Skip to main content

Response to Kaiser Health News Ambulance Billing Article

Written by Mark Postma on . Posted in Medicaid, Medicare, News, Press, Private Insurance, Reimbursement.

Below is the American Ambulance Association’s Response to a recent Kaiser Health News article on ambulance billing. It was reprinted in several metropolitan areas on November 20, 2017.

To the Editor:

I write today in response to Melissa Bailey’s November 20 piece about ambulance balance (“surprise”) billing. While we disagree with the characterization of ambulance services in the article, we welcome the ongoing public dialogue about how unsustainable reimbursement for emergency medical services results in cost-shifting to patients.

Missing from the article is a true understanding of the sky-high cost of readiness for emergency medical services. Ambulance service providers offer their communities 24/7/365 on-demand mobile healthcare. Skilled staff and ambulances—high-tech emergency rooms on wheels—are ready to respond to a 9-1-1 call at a moment’s notice to help patients with issues ranging from stroke to heart attack to trauma to childbirth. EMS is also on the very front lines of the surge in opioid overdoses, providing naloxone (Narcan) to hundreds of patients each day. Keeping supplies, medications, equipment, and personnel at-the-ready requires a significant ongoing investment, regardless of whether or not an ambulance is out responding to a call. Cost comparisons between EMS and the rideshare app Uber may make for catchy sound bites, but they are misleading and misguided.

The piece states that our nation’s 14,000 ambulance service providers received 1,200 Better Business Bureau complaints spread over three years. While certainly not optimal, this is a tiny, unrepresentative fraction of the tens of millions of responses ambulance service providers conduct annually. In fact, BBB 2016 statistics show that ambulance services receive far fewer complaints than hospitals, physicians, dentists, and many other trusted healthcare providers.

The article also offhandedly mentions that balance billing occurs when private insurers and ambulance service providers are unable to agree about fair reimbursement rates. This glosses over the dark reality that it would be hard to categorize the process that occurs between the insurer and ambulance services as a “negotiation.” Instead, insurers often present an all-or-nothing proposition to force ambulance service providers to accept contracts at unsustainably low reimbursement rates. Unlike the multi-billion dollar insurance behemoths, most ambulance services are small and operate on razor-thin margins. In fact, 73% of ambulance services provide fewer than 1,000 Medicare transports per year—just three per day. Ambulance services do not turn down insurance network contracts out of greed, but instead out of necessity. Facing reimbursement rates below the cost of the services they provide, they must decline these agreements in order to keep their doors open and continue to provide healthcare to their communities. Unfortunately, this sometimes creates a situation where out-of-network ambulance costs are shouldered by patients via balance billing, instead of insurers.

In addition to challenges receiving fair compensation from private insurance, EMS is stretched thin by ultra-low Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates. In fact, in 2007 and 2012 GAO studies showed that without temporary, Congress-authorized percentage increases in EMS payments, ambulance services would receive reimbursement from government payors below the cost of operations. These are often the very same unsustainable rates that private insurers are attempting to strong-arm EMS providers into accepting for network contracts.

Finally, when someone calls 9-1-1 in need of emergency medical care, it is key to recall that, unlike in other industries, an ambulance responds regardless of the patient’s ability to pay. In many cases, the patient does not have insurance and is financially unable to reimburse the ambulance service provider. Therefore, EMS provides a significant amount of uncompensated care, the cost of which must be spread across all payors in order for them to continue their life-saving operations.

Ambulance services provide an essential, on-demand healthcare benefit to their communities. Unfortunately our current healthcare payment structure means that much of this care is not compensated equitably, resulting in the necessity of balance billing patients. While there are no quick fixes for this issue, we encourage consumers to educate themselves about their own insurance coverage. We also ask for your support of legislation that provides sustainable reimbursement for ambulance providers, including the bipartisan US Senate Bill 967. Together, we can ensure the future of mobile healthcare in our great nation.

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

 

Time to handle 911 call demands with Paramedics

Written by Scott McConnell on . Posted in Community, Legislative, Medicaid, Medicare, News, Training.

When discussing this new and growing field of pre-hospital care, there seems to be two unique paths that services are following. The first is the hospital-owned or contracted service, where community providers seek ways to decrease readmission rates for CHF, COPD, Pneumonia, Sepsis, MI and other chronic illnesses.

When a patient discharged with one of these targeted conditions is readmitted within a 30 day window, “hospitals face penalties of up to 3 percent of Medicare payments in 2018” (Gluck, 2017, para. 10). That is a lot of money. Consider, “Lee Health, Southwest Florida’s largest hospital operator, which is expected to lose $3.4 million in payments” (Gluck, 2017, para. 2). This model represents the if, or, and type of service, meaning if we can do it for less and there are providers willing to do this type of medicine, then we can save the expensive penalties from CMC.

The other model of community paramedicine is 911 abuse reduction. For years EMS has conditioned the public to call 911 for any emergency. But today, what we consider an emergency is far from the public’s perception of an emergency. “EMS has experienced a 37% increase in 911 calls since 2008.” (White, 2016, para. 6) Yet have we increased staffing proportionally to meet the demand? Afraid not since “only 50% of EMS services in 2008 were fully staffed, and more than 63% had a volunteer component as part of their staffing level” (“Critical Staffing Shortages,” 2015, para. 2).

The article references increasing wages to help compensate for the decrease in trained providers by attracting more professionals to the field. With the CMC limiting payments and the major insurance companies following suit, doubtful this will be an option in the near future.

To reduce calls and increase levels of service, we can try to reeducate the public to what is a true emergency, but that is a long and slow process. For example, Philadelphia has started the trend and placed several billboards up around neighborhoods that contribute an ordinarily high amount of non-emergent 911 calls. Will this work? Time will tell but I would believe not enough to affect the volume of calls.

What about enlisting Community Paramedics in these situations? I believe this is a viable solution with nurses triaging the low acuity calls in the 911 center. Dispatching Community Paramedics armed with not only the usual equipment, but also the knowledge base to connect these patients with primary care physicians, social workers, and the programs that are available to them. This will help people receive the long-term care they deserve.

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
* Critical Staffing Shortages (2015)
* Gluck, F. (2017, February 7th, 2017). Lee Health will lose $3.4 million in Medicare payments because of readmission rates. USA Today
* White, D. (2016, February 16th, 2016). Community paramedic? program intended to reduce 911 calls. Manatee Technical College

Medicaid Replacement Plans

Written by Stacey Bickford on . Posted in Medicaid, Reimbursement.

