On February 16, 2023, the Department of Veterans published in the Federal Register the final rule to revise the payment methodology for beneficiary travel by ambulance and other so-called “special modes of transportation. The changes contained within the final rule were first included in a November 5, 2020 proposed rule.
The final rule will become effective on February 16, 2024.
The VA currently pays for beneficiary travel under certain circumstances. To be eligible for reimbursement, the veteran must meet certain eligibility criteria. Specifically, the veteran must be traveling either: (i) for care at a VA health facility or (ii) for care at a non-VA facility that has been previously approved by the VA. The veteran must also meet one of the following additional criteria:
Beneficiary travel covers all modes of transportation, including transportation by private vehicle, common carriers (e.g., taxi, livery, and public transportation), mass transit, etc. Beneficiary travel also covers so-called “special modes of transportation,” which includes air and ground ambulance services, wheelchair vans services, and stretcher vans services.
The rules governing the payment for beneficiary travel services at set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 70.30.
Subpart (a)(4) sets forth the payment methodology for the reimbursement of special modes of transport, and simply provides that payment is based on “[t]he actual cost of a special mode of transportation. In the context of ambulance services, this has historically been interpreted to mean the ambulance provider’s full billed charges.
Provisions of Final Rule
Under the final rule, the VA would revise its existing payment methodology for beneficiary travel by ambulance and other special modes of transportation to no longer reimburse providers for their actual costs, and to instead base reimbursement on:
The revised payment methodology for non-ambulance special modes of transport is intended to be temporary. In its proposed rule, the VA indicated that it would use this payment methodology for a minimum of 90 calendar days after a final rule was posted in the Federal Register. This period of time was intended to allow the VA to gather payment data. If the VA believes that it gathered sufficient payment data during this initial 90-day period, it indicated that it would develop a new payment methodology “using the lowest possible rate.” If the VA determined that it did not have sufficient payment data after the initial 90-day period, it would extend the proposed payment methodology for additional 90-day periods as needed until it believed it had sufficient data. The VA indicated that it did not anticipate needing more than 18 months from the effective date of the final rule to gather sufficient payment data to implement a new payment method
In this series of live webinars provider participants will receive an overview of Community Care which includes the background on Community Care programs and the corresponding VA regulations. In-dept discussions on topics from referrals and authorizations, authorized emergency and unauthorized emergency care, urgent care, claims, and more. This webinar will take place in February, April, June, and August in 2022.
Prior to the webinar, please send any questions you have to firstname.lastname@example.org +
Mar 17, 2022
1:00 pm EST
Apr 21, 2022
1:00 pm EST
May 19, 2022
1:00 pm EST
Jun 16, 2022
1:00 pm EST
Jul 21, 2022
1:00 pm EST
Aug 18, 2022
1:00 pm EST
Sep 15, 2022
1:00 pm EST
The American Ambulance Association has been working hard to accomplish the legislative goals of the membership in the 116th Congress. The AAA would like to take this opportunity to provide an update on what we have accomplished thus far in the 116th Congress.
Balance/surprise billing is a hot button issue that recently came into the spotlight at the start of the 116th Congress. With the President’s announcement calling for Congress to pass legislation that would end surprise billing for patients, there has been an increase in Congressional action on the issue including introduced legislation, discussion drafts and hearings in all committees of jurisdiction. The AAA has been working tirelessly with the Congressional committees of jurisdiction to educate Members and staff on the unique characteristics of EMS systems and that it would be inappropriate to apply the same restrictions on balanced billing to ground ambulance services.
The AAA has formed a working group comprised of AAA member volunteers that have worked on policy and messaging on balance billing. The working group has submitted comments to the Energy and Commerce Committee and Senate HELP committees advocating that the ambulance industry is unique from other stakeholders, and as such, should be looked at differently. Ambulance service providers and suppliers are required by law to treat and transport all patients, regardless of their ability to pay and are heavily regulated at the local level. The AAA has been working to communicate these factors that place the ambulance industry in a different situation than many other stakeholders.
The Public Safety Officers Death Benefit (PSOB), a one-time benefit paid to families of first responders killed in the line of duty, is an issue that the AAA has passionately advocated for over many years. In the 116th Congress, the AAA has secured introduction of legislation in the House of Representatives, H.R. 2887, the Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act. H.R. 2887 would extend the PSOB to first responders employed by private for-profit EMS agencies. The AAA was able to secure several commitments from Members of Congress to cosponsor the legislation during Stars of Life meetings in Washington, DC. In addition to taking action to move H.R. 2887 through the legislative process, the AAA will be engaging in an outreach campaign in the next few weeks.
