:

Establishing a temporary Patient and State Stability Fund to “lower patient costs and stabilize State markets.” Dollars from the fund could be used to:
- Provide assistance to high-risk individuals who do not have access to health insurance coverage offered through an employer.
- Provide incentives to appropriate entities to enter into arrangements with the State to help stabilize premiums.
- Reduce the cost of providing health insurance coverage in the individual and small group market for otherwise high-cost individuals.
- Promote participation in the individual and small group markets in the State and increasing available health insurance options.
- Promote access to preventive services, dental care services, and mental health and substance use disorder services.
- Provide payments, directly or indirectly, to health care providers for the provision of certain health care services.
- Provide assistance to reduce consumer out-of-pocket costs for individuals enrolled in health insurance coverage in the State.
Eliminates presumptive eligibility determinations for Medicaid.
Decreases mandatory Medicaid income eligibility level from 133 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) to 100 percent, effective Dec. 31, 2019.
Provides $10 billion total over five years for FMAP payments to non-expansion States that adjust the payment amounts otherwise provided to health care providers for services furnished to Medicaid enrollees.
Increases the basic limit on aggregate health savings account (HSA) contributions to equal the maximum limit on the amount of the annual deductible and out-of-pocket expenses of a high deductible health plan beginning in 2018.
Repeals current actuarial value standards related to the ACA metal levels of coverage, effective for plan years 2020 and beyond.
Eliminates the Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payment cuts.
Repeals Prevention and Public Health Fund funding for FY 2019 and beyond.
Provides $422 million in funding for FY 2017 for the Community Health Center Fund, which makes grants to Federally-Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs).

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the AHCA will reduce the deficit by $337 billion. CBO predicts that by 2018, 14 million more people would join the ranks of the uninsured under the AHCA. This number would reach the 24 million by 2026, when “an estimated 52 million people would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law.” CBO also predicts that while there would be an initial 15 to 20 percent increase in premiums in 2018, average premium amounts would drop to 10 percent compared to current law. CBO indicates that Medicaid expenditures would fall by $880 billion over 10 years and 14 million fewer Americans would be enrolled in Medicaid by 2026.

The American Medical Association (AMA), AARP, the American Hospital Association (AHA), the Federation of American Hospitals, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Nurses Association, the American College of Physicians oppose the AHCA. Other organizations have expressed serious concern, including the American Health Care Association (nursing homes) and the American Academy of Family Physicians. America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) has expressed concerns, but is open to compromise.

Senate ACA Reform Legislation

It is more difficult to anticipate how the Senate will react to the House legislation. However, it is likely that Senate Republicans will support at least some of the following reform ideas:

HSAs could be paired with health insurance plans that have high deductibles and low premiums. Republicans favor HSAs because they generally shift a greater amount of financial responsibility to the beneficiary. HSA could be designed to include tax-free contributions, growth of savings, and medical expense withdrawals.

High-risk pools. While policies to address the problem of the risk pools could take many forms, there have been focused efforts to remove individuals with pre-existing conditions from the general pool of health insurance to lower the premiums for the young and healthy. Some States have attempted to implement high-risk pools in the past; however, previous iterations have been expensive.

Medicaid reform. Republicans remain concerned about the expense of the Medicaid program and have suggested per-capita grants, which would allocate a set amount of money per enrollee in the state.

Tax credits for health insurance. Republicans prefers to use tax credits to help people buy insurance rather than keep the ACA’s subsidies. Several proposals have been discussed, including age-adjusted credits or credits based on number of family members.

While there may be an effort to amend the House’s AHCA, there is at least one Senate bill that has earned some attention. Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced “The Patient Freedom Act” earlier this year. It would replace the current Exchange structure and allow States to select from one of three alternatives for providing coverage to its citizens.

First, States could re-implement the ACA coverage they have been relying upon, if the think it is working for them. States could continue to receive federal premium tax credits, cost-sharing subsidies, and Medicaid dollars, to the extent that such subsidies do not exceed a certain limit. Second, States could enact a new market-based system that would retain popular ACA provisions, such as protecting those with pre-existing conditions. They could continue to receive funding equal to 95 percent of federal premium tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies, as well as the federal match for Medicaid expansion. States could choose to receive funds in the form of per beneficiary grants or advanced refundable tax credits, but in both cases, funds would be deposited in a Roth Health Savings Account (HSA), meaning the money would go directly to the patient. Third, States could decide not to take any federal assistance and design and oversee the insurance market without federal intervention.

This legislation also seeks to curb high costs medical expenses and includes a broad provision seeks to ensuring access to emergency services without excessive charges for out-of-network services. AAA and our members are working to explain the unique nature of ambulance services to avoid this provision inappropriately being applied to ground ambulance services.

It is likely that other proposals will arise in the Senate and that the Senate Finance Committee will develop a proposal that could amend the AHCA or take a different path. We will provide you with more information as the proposals develop.