Medicaid billing in emergency medical services is unavoidable. From trauma trips to non-emergency transports, ambulance providers face a multitude of hurdles when trying to identify, verify and bill the correct payor for Medicaid patients. Guesswork is often used instead of real-time insurance verification.

This can be especially true when commercial payors such as United Healthcare and Blue Cross Blue Shield manage the Medicaid plan, commonly termed Medicaid Replacement Plans. This article provides four valuable tips for successfully processing EMS claims when a Medicaid Replacement Plan is involved.

The Challenge for EMS Billing: Benefits Verification

Just as commercial payers see growth opportunities in managing Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, they are also overseeing hundreds of Medicaid programs. According to the annual CMS-64 Medicaid expenditure report, in federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016, Medicaid expenditures across all 50 states and 6 territories exceeded $548 billion, with nearly half of all spending now flowing through Medicaid managed care programs. On average 54.67% of Medicaid dollars are spent on managed care, whether to manage the transition or fund plans. This ranged from 97.9% in Puerto Rico, down to 12.1% in Colorado.

A single trip may have Medicaid benefits, but also managed by United Healthcare or another third-party commercial payer. The result? Blended coverage for Medicaid patients and confusion for providers.

Four Tips to Expedite Medicaid Verification

 When checking benefits for Medicaid patients, carefully review the standard eligibility response. Payors usually note benefit management by a commercial payer in the response, but there is no consistency in format or location. The Medicaid Replacement Plan notification may be placed at the top, middle or very bottom of the file. Furthermore, unnecessary additional information may be provided by the payor causing more confusion and time delays for EMS billers. For example, Cigna often includes dental, pharmaceutical and other specialty coverage details even though this information is never required for ambulance trips.

To avoid reimbursement delays with Medicaid Replacement Plans, implement the following four tactics:

Ask the eligibility vendor to place replacement plan information at the top of the file. If notification is placed in the same location and in the same format for every eligibility response, billers save time searching for coverage.

  1. Request that only pertinent coverage for the claim be included in the eligibility notification. If this is not possible, ask the payer to prioritize eligibility information by placing only the relevant coverage at the top.
  2. Take time to check and verify eligibility up front. Ensuring a clean and correct claim saves EMS providers back-end expense and expedites reimbursement due to fewer payor rejections and denials.
  3. Ask your EMS software vendor to integrate eligibility checking directly in your system’s workflow for real-time access during the pre-bill and billing processes. Technology integration saves billing time by eliminating the need to access and enter data into an outside payor portal or insurance discovery application.

Numerous EMS providers struggle with insufficient billing staff to manage claims. Take every step possible to streamline efforts and reduce duplicate work due to denied or rejected claims. When checking eligibility, proper identification and billing of Medicaid Replacement Plans is an essential step.

About the Author:
Stacey Bickford is the Operations and Client Coordinator at Payor Logic. She has been involved with medical billing since a teenager with prior experience in data entry, billing and office management for physicians’ practices, hospitals and especially EMS agencies. Prior to joining Payor Logic in 2016, Stacey started with ZOLL in 2008 as a support technician moving to Product Manager of RescueNet Billing through 2016.

In her free time, Stacey enjoys travelling with her family, Michael and their dogs Benjamin and Poncho. They’ve visited 21 states in the last 15 months! She loves hiking, gardening and being outdoors as much as possible.

 

CMS – MLN Ambulance Transports Booklet

Written by David Werfel on . Posted in Medicaid, Medicare, News, Reimbursement.

CMS has issued an MLN Ambulance Transports Booklet. The booklet (36 pages) can be downloaded here.

Download MLN Ambulance Transports Booklet

One section of the Booklet that you might want to keep handy involves Free-Standing Emergency Departments. Specifically, on page 15, CMS states the following:

Freestanding Emergency Department (ED)
If a freestanding ED is provider based (a department of the hospital), the ambulance transport from the freestanding ED to the hospital is not a separately payable service under Part B if the beneficiary is admitted as an inpatient prior to ambulance transport. For more information about criteria for coverage of ambulance transports separately payable under Part B or as a packaged hospital inpatient service under Part A, refer to Chapter 10, Section 10.3.3, of the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual.

This may be useful, along with the Manual section cited, when you have a free-standing ED that is part of a hospital and they call for transports to the main building for the patient to be admitted, but the hospital lists the time of admission as being prior to the time of your transport. When the hospital admits the patient prior to your transport, the hospital becomes responsible for the ambulance charges. It may be useful to show the hospital and ED the booklet and Manual section to prove to them that the hospital is responsible if the patient is admitted to the hospital prior to your transport.

UnitedHealthCare Denials for ALS-2 Claims

Written by Brian Werfel on . Posted in Medicaid, Medicare, Member-Only, Private Insurance, Reimbursement, Talking Medicare.

Talking Medicare

with Brian S. Werfel, AAA Medicare Consultant

Over the past few weeks, we have received emails from ambulance providers across the country reporting that UnitedHealthCare (UHC) has started to deny claims for the ALS-2 base rate. Affected claims include both commercial and Medicare Advantage claims. These providers are reporting that UHC is requiring the use of Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) Codes to support the ALS-2 level of service.

When these providers call UHC to question the denials, the customer service representative refers them to UHC’s online policies and procedures manual. The section of that manual devoted to the ALS-2 base rate largely mirrors Medicare’s definition. For example, it indicates that ALS-2 can be billed based on three separate administrations of one or more medications by IV push/bolus or continuous infusion, or upon provision of one or more of the designated ALS-2 procedures (e.g., an endotracheal intubation).

However, the manual section then goes on to indicate that “Ambulance Providers or Suppliers are required to report CPT or HCPCS codes… when reporting A0433.  Ambulance transport services that do not include the services described in criteria 1 or 2 above should be reported with a more appropriate ambulance transport code.”