The AAA has worked toward reintroduction of legislation to restructure the offset that was passed into law in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (H.R. 1892) in the 115th Congress. This offset included a total cut of 23% to the Medicare reimbursement for basic life support (BLS) non-emergency transports performed by all ambulance service suppliers and providers to and from dialysis centers. This cut served as an offset to the 5-year extension of Medicare add on payments that our industry worked hard to get extended.
The AAA has secured introduction of legislation in both the House and Senate. H.R. 3021 was introduced by Representatives LaHood (R-IL) and Sewell (D-AL) and S. 228 by Senators Cassidy (R-LA) and Jones (D-AL). If passed, this legislation would change the cut that is currently in place so that it applies specifically to companies conducting over 50% ESRD non-emergency transports. Those ambulance services with over 50% ESRD transports would get a cut of 29.5%, while those doing less would receive a 15.5% cut. The AAA will continue to work toward movement and passage of this legislation that would better distribute the reduction to those providers which do almost exclusively non-emergency dialysis transports and thus have a lower cost of providing services.
The AAA has crafted legislation that is specifically aimed at addressing major Medicare ambulance industry issues. The issues that will be included in future legislation include making Medicare ambulance add-ons permanent, implementing a prior-authorization program across the nation, allowing for transportation to alternative destinations, reducing regulatory burdens, and providing relief through maintaining many zip codes as rural following the next census. The AAA is working to get this Medicare priorities legislation introduced in the coming months so that we can get to work on solving these Medicare issues that impact our industry as a whole.
Another priority that that the AAA has been diligently working toward getting introduced is Veterans Affairs (VA) legislation. The Veterans Reimbursement for Emergency Ambulance Services Act (VREASA) introduced by Congressman Tipton (R-CO) would provide veterans with reimbursement for emergency ambulance services when a Prudent Layperson would have a reasonable expectation that a delay in seeking immediate medical attention will jeopardize the life or health of the veteran. This legislation was introduced as a result of the VA consistently requiring all medical records be provided, including the records of treatment after the emergency service has taken place. Should those records show that it was not a life threatening emergency or a false alarm, the claim for reimbursement is being denied. The VA legislation would mandate that the VA apply the “prudent layperson” definition of emergency to determine coverage of ambulance claims.
The AAA is also working toward addressing two other issues with the VA to enforce more prompt payment by the VA and treating the VA as the first payor, similar to Medicare, as it is determined whether there is a different primary payor. The AAA has been working with Senators Collins and Tester on language help solve this ongoing and serious reimbursement issue.
In our next update, we will be reporting on the progress the AAA has made this year on regulatory issues.
If you have questions about the discussion draft or balance billing initiatives being undertaken by the AAA, please do not hesitate to contact a member of the AAA Government Affairs Team.
Tristan North – Senior Vice President of Government Affairs
email@example.com | (202) 802-9025
Ruth Hazdovac – AAA Senior Manager of Federal Government Affairs
firstname.lastname@example.org | (202) 802-9027
Aidan Camas – Manager of State & Federal Government Affairs
email@example.com | (202) 802-9026
Thank you for your continued membership and support
On April 1, 2019, CMS implemented a new series of Common Working File (CWF) edits that are intended to better identify ground ambulance transports that are furnished in connection with an outpatient hospital service that is properly bundled to the skilled nursing facility (SNF) under the SNF Consolidated Billing regime.
These edits work by comparing the ambulance claim to the associated outpatient hospital claim. Hospital claims were already subject to CWF edits designed to identify outpatient hospital services that should be bundled to the SNF. These hospital edits operate by referencing a list of Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) or Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes that correspond to outpatient hospital services that are expressly excluded from SNF Consolidated Billing. Hospital claims for outpatient services that are submitted with one of these excluded codes bypass the existing CWF edits, and are then sent to the appropriate Medicare Administrative Contractor for further editing and payment. Hospital claims submitted without one of these codes are denied for SNF Consolidated Billing.
The new ambulance edits will extend these process one step further. The ambulance claim will be associated with the outpatient hospital claim on the same date. To the extent that hospital claim is bundled under SNF Consolidated Billing, the associated ambulance claim will also be bundled. To the extent the hospital claim is unbundled, the associated ambulance claim will be unbundled.
In order for these new edits to work properly, there must be an outpatient hospital in Medicare’s claim history. If the ambulance claim beats the hospital claim into the system, the ambulance claim will be rejected. If and when an outpatient hospital claim with the same date of service enters Medicare’s system, the initial rejection of the ambulance claim will be overturned, and the ambulance claim will be reprocessed using the same edits.