Process for Repeal and Reform

Republicans intend to address repeal and replace through three actions. First, the Congress passed the 2017 Budget Reconciliation legislation to repeal key structural pieces of the ACA. The second set of actions are being undertaken by the Trump Administration, which is making changes to the ACA through the administrative or regulatory process. Third, congressional Republicans are now in the process of moving a second piece of legislation later in the year that would address the specifics of the replace.

With passage of the FY2017 Budget Resolution (S.Con.Res. 3), Congressional Republicans took the first step to repealing the ACA. On January 12, the Senate voted 51 to 48 in favor of a FY2017 Budget, which included the budget framework for repealing the ACA. The House followed suit on January 13 by a vote of 227 to 198. While not binding or needing the signature of the President, the passage of the FY2017 Budget provides authority to the House and Senate committees of jurisdiction to move forward on the provisions of a FY2017 Budget Reconciliation package. The Reconciliation package is binding and would be sent to President Trump for his signature. This would actually repeal the ACA.

Congressional Republicans are using the budget reconciliation process, as it only requires a simple majority in the Senate to pass. Senate Democrats can therefore not filibuster the package unlike most legislation that requires 60 votes to end debate. This is the same process Democrats used back in 2010 to pass portions of the ACA.

During the week of March 6, the House Energy & Commerce and Ways & Means Committee passed their respective sections of repeal in replace as part of the FY2017 Budget Reconciliation package which has been named the American Health Care Act (AHCA). On March 16, the House Budget Committee combined the sections and approved the package. The House Rules Committee is expected to meet on the rules debate by Wednesday with the full House expected to consider the bill on March 23. Passage of the bill is likely but not certain as some more conservative as well as more moderate members of the Republican Caucus are expected to join with possibly all Democrats in opposition to the bill. Several more moderate as well as conservative Republican Senators have also voiced concerns leaving in doubt whether the bill can pass the Senate.

Repealing the ACA is actually much easier than passing a second piece of legislation later to address the specifics of the replacement. Much of the ACA replacement package is subject to a point of order and can’t be included in a Budget Reconciliation bill because such a package can only be used for provisions that increase or reduce the budget. So Republicans will need the support of eight Senate Democrats to pass a second replacement package. All this will ensure a very intense next few months or longer as repeal and replacement moves forward.

Administrative Actions

As noted, another critical piece of the three-step process of repealing and replacing/refining the ACA comes from the Trump Administration. One of President Trump’s first actions after being sworn in as the 45^th President of the United States was to issue an Executive Order to federal agencies to “waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement [of the Affordable Care Act]…that would impose a fiscal burden on any State, or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on an individual.” The Executive Order also directs agencies to provide relief to the states, as well as “waive” regulations or costs on “makers of medical devices, products, or medications.”

Although the Executive Order does not legally halt any of the policies from continuing in its current state, such as the individual mandate or the medical device excise tax, it does give a clear signal from the new Trump Administration on its intent to dismantle the ACA quickly, without waiting for Congress. The Order does confirm that the new Administration will follow the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires federal agencies to go through a formal rulemaking process to implement major changes.

Soon after, the Administration released one of its first proposed rules, entitled “Marketplace Stabilization.” Overall, the rule proposes a series of modifications to the Marketplaces that align with requests made by issuers in an attempt to keep them in the Marketplaces. (Please see the March 1, 2017, Member Advisory for more details about this proposed rule)

More recently, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Tom Price and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Seema Verma sent a letter to State Governors describing their plans for the Medicaid Program (Please see the March 17 Member Advisory for more details about this letter).

There are several other ways that the Secretary and Administrator can dismantle the ACA without Congressional intervention. These include:

Stopping enforcing the individual mandate. In coordination with Treasury Department, the Secretary could limit or stop the collection of the penalty for those without health insurance.

Modifying hardship waivers. The Secretary has significant discretion in defining what constitutes “hardship” when granting exemption to the individual mandate penalty and could expand this definition to grant more exemptions.

Limiting or eliminating women’s preventive services. The Secretary could expand the Hobby Lobby exemption available to religious organizations, nonprofits, and closely-held for-profit corporations; exclude contraception from the list of women’s preventive services; or entirely eliminate coverage of women’s preventive services.

Narrowing regulations on EHBs. The ACA establishes 10 EHB categories, but the Secretary has the authority to issue regulations that would permit insurers to more narrowly define what it means to cover the categories. Similarly, the Secretary could adjust revise or eliminate the requirements related to defining EHBs by referencing benchmark plans.

Restricting special enrollment periods. The Secretary could establish additional requirements for those trying to sign up outside of the open enrollment period, such as requiring more documentation.

Approving different 1115 waivers for Medicaid. As evidenced in the recent letter to State Governors, the Secretary and Administrator have already signaled that they are likely to approve different Medicaid waivers than were provided during the Obama Administration.

We will keep you posted of new developments on repeal and replace of the Affordable Care Act.

ACA Repeal & Reform – What It Means for Ambulance Services

Written by Tristan North on March 20, 2017. Posted in Government Affairs, Member Advisories.

By: Tristan North and Kathy Lester, JD, MPH

This is the first of a two part Member Advisory by Tristan North and Kathy Lester on ACA Repeal & Reform. To continue reading, see Part Two: ACA Repeal & Reform – What It Means for Ambulance Services (Pt. 2).