The manual section concludes with links to two lists of CPT codes. The first list, designated as “ALS2 Criteria 1 Codes” relate to the intravenous administration of various medications. These codes fall within the range of: 96365 – 96376. The second list, designated as “ALS2 Criteria 2 Codes” correspond to the various ALS interventions:

CPT Code:                            Description:
31500                                    Endotracheal Intubation, Emergency
31603                                    Under Incision Procedures on Trachea and Bronchi
31605                                    Under Incision Procedures on Trachea and Bronchi
36000                                    Under Intravenous Vascular Introduction & Injection Procedure
36555                                    Central Venous Catheter Placement, Patient Under Five Years
36556                                    Central Venous Catheter Placement, Patient Over Five Years
36568                                    Insertion of Central Venous Access Device
36569                                    PICC Line Insertion
36680                                    Intraosseous Line Infusions
92950                                    Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
92953                                    Other Therapeutic Cardiovascular Services
92960                                    External Electrical Cardioversion, Non-Emergency
92961                                    External Electrical Cardioversion, Emergency

The ambulance providers have indicated that they have questioned UHC on the necessity of including CPT codes on these claims. These providers argue, correctly, that CMS does not require the use of CPT codes on Medicare claims. Instead, Medicare requires the ambulance provider to document in the billing narrative the justification for billing ALS-2. For example, a provider might list multiple administrations of epinephrine, the use of an intraosseous line, etc.

The fact that UHC is asking for the CPT codes suggests that it does not currently review the billing narratives. Instead, UHC appears to be using the CPT codes to ensure that the ALS-2 criteria are met.

Is UHC correct to insist upon the use of CPT codes? Probably not, at least for its Medicare Advantage claims. However, I think the more appropriate question to ask ourselves is whether it is worth fighting UHC on this issue? If using CPT codes ensure that UHC correctly processes and pays these claims with minimal delay, my opinion is that it is probably easier just to comply with their policy.

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

CMS Letter Regarding Merit-Based Incentive Payment System

Written by Brian Werfel on . 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. 

 

HHS Letter to Governors on Medicaid Changes

Written by Mark Postma on . 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.

Administration’s Proposed Rule on Marketplace Stabilization

Written by Kathy Lester on . 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.

The Future of Prior Authorization

Written by Brian Werfel on . Posted in Medicaid, Medicare, Member Advisories, Member-Only, Reimbursement.

In May 2014, CMS announced the creation of a three-year demonstration project that calls for the prior authorization of repetitive scheduled non-emergency ambulance transports. The demonstration project was first implemented in the states of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. These states were selected based on their higher-than-average utilization rates for repetitive ground ambulance transportation. For example, in a June 2013 report to Congress, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) cited these states as having particular high utilization rates for dialysis transports. Prior authorization went live in these states on December 15, 2014.

Congress Acts to Expand the Prior Authorization Regime

On April 16, 2015, President Barack Obama signed into law the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015. Section 515 of that law required CMS to expand the demonstration program into five additional states (Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia) and the District of Columbia on or before January 1, 2016. The law further instructed CMS to expand the prior authorization regime to the rest of the country beginning no earlier than January 1, 2017. However, the national expansion was conditioned on CMS determining that the demonstration project has been effective in reducing Medicare expenditures without jeopardizing patient’s access to necessary medical care.

Short Term Prospects for Expansion

As of the end of January 2017, CMS has yet to issue its report on the effectiveness of the prior authorization program in the original 8 states and the District of Columbia. Therefore, there it is highly unlikely that CMS will be expanding the program nationally in the foreseeable future. However, CMS has not officially ruled out the possibility of expanding the program at some point during 2017.

While CMS has not officially ruled out a national expansion in 2017, I rate the prospect as unlikely. I base this statement simply on the calendar. Even if CMS were to issue the required certifications tomorrow, it would still need to give its contractors instructions on how to implement the program. It would also need to give some advance notice to the provider community. If you assume it would want to give everyone involved at least a month to prepare, it would be April at the earliest before it could expand the program. Personally, I have a hard time believing that CMS would go through all that trouble—not to mention allocating the necessary funding—for 8 months.

Long Term Prospects for Prior Authorization

While I rate the short term prospects for prior authorization to be unlikely, I think that our industry should expect prior authorization for repetitive patients to be part of our long term future.

The data thus far suggests that prior authorization is highly effective at reducing Medicare expenditures. In 2014, the last year before prior authorization went into effect, Medicare paid more than $106 million for dialysis transports in New Jersey alone. In 2015, total spending on dialysis decreased to slightly more than $15 million, a decrease of more than 85%. While there has been anecdotal reports of patients in the state being unable to obtain transportation to their dialysis appointments, there is little empirical evidence to suggest that these are anything other than isolated occurrences, or that prior authorization is contributing to a systematic lack of access. The data from Pennsylvania and South Carolina shows similar dramatic decreases in spending on dialysis.

Collectively, total spending on dialysis in these three states was approximately $140 million less in 2015 than 2014. This corresponds to nearly 20% of total dialysis spending in 2014. To put these reductions in their proper perspective, it may be helpful to remember that the Congressional Budget Office scores the cost of our existing temporary adjustments (i.e., the 2% urban, 3% rural and super rural adjustments) at approximately $100 million a year.

Some will argue that the 2015 reductions in these states were magnified by what can be charitably described as “friction” in the implementation of the program. (We recognize that affected providers in these states are likely to use far less charitable descriptions.) These people would argue that the reductions in subsequent years is likely to be less dramatic. CMS will be releasing 2016 payment data in a few months; at which point we will know whether this prediction proves true. Regardless of whether the data shows an uptick in payments in these states, that same data is almost guaranteed to show a dramatic decrease in total spending on dialysis in these states over the 2014 base year.

In sum, the data makes clear that prior authorization offers substantial cost savings to the federal government. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of these cost savings come from dialysis transports, an area that CMS has long-identified with fraud, abuse, and overutilization. This represents a tempting target for both CMS and Congress when looking for future cost-savings.

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

Medicare Relief and Reform Letter by President Postma

Written by Mark Postma on . Posted in Medicaid, Medicare, Member Advisories, Member-Only, Reimbursement.

This is a critical year for the legislative efforts of the American Ambulance Association and our members.  First and foremost, our temporary Medicare ambulance increases expire at the end of the year.  It is vital that we ensure the new 115th Congress makes these increases permanent, or at the very least approves another long-term extension.  To be successful, we will need all of your help in reaching out to your members of Congress in support of the increases.

The AAA and our partners have been also working to further the reform of the Medicare ambulance fee schedule.  To accomplish the first steps in this process, ambulance services need to be treated as providers of health care services rather than only suppliers of medical transportation.  In addition, we will need the cost data necessary for Congress, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the AAA to make data-driven decisions regarding the reform.

To achieve these goals, we are working with our champions in Congress to reintroduce a version of the Medicare Ambulance Access, Fraud Prevention and Reform Act (HR 745, S. 332 – 114th Congress).  We hope to have a bill reintroduced in the House and Senate in the coming weeks.  Only with your help in sustained outreach to your legislators will we be able to get the provisions of this bill passed.