It is important to note that the new edits were designed to reject the ambulance claim as a bundled service unless the hospital claim indicates that it should not be bundled. In other words, these edits are designed to be “over inclusive.” This over-inclusiveness creates the potential for ambulance denials in situations that, on their face, would not appear to be bundled.
A few examples will help illustrate this point. Imagine a situation where the patient elects, for whatever reason, to pay out-of-pocket for their hospital care (in a situation where that care would not be bundled to the SNF), and, as a result, the hospital does not submit a bill to Medicare for its services. Based on how the new edits are designed, your ambulance claim for the transport to that excluded service will be rejected based on the lack of a hospital claim. Or maybe the patient has both Medicare and the V.A., and has elected to have the V.A. be the primary payer for their required hospital care. Again, there would likely be no outpatient hospital claim submitted to Medicare on that date of service, resulting in the rejection of your ambulance claim.
I can see your point, but those examples are pretty far-fetched. How big an issue is this really?
I agree those examples are pretty far-fetched. However, there are other situations that create the same problem. For example, what about an emergent response to transport an SNF patient to the hospital for necessary emergency services? Imagine if you are called to respond late at night (e.g., 11:30 p.m.) tonight. Now imagine that, by the time you get to the patient, load them into the vehicle, and transport them to the ED, it has crossed over midnight into the next day.
What date of service is going to be on the hospital’s claim? Almost certainly, the hospital will use tomorrow’s date. As a result, when your claim hits Medicare’s system, there will not be an associated hospital claim, which will result in your claim being rejected as the responsibility of the SNF. In this situation, Medicare’s edit has worked as intended, but the result is the denial of a claim that should be separately payable by Medicare Part B.
Okay, I can see how this might be annoying,
but I can appeal the claim and likely win on appeal, right?
Yes and no. The problem is that you are not likely to win on either of the first two levels of appeal, as they are likely going to rely upon the information in the CWF. I can see you possibly winning your appeal at the ALJ level…5 to 7 years from now.
In other words, the appeals process is unlikely to provide an acceptable resolution. Instead, I think the majority of ambulance providers are going to look to the SNFs to make good in these situations. Of course, the SNFs are likely going to disclaim liability, arguing (correctly) that ambulance transportation to an ED is an excluded service.
This is where the agreement with the SNF comes into play. One key purpose of contracts is to allocate known risks between the parties. In this instance, the “risk” that needs to be addressed is the possibility that Medicare might incorrectly reject your claim thinking it is bundled to the SNF. I would argue that this risk should be absorbed by the SNF. The transport to the ED should have suspended the patient’s SNF stay, which would have allowed you to receive a separate payment from Medicare. However, the fact that your claim was rejected is proof positive that the CWF does not reflect the suspension of the patient’s SNF stay. Indirectly, it also serves as proof that the SNF received a per diem payment for the patient on that date. To me, the fact that they accepted the per diem payment means they accepted the risk of a bundled ambulance service on that date. I would also argue that it was their failure to properly suspend the patient’s SNF stay that set in motion your denial. Either way, I would be looking to the SNF for payment.
Based on my experience, the typical agreement with an SNF does not address this situation. Frequently, these agreements do not even address the specifics of SNF Consolidated Billing. Instead, I tend to see general language indicating that the ambulance provider will bill the SNF when payment responsibility lies with the SNF under an applicable federal or state health care program. I doubt that language is going to convince an SNF to take financial responsibility for the situation discussed above.
The good news is that your existing agreements can easily be revised to address this situation. The language I would recommend is something along the lines of:
“The parties acknowledge and agree that a denial from Medicare for SNF consolidated billing shall constitute conclusive evidence that a transportation service is the financial responsibility of the facility.”
In sum, the new SNF Consolidated Billing edits are going to increase the frequency with which we are forced to look to the SNFs for payment. In most instances, it will be a situation where the SNF is legally responsible under SNF Consolidated Billing. However, there will also be situations where the over-inclusive nature of the edits results in the claim being incorrectly denied as the SNF’s responsibility. The question becomes how you want to handle these incorrect denials. Do you want to appeal and hope CMS reverses its decision? Or do you want to hold the SNF responsible? If you want to hold the SNF responsible, you will likely need to revise your agreements with the SNFs.
Have an issue you would like to see discussed in a future Talking Medicare blog?
Please write to me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
The Senate voted today to confirm Robert Wilkie as Department of Veterans Affairs secretary. Wilkie, previously an undersecretary at the Pentagon, was approved by the Senate 86-9. Of note, Wilkie becomes the fourth VA Secretary in the past five years.