Overview

A top priority of President Trump and congressional Republicans is to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Since Republicans retook control of Congress in 2012 after passage of the ACA in 2010, they have sought to repeal the ACA. However, they had not developed a consensus on a replacement package, as they knew then-President Obama would veto the repeal bill. Now with President Trump in the White House and Republicans controlling the House and Senate, Republicans in the House have agreed upon a package and moved it through three Committees of jurisdiction: the Ways and Means Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the Budget Committee. Republicans in the Senate are less aligned and are said to be working on their own package, which is likely to differ in important ways from the House version.
For ambulance services, there are several key components to watch. These are:

Coverage for ambulance services. Expressed in terms of providing more flexibility, there is concern that some insurers are pushing and some Republicans agree that the concept of a minimum set of covered services (essential health benefits (EHB)) should be narrowed or even eliminated. Currently, only emergency services are included as an EHB, but through the designation of benchmark plans, non-emergency services have also been covered. If the benchmark plans requirements are modified, coverage for non-emergency services could become an issue.

Medicaid expansion. The Administration has sent a clear signal that it plans to roll back the expansion of Medicaid, which provide coverage to many Americans who had signed up under the ACA. For ambulance services in expansion States, the elimination of this program could result in more uncompensated care problems.

Coverage more generally. Republicans have clearly indicated a desire to eliminate the individual mandate. This could have two effects that may impact ambulance services. First, if people are not required to have coverage there are many who will not have it. It is not certain whether without coverage these individuals will be able to pay for the services they receive, which could lead to more uncompensated care. Second, individuals who do not purchase health insurance often are younger and healthier. Without such individuals in the risk pool, it is possible that premiums and other cost-sharing requirements will increase making it more likely for sicker individuals who cannot afford care becoming uninsured.

Employer costs and obligations. The House Republican legislation includes several provisions that relax the obligations and/or provide tax relief to employers providing health insurance. Such provisions could be beneficial to ambulance services in terms of providing health care coverage for their employees.

In addition, there are a few other provisions that the current bills being considered do not modify, but potential could be part of the discussions at some point or in subsequent Medicare legislation. Of these, there are three that would directly impact ambulance services.

Productivity Adjustment. As part of the ACA, the annual inflation updates for the Medicare ambulance fee schedule rates are now subject to a productivity adjustment, which reduces the amount of the update. CMS subtracts a projection of the non-farm business multi-factor productivity adjustment (MFP) from the Consumer Price Index – Urban to determine the update amount.

Inflation Index Below Zero. Prior to the ACA, the Medicare inflation update for ambulance rates could not be a negative percentage. Under ACA policies, the update may be a negative percentage. For example, in 2011, the CPI-U was 1.1 percent and the productivity adjustment was 1.2 percent, which resulted in a cut to the rates of 0.1 percent. In 2016, the CPI-U was 0.1 percent and the productivity adjustment was 0.5 percent, which resulted in a cut of 0.4 percent.

GPCI Increases. The ACA made a temporary change to the practice expense component of the physician geographical price cost index (GPCI), which is the entire GPCI for reimbursement under the Medicare ambulance fee schedule. The change established a minimum 1.0 GPCI for ambulance payments from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2010. As a result of these changes, rates under the Medicare ambulance fee schedule for localities with a GPCI of less than 1.0 saw an additional temporary increase in reimbursement rates. Localities with a GPCI of 1.0 or higher were not be affected by the provision. The provision was retroactive to January 1, 2010 and the increases escalated for 2011 before expiring on December 31, 2011.

The ACA also established a permanent GPCI floor of 1.0 for “frontier” States which took effect in 2011. The designation of a “frontier” applies to those states in which 50 percent of the counties are frontier which have less than 6 people per square mile. The designation is updated with the original frontier states consisting of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. Utah is no longer deemed frontier and Nevada has been added to the list. While a complete repeal of the ACA would not impact the temporary GPCI increases as the provisions were temporary, it would eliminate frontier status.

Government Affairs Update: Protecting the Ambulance Add-ons

Written by Tristan North on March 20, 2017. Posted in Advocacy Priorities, Government Affairs, Legislative, Member Advisories, Member-Only, Reimbursement.

Medicare Ambulance Relief and Reform

The top legislative priority this year for the American Ambulance Association is to extend, or hopefully make permanent, the temporary Medicare ambulance add-on payments. The temporary increases of 2% urban, 3% rural and the super rural bonus expire at the end of this year. The 2% urban and 3% rural increases have been in place since 2008 and the super rural bonus payment since 2004. While the AAA and our members have been successful in getting the payments extended numerous times, 2017 is not a typical year and we need everyone to be prepared to help push to make the increases permanent or extended for the longest possible duration.

The other top priorities for the AAA are for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to recognize ambulance services more like providers of medical services instead of merely suppliers of transportation. In addition, it is critical that Congress direct CMS to collect cost data from ambulance service providers using a method, which will result in usable and meaningful data from everyone, but also not be overly burdensome on extremely low volume providers. Finally, Congress needs to target fraud and abuse with the transport of dialysis patients through a prior authorization program instead an arbitrary payment cut that impacts all providers.