Our absolute top priority this year is preventing the expiration of the Medicare add-on payments.  Building the increases into the base rates is also vital to the future of reform, as is provider standing and cost data collection.  These changes will lead, we hope, to the demonstration of the need for additional reimbursement as well as recognition of the role ambulance services can play in the larger health care picture.  The subsequent goal is coverage for services such as mobile integrated health and alternate destinations.

The AAA will also be closely following the debate and implications for our industry around repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act, potential Medicare and Medicaid reform, and other health care and broader initiatives of interest to us.  We will keep you posted of new developments as the process unfolds.

Since this is such a vital year for us in Congress, I ask that each of you respond to our Calls to Action for help with your members of Congress on the Medicare increases and other legislative priorities.  We will only be successful if we all push as one.

GAO Report on Revised Provider Enrollment Screening Process

Written by Brian Werfel on . Posted in Medicaid, Medicare, Member Advisories, Member-Only.

In March 2011, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented a revised process for processing the enrollment of new Medicare providers and suppliers. This revised process also applied to existing Medicare providers and suppliers that were revalidating their enrollment information. This new process included assigning all providers and suppliers to one of three risk categories—limited, moderate, and high—based on the perceived risk of fraud and abuse. The risk category then determines the applicable screening process used for providers within that risk category.

Please note that ambulance providers and suppliers were placed in the moderate risk category. This risk category includes a verification of the information provided by the provider on its enrollment application, a check of the provider’s state licensure, a check of any adverse legal actions against the provider, and a site visit of the provider.

On December 15, 2016, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on the initial results of this revised provider enrollment screening process.

In its report, the GAO indicated that CMS applied its revised enrollment screening process to over 2.4 million newly enrolling and revalidating Medicare providers and suppliers from March 25, 2011 through December 31, 2015. Other relevant findings include:

  • The total number of enrolled Medicare providers and suppliers increased from 1.4 million in March 2011 to 1.9 million in December 2015, an increase of more than 30%.
  • CMS denied more than 6,000 applications for ineligible providers and suppliers. The most commonly cited reason for a denial was the failure of applicant to meet the provider/supplier type requirements. This included situations where the provider/supplier did not hold the required certification for that provider/supplier type.
  • CMS rejected 17,000 applications as incomplete. The GAO found that approximately 25% of the rejected applications were the result of the application being filed in error, either by the provider/supplier or the MAC. 21% of applications were rejected as being duplicates. Another 16% of rejections were the result of the provider/supplier failing to timely respond to the MAC’s request for additional information.
  • CMS screening of existing providers/suppliers resulted in more than 660,000 provider numbers being deactivated. This was typically (47%) the result of the provider failing to respond to the MAC’s request that they revalidate. Another 29% were the result of the provider/supplier voluntarily withdrawing from the Medicare program. Another 5% of deactivations were the result of the provider/supplier not submitting a claim to Medicare within the previous 12 months. The majority of these were likely individual practitioners (e.g., physicians) that either died, or who retired from professional practice, and who failed to inform the MAC at the time of retirement to request that their provider number be deactivated. This could also include organizational providers that were sold or otherwise no longer operational.
  • These were frequently the result of an individual practitioner (e.g., a physician) failing to deactivate his or her Medicare number upon their retirement, and their either not responding to a request to revalidate, or notifying the MAC of their retirement and agreeing to voluntarily withdraw
  • CMS revoked the billing privileges of 43,000 provider/suppliers. The most common reason cited (61%) was the failure of the provider/supplier to be professionally licensed. However, within the moderate risk category, which includes ambulance, 26% of all revocations were the result of a “CMS-approved revocation,” e.g., the result of some adverse legal action against the provider/supplier which was not properly disclosed to the MAC within 30 days.

 

CMS estimated that its revised screening procedures avoided $2.4 billion in Medicare payments to ineligible providers and suppliers over this period.

CMS also reported that it made several changes to its screening process over this period. This includes the implementation of a continuous license monitoring report in November 2013, and a continuous criminal monitoring report in July 2015. This also includes fingerprint-based criminal background checks for the owners and certain key employees of categorically high-risk providers and suppliers. In December 2015, CMS also began conducting site-visits for certain limited-risk providers and suppliers.

Despite the progress made by CMS, the GAO did find that certain program vulnerabilities still exist. For example, the GAO found that CMS had not established performance measures to monitor its ability to place providers and suppliers in the proper risk categories. The GAO recommended that CMS establish objectives and performance measures for assessing its progress in establishing better screening procedures for new enrollments and revalidations. CMS ultimately agreed with this recommendation.

Have a Medicare question? AAA members, send your inquiry to Brian Werfel, Esq. using our simple form!

 

2015 Medicare Data Shows Evident of Crackdown on Non-Emergency Transport

Written by Brian Werfel on . Posted in Medicaid, Medicare, Reimbursement, Talking Medicare.

2015 Medicare Payment Data Offers Evidence of Nationwide Crackdown on Non-Emergency Ground Ambulance Transportation; Impact Varies Dramatically by Medicare Administrative Contractor

Every year, CMS releases data on aggregate Medicare payments for the preceding year. This file is referred to as the Physician/Supplier Procedure Master File (PSP Master File). This past month, CMS released the 2016 PSP Master File, which contains information on all Part B and DME claims processed through the Medicare Common Working File with 2015 dates of service.

In September’s blog post, I discussed the results of the first year of the prior authorization demonstration project for repetitive, scheduled non-emergency ground ambulance transports. During this first year, the project was limited to three states: New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. The data confirms that these three states saw a dramatic reduction in Medicare’s approved payments for dialysis transports.

This month, I will be discussing the national payment trends for non-emergency ground ambulance transports, and, in particular, Basic Life Support non-emergencies.

In 2015, Medicare paid approximately $990 million for BLS non-emergency transports. This is 13% less than what it paid for BLS non-emergency transports in 2014 ($1.14 billion). Please note that these figures only reflect payments for the base rate; when the payments for the associated mileage are included, the reduction is even more dramatic.

In actual terms, this means Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) approved nearly 1 million fewer BLS non-emergency transports in 2015 (5.86 million) than they approved in 2014 (6.81 million). Roughly 75% of this reduction can be directly attributed to the prior authorization program in the three states listed above. Note: the reduction in approved dialysis transports in New Jersey accounts for nearly half of the national decline). However, that leaves nearly 250,000 fewer approved transports in the remaining 47 states. This reduction was not the result of fewer claims being submitted in 2015; the number of submitted claims was actually higher in 2015 than 2014. Rather, the data shows that this reduction is the result of the MACs actively denying many more claims than in year’s past.

I believe these reductions are the direct result of a step-up in the enforcement activities of the MACs, which I also believe has the tacit, if not outright, approval of CMS.

To test this thesis, I looked at the state-by-state data to see if any trends could be found. What I found was that 28 states saw increases in the total number of approved BLS non-emergency transports in 2015, with 19 states seeing decreases. However, on its face, that number is somewhat deceiving. The states that saw increases tended: (1) to see either relatively small increases or (2) had relatively low utilization rates to begin with. The states that saw decreases tended to be larger states with higher utilization rates, and those decreases tended to be larger in percentage terms. For instance, California saw a 21.5% decrease in the number of approved BLS non-emergency transports. Ohio saw an 11.7% decrease.

Digging deeper, it becomes clear that a state’s overall change in payments for BLS non-emergencies is almost perfectly correlated with its change in payments for dialysis transports. In other words, to the extent the state saw an overall reduction in payments for BLS non-emergencies, that reduction – – in nearly all cases – – was the result of the total payments for dialysis decreasing by more than any offsetting increase in the total payments for non-dialysis transports.

These relative changes in dialysis were also highly correlated with the MAC that administers Medicare claims in that state. To the extent your state saw a reduction in dialysis payments, it is highly likely that neighboring states administered by the same MAC saw similar reductions in payments. The following charts will help illustrate this point:

2016-11-29-werfel-non-emergency-crackdown-chart-1As you can see, all three states within Cahaba’s jurisdiction saw a net increase in the total payments for dialysis. While the increases themselves were quite minor in Alabama and Tennessee, Georgia saw an 11.8% increase in total payments for dialysis. Similarly, both Florida and Puerto Rico saw significant increases in the approved payments for dialysis.

By contrast, every state in National Government Services’ (NGS’) jurisdiction with more than 1,000 paid dialysis transports in 2015 saw a net reduction in the total payments for dialysis. These reductions ranged from a relatively minor reduction of 1.17% in New York to a nearly two-thirds (64.58%) reduction in Minnesota.

2016-11-29-werfel-non-emergency-crackdown-chart-2This trend was present in all remaining jurisdictions, although the results were more mixed. For example, with the exception of South Carolina, the three remaining states administered by Palmetto all saw increases. Likewise, the majority of states administered by WPS saw decreases. This included Indiana, which has a sizeable dialysis population. Among WPS states, only Missouri saw a small (3.90%) increase.

California saw a 31.76% decrease in its payments for dialysis. The only other Noridian states with more than 1,000 paid dialysis trips were Hawaii and Washington, which both saw increases.

Novitas presents a more complicated picture, with several large states, such as Texas, seeing double-digit increases in payments for dialysis, while other large states saw sizeable decreases.

All in all, the data suggests that CMS and its contractors continue to pay close attention to the non-emergency side of our business, particularly BLS non-emergency transports. These transports have been under scrutiny for many years, as reports from the Office of Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office and other federal agencies have flagged this portion of our industry as being particularly prone to overutilization (and, in some cases, outright fraud).  However, this heightened scrutiny is not being uniformly applied across-the-board. The data suggests that certain MACs have been far more aggressive in targeting these sorts of trips across their entire jurisdictions, while others seem content to target specific (typically large) states within their jurisdictions. This could serve as a template for how MACs will approach prior authorization in their jurisdictions.

‘Praemonitus, Praemunitus’     

Latin Proverb, loosely translated to “forewarned is forearmed.”

 

 

CMS SMR Contractor Audit Error

Written by Brian Werfel on . Posted in Medicaid, Medicare, Member Advisories, Member-Only.

Over the past week, we have learned that several ambulance suppliers have received letters from the CMS Supplemental Medical Review Contractor (SMRC), StrategicHealthSolutions, LLC.  These letters indicate that the SMRC is conducting a medical review of their claims.

The letter contains a section that explains why the supplier has been selected for review.  That section contains the following explanation:

The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA), signed into law on April 16, 2015, extended the therapy cap exception process through December 31, 2017, and modified the requirement for manual medical review for services over the $3,700 therapy thresholds.  MACRA eliminated the requirement for manual medical review of all claims exceeding the therapy thresholds and instead allows a targeted review process.  CMS has tasked the SMRC with performing post-payment medical review of Part B therapy claims for providers with a high percentage of patients receiving therapy beyond the threshold as compared to their peers for dates of service July 1, 2015 to the present. 

Our firm contacted the SMRC on behalf of a number of affected providers.  On November 14, 2016, StrategicHealthSolutions responded to our inquiry.  The SMRC indicated that its review was intended to be limited to suppliers of physical therapy services.  Accordingly, the SMRC confirmed that these audit letters were sent to ambulance suppliers in error. 

The SMRC further indicated that ambulance suppliers that received this audit letter in error will be notified by telephone that they were selected in error.  The SMRC will also be sending letters to affected ambulance suppliers notifying them of its error.  These letters are expected to be mailed tomorrow, Tuesday, November 15, 2016.

If your organization received a letter from StrategicHealthSolutions, LLC, please know that this letter was sent in error.  Your organization is not being audited by the Supplemental Medical Review Contractor.  You can expect to receive a phone call and/or a letter in the next few days formally notifying you of the contractor’s error.  That letter should formally withdraw the SMRC’s request for medical records. 

If you received a letter from the SMRC, and have any further questions, please feel free to contact Brian S. Werfel, Esq., the AAA’s Medicare Consultant.  He can be reached via email at bwerfel@aol.com.

CMS List of Medically Unlikely Edits for Ambulance Services

Written by Brian Werfel on . Posted in Medicaid, Medicare, Member Advisories, Member-Only, Reimbursement.

On October 1, 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) updated its list of Medically Unlikely Edits (MUEs). The MEU program is designed to reduce the paid claims error rate for Part B claims. The program operates by estimating the maximum number of units of service that a provider/supplier would report under most circumstances for a single beneficiary on a single date of service. A claim that submits units of service in excess of this threshold will typically be denied by the Medicare Administrative Contractor.

For additional information on the CMS Medically Unlikely Edit Program, click here.

Effective October 1, 2016, claims for ambulance services will be subject to the following MUE edits:

HCPCS Code MUE Threshold
A0425 (Ground Ambulance Mileage) 250
A0426 (Ground Ambulance, ALS Non-Emergency) 2
A0427 (Ground Ambulance, ALS Emergency) 2
A0428 (Ground Ambulance, BLS Non-Emergency) 4
A0429 (Ground Ambulance, BLS Emergency) 2
A0430 (Air Ambulance, Fixed Wing) 1
A0431 (Air Ambulance, Helicopter) 1
A0432 (Ground Ambulance, Paramedic Intercept) 1
A0433 (Ground Ambulance, ALS-2) 1
A0434 (Ground Ambulance, Specialty Care Transport) 2
A0435 (Air Ambulance, Fixed Wing Mileage) 999
A0436 (Air Ambulance, Helicopter Mileage) 300

 

Findings Patterns Where None Exist

Written by Brian Werfel on . Posted in Medicaid, Medicare, Reimbursement, Talking Medicare.

On August 16, 2016, the HHS Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) issued a decision related to CMS’ authority to revoke a Medicare supplier’s billing privileges.  The DAB is the fourth and final level of administrative appeal within the Department of Health and Human Services.

Factual Background

The case involved John P. McDonough III, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist residing in Florida, and two of his affiliated medical practices, Geriatric Psychological Specialists and Geriatric Psychological Specialists II.  In October 2014, First Coast Service Options, Inc., the Medicare Administrative Contractor for Florida, notified McDonough and both medical practices that their Medicare billing numbers were being revoked for alleged abuses of their billing privileges.  Specifically, First Coast indicated that data analysis had revealed that the three suppliers had submitted a total of 420 claims for deceased beneficiaries over an approximately two-year period.

McDonough and his two medical practices appealed for a reconsideration of the revocation of their billing privileges, which was denied in February 2015.   The suppliers then appealed for an ALJ hearing.  The suppliers conceded that they submitted more than 200 claims for beneficiaries that were deceased on the date of service.  However, they attributed these claims to data-entry errors and other clerical mistakes.  The suppliers argued that these were simple billing errors, representing a small percentage of the tens of thousands of claims they submitted during this period of time.   In December 2015, the ALJ issued his decision.  While the ALJ seemingly accepted the suppliers’ explanation that these were billing errors, and that there was no intent on the part of the suppliers’ to submit false claims, the ALJ nevertheless upheld the revocation of their billing privileges.  Citing previous DAB decisions, the ALJ held that the admitted submission of repeated claims for services to deceased beneficiaries due to “incorrect billing entries due to similar beneficiary names or Medicare numbers, and inadvertent typing errors” was not inconsistent with a finding that the suppliers’ had abused their billing privileges.

The suppliers’ then appealed to the DAB. In its decision, the DAB first noted that it has consistently rejected contentions that revocation required a finding that the supplier acted intentionally:

“The Board has long held that the regulation’s plain language does not require CMS to establish fraudulent or dishonest intent to revoke a supplier’s billing privileges under this section and that the regulatory language also does not provide any exception for inadvertent or accidental billing errors.”

The DAB then countered the suppliers’ argument that CMS never intended to revoke a supplier’s billing privileges for simple mistakes.  They cited language from the June 27, 2008 final rule, where CMS stated revocation “is not intended to be used for isolated occurrences or accidental billing errors.”  The DAB noted that CMS, in that same final rule, indicated that it would not consider the submission of three or more improper claims to be accidental.  The DAB also noted that the relatively small percentage of erroneous claims was irrelevant, as the regulation does not require CMS to establish any particular error rate or percentage of improper claims.

The DAB held that since the record established that the suppliers’ had submitted more than 3 claims for deceased beneficiaries, CMS had met the requisite legal standard for revocation.  Accordingly, the DAB upheld the revocation of the suppliers’ billing privileges.

Potential Impact on Ambulance Providers

The DAB’s decision effectively establishes a strict liability standard for revocations based on the submission of claims for deceased beneficiaries.  The submission of three or more such claims over any designated period of time could constitute legal grounds for CMS to revoke a supplier’s Medicare billing privileges. 

The implications of this decision should give every Medicare provider pause.  However, given the nature of our operations, our industry needs to pay particular attention.  The psychologist and therapists that were the subject of the above-referenced case saw patients on a scheduled basis, and spent many hours with each of their patients.  This gave them ample time to obtain insurance information from each of their patients, and to confirm the accuracy of that information.  Yet the suppliers’ still had more than 200 claims billed incorrectly.

EMS providers do not have that luxury.  We frequently encounter patients on the street or at their home.  Many of these patients do not have their insurance information on them at the time of transport.  Even when the patient had this information on their person, under the stress of an emergency medical situation, the paramedic or EMT may not record this information accurately.

As a result, our billing offices spend a good portion of their time trying to verify a patient’s insurance.  Unfortunately, some of the administrative “shortcuts” we have developed to address these problems create the potential to inadvertently submit claims for deceased patients.  While there is nothing at present that suggests that CMS intends to expand the use of its revocation authority, we probably want to rethink these shortcuts.

An example you say?

Consider a transport of an elderly woman to the hospital in an emergency.  The crew does not obtain the patient’s insurance information at the time of transport.  However, they do obtain the hospital face sheet, which lists the patient’s social security number.  To convert this social security number to a Medicare HIC#, we need to include a Medicare suffix.  How would you go about doing that?

One option would be to ping the patient’s name, date of birth and SSN against an eligibility database.  While effective, provider’s typically pay for these lookups.

Another option would be to simply guess what the applicable suffix might be, affix that to the SSN, and submit the claim.  If it goes through, the provider guessed correctly.  If it rejects as an invalid name and HIC# combination, the provider would know to try another suffix.  So let’s assume the provider elects to use this option.  Playing the percentages, the provider would likely add the “B” suffix, on the theory that, given her age, the woman likely qualified for Social Security Benefits (and therefore Medicare benefits) based on the work history of her spouse.  But what if the provider was wrong, and the woman was the primary wage earner in her family?  If that were the case, her suffix would likely be the “A.”  Now imagine that her husband shared the same Social Security numerics, and that his suffix was the “B.”  Further imagine that he has since passed, and the provider has now inadvertently submitted a claim for the dead husband.

Now imagine this happens three times in a year…

Another way we can inadvertently submit claims for dead patients is not using front-end verification.  Many providers submit claims based off the insurance information they received at the time of transport (or from the hospital, nursing home, etc.), without any attempt to confirm its accuracy.  These providers recognize that the insurance information will be correct more often than not.  They are making the calculated decision that it is easier to deal with any issues after they have been identified by the payer.  However, one reason an insurance can come back as invalid is because the crewmember recorded the HIC# incorrectly.  For example, they may transpose a few digits (i.e., they wrote “1243” rather than “1234”).  If the transposed HIC# relates to a deceased beneficiary, that would be captured by the data analytics used by the Medicare contractors.

The DAB’s decision is certainly troubling.  However, I do not believe that our industry needs to overreact.  Rather, I would encourage everyone to view the DAB’s decision as a starting point, and to re-examine their own billing and verification processes to see if there is anything they can do to reduce the likelihood of their organization every confronting this issue.

 

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

Acadian’s Asbel Montes on Ambulance Payment Reform

Written by Asbel Montes on . Posted in Medicaid, Medicare, Reimbursement.

“EMS is instrumental to the healthcare fabric of our country. As the healthcare industry continues to innovate, it is imperative to recognize the value that EMS brings to the pre- and post-hospital environment. EMS providers are the only gatekeepers to the healthcare system in many communities.

73% of all ambulance suppliers credentialed with Medicare bill the program less than 1,000 transports per year. It is imperative that any cost data collection system reporting requirements consider this to ensure the reliability of the data and the administrative burden to ambulance providers and suppliers.”

Asbel Montes
Vice President of Governmental Relations & Reimbursement, Acadian Ambulance
Co-Chair, American Ambulance Association Payment Reform Committee

CMS Moratoria Update

Written by Kathy Lester on . Posted in Government Affairs, Medicaid, Medicare, Member Advisories, Member-Only, Regulatory.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Lifts Moratoria on Enrollment of Part B Emergency Ground Ambulance Suppliers in All Geographic Locations; Moratoria for Part B Non-Emergency Ground Ambulance Suppliers Extended

Effective July 29, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has lifted the temporary moratoria in all geographic locations for Part B emergency ground ambulance suppliers.  Beginning in 2013, CMS placed moratoria on Medicare Part B ground ambulance suppliers in Harris County, Texas, and surrounding counties (Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller).  In February 2014, CMS announced it would add six more months to these moratoria and add Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and surrounding counties (Bucks, Delaware, and Montgomery), as well as the New Jersey counties of Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester.  Since that date, CMS extended the moratoria four additional times, most recently in February of this year.

CMS considers qualitative and quantitative factors when determining if there is a high risk of fraud, waste, and abuse in a particular area and whether or not it should establish a moratorium.  If CMS identifies an area as posing an increased risk to the Medicaid program, the State Medicaid agency must impose a similar temporary moratorium as well.  CMS also consults with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) when identifying potential areas and providers/suppliers that should be subject to a temporary moratorium.  Finally, CMS also considers whether imposing a moratorium would have a negative impact on beneficiary access to care.  In areas where there is a temporary moratorium, the policy does not apply to changes in practice location, changes to provider/supplier information (e.g., phone number, address), or change in ownership.  Temporary moratoria remain in place for six months, unless CMS extends the policy through notice in the Federal Register.

CMS may lift a moratorium at any time if the President declares an area a disaster under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, if circumstances warranting the imposition of a moratorium have abated, if the Secretary of HHS has declared a public health emergency, or if, in the judgment of the Secretary of HHS, the moratorium is no longer needed.  After a moratorium is lifted, providers/suppliers previously subject to it will be designated to CMS’s “high screening level” for six months from the date on which the moratorium was lifted.

CMS has announced it will lift the moratoria on new Part B emergency ambulance suppliers in all geographic locations because the Agency’s evaluation has shown the primary risk of fraud, waste, and abuse comes from the non-emergency ambulance supplier category and that there are potential access to care issues for emergency ambulance services in the areas with moratoria.  New emergency ambulance suppliers seeking to enroll as Medicare suppliers will be subject to “high risk” screening.  If enrolled, these suppliers will be permitted to bill only for emergency transportation services.  They will not be permitted to bill for non-emergency services.

The moratoria remain in place for Medicare Part B non-emergency ground ambulance suppliers for all counties in which moratoria already are in place in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

 

2016 Medicaid Crossover Study

Written by Brian Werfel on . Posted in Medicaid, Reimbursement.

The AAA is pleased to announce the release of its Medicaid Crossover Survey 2016. A companion to its recently released 2016 Medicaid Rate Survey, the 2016 Medicaid Crossover Survey focuses on each state’s treatment of Medicare crossover amounts (i.e., copayment’s and deductibles).

The survey notes whether a state will pay the full crossover amount, will make a payment only to the extent Medicare’s payment was less than the amount Medicaid would have paid as a primary, or will not make a payment under any circumstances.

We hope members will find this tool useful in comparing their state’s Medicaid reimbursement to neighboring states, and hope it will assist in their efforts to ensure fair and equitable compensation for their services.

The AAA also wants to thank all members that participated in the survey. Without your help, these sort of projects would be impossible.

AAA 2016 State Medicaid Ambulance Rate Survey Results Released

Written by Brian Werfel on . Posted in Medicaid, Reimbursement, Talking Medicare.

Just Released!

View the AAA 2016 State Medicaid Rate Survey Results

Normally this blog focuses on an area of Medicare reimbursement or compliance.  However, this month I want to talk about Medicare’s companion program, Medicaid.

When you talk to ambulance providers around the country about their State’s Medicaid Program, a universal truth emerges: no one believes their Medicaid Program fairly reimburses them for their services.  This statement is not particularly controversial.  The Government Accountability Office has on several occasions looked at the relationship between our industry’s costs and Medicare’s payment, and has consistently determined that Medicare fails to adequately reimburse us for our costs.  Given that Medicaid payments are usually some fraction of what Medicare pays, there is really no debate that our industry loses money transporting Medicaid patients.

What I find more interesting is the sheer number of people that are convinced – – and I mean absolutely convinced – – that their state has the lowest Medicaid rates in the country.  Call it a reverse Lake Wobegon effect.  Of course, not everyone can be right.  Only one state can have the lowest ambulance rates (answer below).  Conversely, only one state can hold the honor of having the highest rates.  But how to settle these questions?