Wilkie takes over after Secretary David Shulkin was fired earlier this year. Wilkie is the second nominee put forward to replace Shulkin after White House physician, Ronny Jackson, withdrew his nomination in April.
On January 9, 2018, the Department of Veterans Affairs issued an interim final rule that would amend its policy for payment of Millennium Bill claims. The Millennium Bill authorizes the Veterans Administration (VA) to pay for emergency care provided to veterans in non-VA facilities — including emergency ambulance transportation — provided the veteran has no other health insurance that would cover the costs of such emergency care. These changes were necessitated, in part, by a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans’ Appeals (Staab v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 50, 2016).
The two major changes being made by the interim final rule are: (1) the expansion of payment eligibility to include veterans who received partial payment or reimbursement from a health plan for their non-VA emergency care and (2) the expansion of payment eligibility for emergency transportation associated with a veteran’s receipt of emergency treatment in a non-VA facility.
These changes went into effect on January 9, 2018.
38 U.S.C. §1725 authorizes the VA to reimburse veterans for the costs of emergency treatment for non-service connected conditions furnished in a non-VA facility, provided certain criteria were met. One requirement was that the veteran be personally liable for the costs of that emergency treatment. As originally enacted in 1999, the statute indicated that the veteran would be personally liable if the veteran: (1) has no entitlement to care or services under a health-plan contract and/or (2) the veteran had no contractual or legal recourse against a third party that would, in part or in whole, extinguish such liability. The VA historically interpreted its payment obligations under the Millennium Bill to be limited to situations where the veteran had no entitlement to coverage under their health insurance or any other contractual or legal recourse against a third party.
The Expansion of Veteran Eligibility for Reimbursement Act of 2010 amended the requirements related to non-health insurance payments to remove the phrase “in part”. As a result, the VA revised its regulations to permit it to make a payment under the Millennium Bill in situations where automobile or other forms of non-health insurance made a partial payment, and where the veteran remained liable for the balance of the health care provider’s bill. However, there was no corresponding change made to the provisions related to health insurance contracts. As a result, the VA continued to view partial payment by a health plan as a bar to payment by the VA.
In Staab, the Court of Appeals adopted a more lenient interpretation of the statute, i.e., a more restrictive view of the VA’s statutory bar on reimbursement. Specifically, the Court held that the reimbursement bar would only apply when the payment from the health plan fully extinguished the veteran’s liability. The practical effect was to place health insurance plans on equal footing with other forms of insurance. The Court remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.
The VA subsequently appealed the Court of Appeals decision. However, on June 14, 2017, Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin announced that the Department would drop its appeal. Reversing course, Secretary Shulkin indicated that the VA had drafted regulations to implement the expanded Millennium Bill coverage. Those regulations form the basis of this interim final rule.
The VA revised its regulations at 38 C.F.R. §17.1002(f) to indicate that the VA will make payment under the Millennium Bill to the extent the veteran otherwise qualifies for coverage to the extent that the veteran “does not have coverage under a health-plan contract that would fully extinguish the medical liability for the emergency treatment.” The VA retained the reimbursement bar for situations where the veteran would have been covered under a health plan had the veteran or the provider failed to comply with the requirements of that health plan, e.g., by failing to submit a timely claim. This change will apply to: (1) all claims pending with the VA as of April 8, 2016 or (2) submitted after that date.
The VA historically viewed emergency ambulance transportation to the non-VA facility as part of the overall emergency treatment of the veteran. As a result, the VA believed that a health plan’s payment for the hospital care, in whole or in part, triggered its reimbursement bar. One common situation that impacts ambulance suppliers involves veterans that have Medicare Part A benefits (which cover the costs of their hospital care), but where the veteran has elected to forego paying for Medicare Part B. In these situations, Medicare would pay for the hospital care. The VA took the position that this triggered the reimbursement bar, and therefore prevented it from making payment for the emergency ambulance transportation.
Because the interim final rule expands Millennium Bill coverage to include situations where a health plan makes a partial payment, the VA found it necessary to amend its regulations governing the payment of ambulance claims. Specifically, the VA amended its regulations at 38 C.F.R. 17.1003 to provide that ambulance providers will now be eligible for payment provided the following conditions are met:
The A.A.A. has confirmed that the VA does not consider the coinsurance or deductible obligations imposed by a veteran’s health plan for the purposes of determining whether the veteran’s liability has been fully extinguished by the health plan’s payment.