The AAA is pushing its agenda again through a version of the Medicare Ambulance Access, Fraud Prevention and Reform Act which we hope to have introduced in the next few weeks. We are working with our champions on Capitol Hill on a different approach to being treated more like providers to mitigate issues raised about the provision last Congress. Instead of being listed in the Social Security Act as having provider status, we are looking to a hybrid model similar to dialysis facilities. This will clarify that we are not seeking to be treated like providers to achieve Medicare coverage because we are already reimbursed under the Medicare program. It will however still set the foundation for future legislative and regulatory changes to the Medicare fee schedule such as reimbursement for transporting to an alternate destination or treat and referral.

We are also making potential modifications to the House bill on our proposed data collection system. These changes would help with possible Committee consideration of the provision but still hopefully achieve or goal of obtaining useable data that is not overly burdensome to 73% of our industry which is composed of providers that do less than 1,000 Medicare transports a year of less. It is vital that we have meaningful data to make data-driven decisions as to changes to the Medicare ambulance fee schedule.

Ambulance Advocacy Webinar

We will let you know as soon as the revised legislation is introduced for the new Congress. In the meantime, we encourage you to register for the upcoming AAA webinar on the Ambulance Advocacy Action Plan with AAA Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Tristan North and AAA Government Affairs Coordinator Aidan Camas. Tristan and Aidan will provide you the latest information on our advocacy efforts and let you know how you can help. To register for the webinar which is free to AAA members, please go to: https://ambulance.org/product/ambulance-advocacy-action-plan/.

Also read Tristan and Kathy Lester’s recent Member Advisory on ACA Repeal & Reform:

ACA Repeal & Reform – What It Means for Ambulance Services (Pt. 1)
ACA Repeal & Reform – What It Means for Ambulance Services (Pt. 2)

HHS Letter to Governors on Medicaid Changes

Written by Mark Postma on March 17, 2017. Posted in Government Affairs, Medicaid, Member Advisories, Regulatory, Reimbursement.

On Monday evening, the Senate confirmed Seema Verma, MPH, as the new Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). She has a strong background in Medicaid, and prior to her appointment worked as a consultant to several States seeking Medicaid waivers.

One of her first acts was to issue a letter to governors with Secretary Tom Price, MD, regarding the Medicaid program. The letter highlights several initiatives on which they are focusing with regard to Medicaid. Perhaps of most importance to the ambulance community is the section on “Aligning Medicaid and Private Insurance Policies for Non-Disabled Adults.” In this section, the Secretary and Administrator suggest that States:

may consider creating greater alignment between Medicaid’s design and benefit structure with common features of commercial health insurance, to help working age, non-pregnant, non-disabled adults prepare for private coverage. These state-led reforms could include, as allowed by law: …waivers of non-emergency transportation benefit requirements.

While it may be meaningful that the reference does not include “medical,” before transport, it is critically important that the AAA work to protect Medicaid beneficiary access to medically necessary non-emergency medical transports. Thus, the Medicare Regulatory Committee is developing a letter and considering additional engagement with CMS to clarify that the reference is to programs related to providing beneficiaries with the cost of taxis, buses, or other transportation options, but not to medically necessary non-emergency ambulance transports.

It is important that AAA members speak out on this issue with their governors and State Medicaid officials. The AAA has developed draft talking points to assist with these contacts as well.

Thank you for your attention to this critical issue.

Mark Postma
President, American Ambulance Association
Representing EMS in America

Thank you to AAA Consultant Kathy Lester, JD, of Lester Health Law for the analysis of this issue.

House Holds Hearing on Veterans Choice Program

Written by Todd Tuten on March 8, 2017. Posted in Government Affairs, Legislative, News, Veterans Affairs.

The House VA Committee hearing started at 7:30 p.m., but it was well-attended and lasted until 10 p.m. The witnesses included Senator John McCain (R-AZ), VA Secretary David Shulkin, and representatives of the VA Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office. Senator McCain and Secretary Shulkin were both warmly welcomed by Members of the Committee on a bipartisan basis.

Chairman Roe (R-TN) emphasized the need to act quickly to extend the authorization for the Veterans Choice Program, which expires on August 7. To that end, the House VA Committee is voting today on a bill to eliminate the sunset of the program’s authorization. In addition, the Committee will consider broader legislation later this year to make comprehensive reforms to the Choice Program. He noted that the VA has additional funds available but will not be able to spend them once the authorization expires. A copy of Chairman Roe’s opening statement is available here.

Secretary Shulkin testified in support of extending the Choice Program, and he clarified that the VA was not seeking additional funding – just the authority to spend funds already obligated. He noted that the VA already is being forced to deny Choice Program coverage to veterans whose episodes of care would extend beyond the August 7 expiration date (e.g., pregnancy).

Secretary Shulkin also urged Congress to support the VA’s efforts to bring appointment scheduling in-house for care coordination purposes. However, the VA OIG witness noted challenges in records going out to community-based providers and coming back to the VA. The GAO witness also underscored the need for the VA to have better systems in place in order to effectively coordinate care, which will take time to procure and implement. Rep. Brownley (D-CA) echoed that point, calling the VA’s information technology systems a “Model T in a Tesla world.” Rep. Esty (D-CT) also urged improvements in the VA’s information systems and expressed concern that veterans are being improperly billed.

Other Members, including Rep. Wenstrup (R-OH) and Rep. Poliquin (R-ME), raised concerns about continuing delays in the processing of claims and payments to providers. Secretary Shulkin agreed that providers deserve to be paid for their services, noting his own experience as a physician in the private sector. He acknowledged that the VA is not processing enough claims electronically today, and he advised that he plans to pursue options outside the VA for systems procurement going forward.

Many Members also raised serious concerns about treatment of PTSD and mental health conditions for veterans, including Rep. Wenstrup (R-OH), Rep. O’Rourke (D-TX), Rep. Sablan (D-MP), Rep. Banks (R-IN), Rep. Rutherford (R-FL) and Rep. Takano (D-CA). Rep. O’Rourke emphasized that suicide among veterans is the most serious crisis, and Secretary Shulkin agreed that it is his number one priority. The Secretary announced that the VA will begin providing urgent mental health care that also will include individuals other than those service members who were honorably discharged. He added that the VA needs 1,000 more mental health providers, as well as telemental health services, and is looking to expand community partnerships to address suicide.

Rep. Banks noted interest among Indiana veterans in greater access to alternative treatments for PTSD and traumatic brain injury. Secretary Shulkin underscored that he is “most concerned about areas like PTSD, where we do not have effective treatments.” He also advised that the VA has established an “Office of Compassionate Innovation” (separate from the VA’s Center for Innovation), which will focus on finding new approaches to health and physical wellness and explore alternative treatment options for veterans when traditional methods fall short.

Rep. Wenstrup inquired about the VA’s GME and residency programs, as well as its associations with academic institutions. Secretary Shulkin responded that the VA is “doubling down” on partnerships with academic medical institutions.

Chairman Roe concluded his remarks by emphasizing the need to extend the Choice Program authorization soon and to consolidate the VA’s community-based care programs. He also expressed support for the VA’s decision to stop developing its own information technology internally.

Administration’s Proposed Rule on Marketplace Stabilization

Written by Kathy Lester on March 1, 2017. Posted in Government Affairs, Medicaid, Medicare, Member Advisories, Member-Only, Private Insurance, Regulatory.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has released the “Marketplace Stabilization Proposed Rule” (Proposed Rule). Overall, the rule proposes a series of modifications to the Marketplaces that align with requests made by issuers in an attempt to keep them in the Marketplaces. The background section of the Proposed Rule emphasizes the concerns of issuers and the Agency’s interest in making sure that consumers have more plan options for 2018. Comments are due March 7.

While ambulance services are not directly mentioned, the Proposed Rule could affect the ability of individuals in the marketplace to enroll and remain enrolled in plans. Another provision that could impact the ambulance industry is the proposal to rely more upon the States to enforce the network adequacy requirements of the ACA.

Changes to Open Enrollment/Special Enrollment Periods

CMS proposes to tighten the enrollment rules in several ways. First, the Proposed Rule would change the open enrollment period to November 1 – December 15 to “increase the incentives for individuals to maintain enrollment in health coverage and decrease the incentives for individuals to enroll only after they discover they require services.”^[1] Individuals may still be eligible for a special enrollment period that would allow them to enroll outside of these dates.

CMS would increase the States’ pre-enrollment verification from 50 percent to 100 percent beginning June 1, 2017, and require consumers’ enrollment requests to be “pended” until verification is complete. CMS encourages State-based Exchanges to adopt a similar policy. The Proposed Rule would also limit the ability of existing Exchange enrollees to change plan metal levels during the coverage year. It would allow Exchanges to require enrollees that qualify for a special enrollment period because of a dependent to be add only to the current Qualified Health Plan (QHP) or allow the enrollee and the new dependent to enroll in another QHP within the same level of coverage.[2]

The Proposed Rule would also require that if an enrollee or the dependent is not enrolled in a silver level QHP and becomes newly eligible for cost-sharing reductions and qualifies for the special enrollment periods, the Exchange may allow the enrollee and dependent to enroll in only a QHP at the silver level.[3] CMS also proposes a new restriction that would allow the Exchange only to allow an enrollee and dependents who qualify for remaining special enrollment periods to make changes to their enrollment in the same QHP or to change to another QHP within the same level of coverage, if other QHPs at that metal level are available.[4]

CMS would allow consumers to start their coverage one month later than their effective date would ordinarily have been, if the special enrollment period verification process results in a delay in their enrollment such that they would be required to pay two or more months of retroactive premium to effectuate coverage or avoid termination for non- payment. [5]

Additionally, CMS would permit the issuer to reject an enrollment for which the issuer has a record of termination due to non-payment of premiums unless the individual fulfills obligations for premiums due for previous coverage.

The Proposed Rule also expresses concern that some consumers not seeking coverage until they are married. CMS proposes that if consumers are newly enrolling in QHP coverage through the Exchange through the special enrollment period for marriage, at least one spouse must demonstrate having had minimum essential coverage for 1 or more days during the 60 days preceding the date of marriage. There is a special rule for individuals who may not have been living in the United States prior to their marriage.[6]

The Proposed Rule would also significantly limit the use of the exceptional circumstances special enrollment period. In previous years, this special enrollment period has been used to address eligibility or enrollment issues that affect large cohorts of individuals where they had made reasonable efforts to enroll, but were hindered by outside events. If the proposal were adopted, CMS would apply a more rigorous test for future uses of the exceptional circumstances special enrollment period, including requiring supporting documentation where practicable. It would grant this special enrollment period only if provided with sufficient evidence to conclude that the consumer’s situation was truly exceptional and in instances where it is verifiable that consumers were directly impacted by the circumstance, as practicable.[7]

CMS is also exploring ways to incentivize consumers to maintain continuous coverage.

These proposed special enrollment changes would not apply to special enrollment periods under the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP).[8]

Network Adequacy

CMS proposes changes to the oversight of network adequacy requirements to “affirm the traditional role of States in overseeing their health insurance markets while reducing the regulatory burden of participating in Exchanges for issuers.”[9]

CMS proposes to rely on State reviews for network adequacy in States in which an FFE is operating, provided the State has a sufficient network adequacy review process, rather than performing a time and distance evaluation. Beginning in plan year 2018, it would defer to the States’ reviews in States with the authority that is at least equal to the “reasonable access standard” and means to assess issuer network adequacy, regardless of whether the Exchange is a State-based Exchange or federally facilitated, and regardless of whether the State performs plan management functions.

In States without the authority or means to conduct sufficient network adequacy reviews, CMS would rely on an issuer’s accreditation (commercial or Medicaid) from an HHS-recognized accrediting entity. HHS has previously recognized 3 accrediting entities for the accreditation of QHPs: the National Committee for Quality Assurance, URAC, and Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care. An unaccredited issuer would have to submit an access plan.

Interpretation of the Guaranteed Availability Requirement

CMS proposes revising the interpretation of the guaranteed availability requirement to allow issuers to apply a premium payment to an individual’s past debt owed for coverage from the same issuer enrolled in within the prior 12 month. CMS argues this change is necessary to “remov[e] economic incentives individuals may have had to pay premiums only when they were in need of health care services and to encourag[e] individuals to maintain continuous coverage throughout the year and prevent gaming.”[10]

De Minimis Variation in the Actuarial Values

CMS proposes increasing the de minimis variation in the actuarial values (AVs) used to determine metal levels of coverage for the 2018 plan year to “allow issuers greater flexibility in designing new plans and to provide additional options for issuers to keep cost sharing the same from year to year.”[11]

Essential Community Providers

CMS proposes allowing issuers to use a write-in process to identify essential community providers (ECPs) who are not on the HHS list of available ECPs for the 2018 plan year; and lower the ECP standard to 20 percent (rather than 30 percent).^[12]

[1] CMS Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Market Stabilization Proposed Rule.

[2]Id.

[3]Id.

[4]Id.

[5]Id.

[6]Id.

[7]Id.

[8]Id.

[9]Id.

[10]Id.

[11]Id.

[12]Id.

President’s Perspective January 2017

Written by Mark Postma on January 9, 2017. Posted in AAA HQ, Government Affairs, Reimbursement.

Happy New Year from the American Ambulance Association. 2017 promises to bring many changes to the health care landscape, and AAA will be there with you and your ambulance service the whole way. As we launch our 2017 initiatives, I wanted to share the updates below from AAA’s board and headquarters.

Advocacy Priorities

In 2017, we will continue to work tirelessly toward our primary advocacy goal: making the CMS temporary ambulance add-on payments permanent.

This effort fits seamlessly into our longer-term payment reform plan, which includes seeking a change in our CMS status from “Supplier” of services to “Provider” of health care. We plan to back this effort with cost data obtained through a rotating, statistically valid survey of ambulance providers, rather than burdensome universal annual reporting. This Provider status would open the door for future innovations in our field, including mobile integrated health (MIH).

Our Government Affairs, Medicare Regulatory, and Payment Reform Committees, along with our paid staff and consultants, have been extremely engaged and active on these issues. To add your voice to AAA’s, please visit our advocacy page to quickly and easily contact your elected officials.

Capital Campaign

I am proud to share that the $1 million capital campaign we kicked off at the 2016 Annual Conference & Trade Show is progressing nicely, with $150,000 raised to date. These funds will be restricted, and only used after a full board vote. I ask that you consider donating as we are in uncharted waters on Capitol Hill.

Committees and Task Forces

AAA thrives on the dedication of its committee chairs, vice-chairs, and members. We have seen a recent surge in volunteerism from our active members. One of my campaign goals was to get more participation from members, what a great thing to see this happening! If you would like to be considered for committee membership, please complete AAA’s short online form.

In addition to our standing committees, we have launched three mission-critical task forces: BLS Non-Emergency, Social Media/Communications, and Small Providers. A large group of ambulance services participated in a recent Chicago meeting for the Non-Emergency task force, with another meeting planned in the Northeast in the near future.

2017 Membership Renewal

Membership is the lifeblood of AAA. Dues are the fuel that powers our advocacy engine, and enables us to offer the innovative benefits your service has come to rely on. If you have already renewed, please accept our most sincere thanks for your continued support. If you have not yet submitted payment for this year’s membership, I encourage you to renew online or reach out to staff at info@ambulance.org for assistance. Again, AAA needs your support through membership to continue our industry-advancing work.

It continues to be my pleasure to serve so many talented, dedicated healthcare professionals. Thank you for your service to your communities, and we wish you a successful and productive 2017!

Mark Postma—President
AAA
Representing EMS in America

OIG Releases Final Rule Revising Safe Harbor

Written by David Werfel on December 8, 2016. Posted in Government Affairs, Member Advisories, Member-Only.

Office of the Inspector General – Final Rule – Revisions to the Safe Harbors for Waiving Coinsurance, et.al

On December 7, 2016, the Office of the Inspector General published a Final Rule (81 Federal Register 88368) and will be effective January 6, 2017.

The Final Rule includes technical corrections to the existing Safe Harbor for referral services, a new Safe Harbor for waiver of patient cost-sharing for emergency ambulance services, a new Safe Harbor for free or discounted local transportation services, and an amendment to the definition of “remuneration” for purposes of the Civil Monetary penalties for beneficiary inducements. Since the Final Rule covers many issues that pertain to other providers and suppliers, such as pharmacies, outpatient hospital, Federally Qualified Health Centers, Medicare Advantage Plans, etc., this Member Advisory will focus on the two issues that impact ambulance services and transportation.

Safe Harbor – Cost Sharing Reductions for Emergency Ambulance Services

In recent years, we have seen a number of OIG Advisory Opinions that permitted public EMS entities to waive the cost-sharing obligations of Medicare beneficiaries in specified circumstances. The OIG is now adding these as a “Safe Harbor”. The regulation, at 42 C.F.R 1001.952, will protect certain reductions or waivers of beneficiary cost-sharing for emergency ambulance services provided by public entities, which are paid by Federal health care programs under a fee-for-service basis. However, to qualify, all of the following must be met:

The provider or supplier must be owned and operated by a State, political division of a state or a tribal health program. NOTE: While this protects government entities that own and operate their ambulance service, it does not protect a supplier who contracts with that government entity even when that government entity pays the supplier for patient cost-sharing obligations through tax funded revenues. It also does not protect hospitals providing the emergency ambulance services.
The emergency ambulance services must be provided by a Part B provider or supplier. The definition of “Emergency” is the same one listed in 42 C.F.R. 414.605, which you use to determine whether to bill for an emergency base rate or a non-emergency base rate.
The reduction or waiver is not considered furnishing free services paid directly or indirectly by a government entity. It is not considered a free service if the government entity bills to the extent of insurance.
The reduction or waiver of cost-sharing is offered uniformly without considering patient- specific factors. NOTE: The OIG allows residency to be considered. Thus, a city may choose to waive or reduce cost-sharing for residents but not for non-residents.
The provider does not later claim the amount waived as a bad debt, or shift the burden to a government program.

If all of the above items are met, the government entity providing the emergency ambulance service can reduce or waive the patient’s cost-sharing obligation.

Please note, there is no change here with respect to membership programs by a public or private ambulance service, nor is there any change in policy or the law concerning a government entity paying a private ambulance company for copayments of its residents.

Safe Harbor for Free or Discounted Local Transportation

A new Safe Harbor has been created at 42 C.F.R. 1001.952(bb) to protect free or discounted local transportation made available by an “eligible entity” for beneficiaries of Federal health care programs. The key elements to this Safe Harbor are:

The transportation must be local. That is defined as up to 25 miles if urban and up to 50 miles if rural.
It can be provided to or from a provider of service.
It can be provided to the patient as well as to a person that assists the patient.
The transportation does not have to be scheduled ahead of time.
The entity can use a voucher program, if they want.
The transport cannot be provided by an air, luxury or ambulance level service.
An eligible entity cannot require an ambulance company to provide free or discounted transportation to its patients.
An eligible entity is defined as an individual or entity.
An “established” patient means a person who has selected and initiated contact with a provider or supplier to schedule an appointment or who has given consent to someone to do it for them.
The transportation cannot be advertised.
The transportation cannot be used to recruit patients.
The transportation must be for medically necessary services.
Eligible entities must have an established policy regarding the availability of transportation assistance and must apply it uniformly.
The eligible entity is not required to maintain documentation for each patient transported, but it would be a “best practice” to have such documentation.
Drivers cannot be paid on a per patient basis.
The eligible entity cannot have a sign saying “Donated by ___”, as that is marketing.
The eligible entity cannot shift the cost of the transportation to any government health care program.
Shuttles are permitted but the rules are slightly less stringent. The vehicle must be used for a set route or schedule, does not have to be for established patients, must be for local use (25 miles urban; 50 miles rural), it can make multiple stops and, while the entity cannot advertise, they can post a schedule.

Read the entire Final Rule is 42 (Federal Register).

Free Post-Election Analysis Webinar for Members

Written by Aidan Camas on November 15, 2016. Posted in Elections, Events, Government Affairs, Member-Only, Webinars.

Post-Election Analysis Webinar – Thursday, November 17th, 2:00pm EST

The recent elections resulted with Republicans taking control of the White House and retaining a majority in the House and Senate. In the first 100 days of the Trump Administration, we will see a major shift from the policy positions of the current administration. It is likely that there will be immediate efforts toward the repeal, amendment, and replacement of the Affordable Care Act as well as tax reform and infrastructure improvement. Join us for this free webinar, and hear former Members of Congress Bill Paxon (R-NY) and Vic Fazio (D-CA), whom both served in their respective party leadership, give their analysis of the elections and of where the new Administration and Congress go from here.

Unable to Attend?

No problem! All webinars will be recorded and available to stream On-Demand. Register now and watch on your own time!

Questions?

Please contact Colleen Crowley at ccrowley@ambulance.org.

Trump Healthcare Transition Analysis

Written by John Jonas on November 15, 2016. Posted in Executive, Government Affairs.

President-elect Donald Trump is naming more members of his transition team as he prepares to form his cabinet and key White House position. In the healthcare arena Andrew Bremberg will take the lead on transition issues related to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Bremberg, who has been working on the Trump transition team since the Republican National Convention in July, worked at HHS for nearly eight years under the George W. Bush Administration. Bremberg later advised Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on health policy and served on Mitt Romney’s transition team in 2012. Most recently, he worked on Scott Walker’s health care team during the Wisconsin governor’s presidential campaign. He is viewed as a traditional inside professional with a strong working knowledge of the health care system.

The Trump transition team is currently focused on cabinet-level picks. Candidates to become HHS Secretary in the new Administration reportedly include: Dr. Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon and former GOP presidential candidate; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal; Rich Bagger (we previously worked with him when he was at Pfizer and we represented the company), executive director of the Trump Transition team and a pharmaceutical executive; and Florida Gov. Rick Scott, Congressman Tom Price (GA), a Member of the House Ways & Means Committee, has also expressed interest in being Secretary.

Topping the list of health care priorities for Congressional Republicans is repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act. The GOP will likely seek to pass a budget resolution, and then a reconciliation bill to repeal major portions of the health law, including the individual and employer mandates and various taxes. The budget reconciliation process will allow the Senate to advance a repeal bill with only a 51-vote majority. Both a FY 17 and FY 18 reconciliation bills are possible

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) is expected to remain as Ways and Means Committee Chairman, and Rep. Pat Tiberi as Chairman of the Health Subcommittee. Republicans will need to fill a few seats on the Committee; Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA) lost his Senate race, while Rep. Todd Young (R-IN) won his. Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL) lost his re-election bid. On the Democratic side, it is not clear whether the six seats gained by the Democrats will change the Committee ratios in any way. Brian Higgins will likely regain his seat on the Ways & Means Committee to fill one of the seats vacated by Charlie Rangel and Jim McDermott. A fair number of Members on both the Republican and Democratic side are lobbying for positions on the key Ways & Means Committee.

We will continue these updates as we collect additional information on the Trump transition, particularly as it looks at sub-cabinet level positions in HHS and CMS. I have attached for folks’ review, the Ways & Means Committee document, A Better Way, which discusses their replacement for the ACA and is probably the best starting point for those looking to begin to discern what repeal and replace will look like. We will provide more updates on this process as they begin to take shape.

Annual Conference

Educational Events

Website

Capital Campaign

Stars of Life

Medicare’s Definition of “Locality”

The Proposed Clarification

Analysis of the Proposed Clarification

Take Action for Permanent Medicare Ambulance Relief

Ask your Senators to Support S.967 – 2017 Medicare Ambulance Access, Fraud Prevention, and Reform Act

Capital Campaign and Financial Status

Stars of Life

Education

By: Tristan North and Kathy Lester, JD, MPH

House Legislation, The American Health Care Act (AHCA)

Senate ACA Reform Legislation

Process for Repeal and Reform

Administrative Actions

By: Tristan North and Kathy Lester, JD, MPH

Overview

Medicare Ambulance Relief and Reform

Ambulance Advocacy Webinar

Changes to Open Enrollment/Special Enrollment Periods

Network Adequacy

Interpretation of the Guaranteed Availability Requirement

De Minimis Variation in the Actuarial Values

Essential Community Providers

Advocacy Priorities

Capital Campaign

Committees and Task Forces

2017 Membership Renewal

Office of the Inspector General – Final Rule – Revisions to the Safe Harbors for Waiving Coinsurance, et.al

Safe Harbor – Cost Sharing Reductions for Emergency Ambulance Services

Safe Harbor for Free or Discounted Local Transportation

Unable to Attend?

Questions?

Stay In Touch!