Well, the AAA has the answer.  On behalf of the AAA, I am pleased to announce the release of the American Ambulance Association’s 2016 State Medicaid Rate Survey.  This survey sets forth the fee-for-service Medicaid rates for all 50 states.  For each state, the Survey lists the rate paid for each of the following procedure codes:

  • A0428 – BLS Non-Emergency
  • A0429 – BLS Emergency
  • A0426 – ALS Non-Emergency
  • A0427 – ALS Emergency
  • A0433 – ALS-2
  • A0434 – SCT
  • A0225 – Neonate Transport
  • A0998 – Treatment, No Transport
  • A0425 – Mileage
  • A0422 – Oxygen
  • A0382/A0398 – BLS/ALS Routine Disposable Supplies
  • A0420 – Wait Time
  • A0424 – Extra Attendant

While I can promise that we have taken steps to verify the information on this Survey, neither the AAA nor myself can guarantee its accuracy.  The rates set out in this survey are based on publicly available information provided by the various State Medicaid agencies, and may not reflect changes to a state’s reimbursement policy that have not been made publicly available.  They will also reflect any emergency budgetary measures or other temporary reductions imposed by a state.  That said, our goal is to make this as accurate as possible.  Therefore, if you believe the rates for your state are inaccurate, I would ask you to please email me at bwerfel@aol.com, and to provide me with updated information.

I can feel some of you thinking at this point: “This is all fine and good, but how does this actually help me?”  Fair question.  At a minimum, it will probably make some of you feel better that your state is not actually the lowest.  Others may be fairly surprised to find that their state, which they believed to be at or near the bottom, is actually closer to the middle of the road.  Many of your states are expanding their managed Medicaid programs, and you find yourself trying to determine whether it makes sense to contract with the MCO (or its transportation broker).  Many of these transportation brokers service multiple states, and may be offering rates based on their rates offered by the State Medicaid agency in the state in which they are headquartered (I know it will come as a shock that many of the new MCOs seem unaware that coverage rules differ in each state).  We are also aware of instances in which a state association has used past rate surveys as part of a comprehensive strategy to lobby their state legislature for a rate increase, e.g., by demonstrating that the current rates paid by the state are far lower than the rates paid in neighboring states.

Regardless of whether (or how) you intend to use this Survey, I encourage all AAA members to check it out.

Answer: New Jersey has the lowest payment for both emergency and non-emergency transport, at a listed rate of $58.00, plus $1.50 per mile (for the first 15 miles, $2.00 for each mile thereafter).  For sake of comparison, a taxi from Newark Airport to midtown Manhattan (a distance of 17 miles) will typically run around $70.00 (plus tip).

 

Have an issue you would like to see discussed in a future Talking Medicare blog? Submit a question today!

 

 

HHS Office of Civil Rights Announces Phase 2 HIPAA Audit Review Program

Written by Brian Werfel on . Posted in Medicaid, Medicare, Regulatory, Reimbursement, Talking Medicare.

On March 21, 2016, the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services announced Phase 2 of its HIPAA Audit Program.  The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) required HHS to perform periodic audits of covered entities and business associates to assess their compliance with the HIPAA Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Rules.  These rules are enforced by the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

Background on Phase 1

In 2011, OCR implemented a pilot audit program to assess the controls and processes covered entities have adopted to meet their HIPAA obligations.  The pilot audit program was conducted in three phases.  OCR first developed a set of audit protocols that it would use to evaluate covered entities’ compliance.  This protocol was then tested using a limited number of audits.   The final step involved using the revised audit protocols on a larger number of covered entities.  Ultimately, 115 covered entities were selected for review, and all audits were concluded by December 31, 2012.

Phase 2

Phase 2 of the HIPAA Audit Program will focus on the policies and procedures adopted and employed by entities to meet the requirements of the Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification Rules.  OCR has indicated that these audits will be conducted primary through desk audits (i.e., document submissions), although by a limited number of on-site audits will also be conducted.

Unlike Phase 1, which focused exclusively on covered entities, OCR is indicating that Phase 2 will involve audits of both covered entities and their business associates.

As with the initial pilot audit program, Phase 2 will consist of several stages.  The first stage involves verification of a covered entity’s or business associate’s address and contact information.  A sample address verification letter can be viewed by clicking here.  OCR has indicated that emails will be sent to entities requesting accurate contact information for the entity.  OCR will then transmit a “pre-audit questionnaire” to the entity.  These questionnaires will be used to gather data about the size, type, and operations of potential auditees.  Based on this data, OCR will create potential audit subject pools.

Note: OCR has indicated that if an entity fails to respond to OCR’s request to validate its contact information and/or fails to return the pre-audit questionnaire, OCR will use publicly available information about the entity to create its audit subject pool.  As a result, an entity that fails to respond may still be selected for audit and/or compliance review.  OCR is specifically reminding entities to check their email “junk” or “spam” folders for any communications from OCR.

Once OCR has developed its audit subject pools, it will randomly select auditees from these pools.  Auditees will then be notified by OCR of their participation.  OCR has indicated that the first set of audits will focus on covered entities, with a subsequent round of audits focused on business associates.  These audits will focus on compliance with specific requirements of the Privacy, Security, or Breach Notification Rules.  Auditees will be notified of the scope of their audit in a document request letter.  Both of these rounds will be desk audits.  OCR indicated that all desk audits will be completed by the end of December 2016.

A third round of on-site audits will take place after the completion of the desk audits, and will examine a broader scope of requirements under HIPAA.  OCR further indicated that desk auditees may also be subject to on-site audits.

If an entity is selected for audit, OCR will notify them by email.  The email will introduce the OCR audit team, explain the audit process, and discuss OCR’s expectations in greater detail.  The email notification letter will also include initial requests for documentation.  OCR has indicated that it will expect entities to respond to these documentation requests within ten (10) business days.  Documents will be submitted through a new secure online portal.  Once received, OCR’s auditors will review the submitted information and inform the entity of its draft findings.  The entity will then have ten (10) business days to respond with written comments, if any.  OCR will then review the entity’s comments and issue a final audit report within thirty (30) business days.

OCR has indicated that the audits are primarily intended as a compliance improvement activity.  OCR will use aggregated data to better understand compliance with respect to particular aspects of the HIPAA rules.  The goal being to understand what types of technical assistance and/or corrective actions would be most helpful.  In other words, OCR is indicating that the goal of these audits is to improve its understanding of the state of compliance, and not to penalize specific companies for violations.  However, OCR indicated that should an audit reveal a serious compliance issue, OCR may initiate a further compliance review of the company.

OCR indicated that it will not post a list of the audited entities, nor will its findings be available in a format that would clearly identify the audited entity.  However, OCR noted that audit notification letters and other information regarding these audits may be discoverable under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Additional information from OCR regarding the Phase 2 HIPAA Audit Program can be obtained by clicking here.

Stay In Touch!

By signing up, you agree to the AAA Privacy Policy & Terms of Use.