Therefore, in situations where the veteran has health care coverage, payment by the VA is likely to be limited to situations where the ambulance provider is permitted under state and local laws to bill patients for the difference between their billed charges and the amounts allowed by the health insurer, i.e., those areas that currently permit balance billing. This would also mean that the VA would be unlikely to have any payment responsibility in situations where Medicare has made payment on the ambulance claim (although it leaves open the possibility that the VA may be responsible for non-covered Medicare services such as excess mileage).
When the VA pays under this expanded Millennium Bill authority, its payment will be based on the following methodology:
Payment from the VA is generally considered to be payment-in-full, and extinguishes the veteran’s remaining liability to the provider for unpaid amounts. Note: the veteran would remain liable for unpaid co-payments and deductibles. If the provider does not wish to accept the VA’s payment, it has 30 days from its receipt of such payment to reject and refund the payment.
Have any Medicare questions? Contact Brian at email@example.com
The VREASA (Veterans Reimbursement for Emergency Ambulance Services Act) would provide veterans with reimbursement for emergency ambulance services when a Prudent Layperson would have a reasonable expectation that a delay in seeking immediate medical attention will jeopardize the life or health of the veteran.
Currently, prior to reimbursement, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) requires all medical records be provided, including the records of treatment after the emergency service has taken place. Should those records show that it was not a life threatening emergency or a false alarm, the claim for reimbursement is denied. The veteran is stuck with the bill.
Medicare, Medicaid, and other major payers adhere to the “prudent layperson” standard for the reimbursement of emergency ambulance services. The VA is the only major payer to not follow this standard. It is time we ensure our veterans are not stuck with the bill for their emergency ambulance service.
AAA Member, American Medical Response and their VP Federal Reimbursement & Regulatory Affairs, Deb Gault, have been working with Rep. Coffman’s office to get this bill reintroduced.
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.
The Senate voted Monday to confirm David Shulkin as Department of Veterans Affairs secretary. Shulkin, previously the undersecretary at the Department of Veterans Affairs was unanimously approved by the Senate 100-0. Of note, Shulkin becomes the first VA Secretary to have not previously served in the military.
A physician, Shulkin previously administered hospital systems such as Beth Israel Hospital in New York, before coming to the VA. During his hearing, Shulkin “promised veterans organizations that he opposes privatization of the VA.” Shulkin will continue to work towards lowering wait times for veterans and implementing the Veterans Access Choice and Accountability Act.
Asbel Montes, AAA Payment Reform Committee co-chair and all-around reimbursement expert, recently developed some great quick tips on billing the US Department of Veterans Affairs for ambulance services.
Do you have a process in place to identify when a transported individual is a veteran being carried to a non-VA facility? In an emergency condition, it may prove very beneficial for you to have a consistent process within your billing department to ensure that you can identify these patients in order to maximize reimbursement, while also avoid billing the patient inappropriately… READ MORE►
On March 3, 2016, Congressman Charles W. Boustany, Jr., MD, republican representative of Louisana’s 3rd district, introduced the Timely Payment for Veterans’ Emergency Care Act. According to data obtained by Boustany from the VA’s Chief Business Office, the VA has a nationwide emergency claims payment backlog of over $788 million.
When the VA fails to pay these medical bills on time, veterans’ credit ratings are put at risk.
Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to approve H.R. 3236, the Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice Improvement Act. Update 2:16 p.m. on July 30: The Senate approved the legislation today, and it is now headed to the President’s desk for signature.
Among its provisions, the bill would allow the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to use $3.3 billion from the Veterans Choice Fund to pay for care provided to veterans by non-VA providers between May 1 and October 1, 2015 under the VA’s community care programs.
H.R. 3236 also would require the VA to develop a plan to consolidate all non-VA programs into a single “Veterans Choice Program” and to submit a report on the plan to Congress by November 1, 2015. Among its provisions, the plan must include the structuring of the billing and reimbursement process; a description of the reimbursement rate to be paid; and an explanation of the processes to be used to ensure that the Secretary will fully comply with the federal Prompt Payment Act.
Further, H.R. 3236 would make a number of changes to the current Veterans Choice Program, including: eliminating the requirement that a veteran be enrolled in the VA health care system by Aug. 1, 2014 in order to participate; allowing the VA to expand the number of non-VA providers that may offer medical services; waiving the program’s wait-time eligibility threshold if clinically necessary for the veteran; and allowing veterans residing within 40 driving miles of a VA medical facility to use non-VA services if the VA facility does not have a full-time physician on staff.
M. Todd Tuten is a Senior Policy Advisor at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP.