Posts Tagged pay

What Can Physicians Charge for Medical Records?

What Can Physicians Charge for Medical Records?

The State of Alabama Board of Medical Examiners amended its rules that govern the fees physicians may charge to provide patients with copies of their medical records.2 The rules are set forth in Section 540-X-9-.10(2) of the Alabama Administrative Code, and the new rules became effective April 13, 2018.

Here are the key dos and don’ts physicians should take into account to determine how much (and whether) they should charge patients for copies of their records.

Don’t charge anything other than a “reasonable, cost-based fee” for necessary supplies, labor and postage.

As in the past, the new rules permit a physician to recover a reasonable, cost-based fee to comply with a patient’s request for copies of his medical records, subject to the prohibitions, requirements and recommendations below. Federal law and applicable U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) guidance specify that a reasonable, cost-based fee may include (i) certain costs for the labor required to copy the medical record (subject to certain limitations, as noted below); (ii) the physician’s costs reasonably incurred for supplies (e.g., costs for paper, toner and the like for paper copies, or for CDs, USB drives, or similar electronic media, if requested); and (iii) the physician’s costs reasonably incurred for postage, if the patient requests mail delivery to him or his designee. Only charge postage if the patient specifically requests mail delivery (and agrees to be responsible for the cost).

Don’t charge a “search” fee or other labor costs not specifically authorized by law.

Physicians may recover only certain, limited costs for labor required to copy a patient’s record. The fee may not include the physician’s costs, if any, to verify or document the patient’s request, costs to search for or retrieve the record, or costs to access, store and maintain electronic or paper records, or similar infrastructure costs. Among other things, this means that “search fees,” authorized by state law, are prohibited following the issuance of the new ALBME rules.3

In determining a reasonable, cost-based fee, labor generally may be calculated using either of two methods: (a) the physician’s actual labor cost to respond to the patient’s request; or (b) the average cost to respond to a similar request, based on a schedule.

Don’t charge more than the statutory limits, no matter what.

In contrast to prior rules, the new rules include additional nuance pertaining to the permissible charge for copying electronic medical records.

If the patient requests a paper copy of his medical record, whether the record is maintained in electronic or paper form, or an electronic copy of his paper record, the physician may charge a reasonable, cost-based fee, calculated using the factors listed above. The fee may be a per-page fee, so long as it is a reasonable, cost-based fee.4 As in the past, the new rules limit the amount a physician may charge for copies to $1.00 per page for the first 25 pages and $.50 per page for additional pages, plus the actual cost of mailing the record.5

However, if the patient requests an electronic copy of his electronic record, (i) the physician may not charge a per-page fee (regardless of amount); and (ii) the physician may either charge (a) a reasonable, cost-based fee, as determined above (subject to the prohibition on per-page fees) or (b) a flat fee of $6.50.

Don’t charge patients for copies if they can’t afford it.

Significantly, recent changes in federal and Alabama laws (i.e., HIPAA and the new ALBME rules) prohibit a physician from charging any fee to make copies of the medical record of a patient who is not able to pay.6 Unfortunately, there is no specific guidance to help physicians determine whether a patient is able to pay a reasonable, cost-based fee. The new rules indicate that, in making this determination, physicians “should give primary consideration to the ethical and professional duties owed to other physicians and to their patients.”

Don’t charge for access via an online patient portal.

Likewise, physicians may not charge a fee to a patient to access his electronic health record. Specifically, HIPAA precludes physicians and other covered entities from charging a fee to the patient to access his record using the View, Download and Transmit functionality of a certified electronic health record (“CEHRT”).

Notify the patient about any charges in advance.

Laws also prohibit a physician from charging a fee for copies unless the physician notifies the patient about the fee in advance (i.e., when the patient makes the request). The physician must also provide the patient with a breakdown of the fee, upon request. In fact, HHS recommends the physician make its normal charges for copies available to the public on its website or by other means.

Discussion

The new ALBME rules include some limitations not before instituted in previous rules. It is important to note the limitations discussed in this article only apply to a request made by the patient.7 So, for example, if a patient needs to provide copies of his medical record to an attorney, a physician may be permitted to charge a different (read: greater) fee if the attorney makes the request (by subpoena, for example), as opposed to the patient requesting the physician transfer the records to the attorney.

The new rules also include provisions intended to bring the Alabama rules into compliance with applicable provisions of the federal HIPAA rules.8 While the new rules provide needed clarity as to certain matters, questions remain. Likewise, HIPAA imposes certain additional limitations on permissible charges that must be taken into account, even though they are not mentioned in the ALBME rules.

In any event, the fact is, as in most legal and regulatory matters, the answer to the seemingly simple question, “What can I charge to make a copy of the patient’s record?” is it depends on a number of factors. In addition, federal and State of Alabama authorities have made it clear they intend to target physicians who charge excessive fees in future enforcement actions. Consequently, it is vital physicians have a proper understanding of the issues addressed above and promptly take appropriate action to comply.

Nothing in this article should be considered legal advice. In the event you need legal advice in respect to the matters above, or other matters, please contact appropriate legal counsel.

Article contributed by D. Brent Wills, Esq., and Mazie Bryant1 of Gilpin Givhan, PC. Gilpin Givhan, PC, is an official partner with the Medical Association.

References
1 Ms. Bryant is a Juris Doctor candidate at the University of Alabama School of Law.

2 See Ala. Admin. Code § 540-x-9-.10(2).

3 Note Section 12-21-6.1 of the Alabama Code still permits a $5.00 “search fee” to be charged. HIPAA explicitly pre-empts Alabama law on this issue. It is not clear whether or when the Alabama Legislature will update the statute.

4 Although HIPAA does not specify a per-page fee that constitutes a reasonable, cost-based fee, there is no indication that the (maximum) per-page fees specified in the new ALBME rules would not pass muster.

5 See Ala. Admin. Code § 540-x-9-.10(2).

6 Ala. Admin. Code 540-X-9.10(2).

7 Note HIPAA treats a request by the patient’s personal representative (as defined in the Privacy Rule) as a request made by the patient.

8 “HIPAA” means, in this context, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, together the privacy, security and breach notification rules promulgated thereunder, as set forth at 42 CFR Part 160 and Part 164, as modified by the Health Information and Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (“HITECH”).

Posted in: Legal Watch

Leave a Comment (0) →

Paying More Money Is Not the Best Way to Retain Great Staff

Paying More Money Is Not the Best Way to Retain Great Staff

Medical practices are painfully in need of keeping their top employees. The time, costs and dangers of recruiting replacement personnel are just part of the issue. Loss of key team members negatively impacts patient care, practice profitability, and staff morale. All administrators agree the retention of a trained, well-performing and mutually cooperative staff is a key to success in medicine. How do you increase your prospects of keeping your “keepers” so that you lose only the ones who needed to go anyway? There are three secrets to success in this area and none require pay raises or bonuses.

Most important is to show them that you respect them. Make them feel valued by your praise of their efforts and character. Try to “catch” them doing something good. Take an employee to the office of another physician in the group and praise some special thing they did recently. Prompt the physicians about special employee efforts and send them off to find and praise the staff member. Write key staff notes of thanks for their sacrificial efforts. Set aside time each week to praise one to three members of your team. Conduct “stay interviews” with select team members. Also, the physicians and practice leadership should be aware of the circumstances in their life. Do they have a child excelling at academics or athletics, are they planning a special vacation, are they approaching empty nest status, are they caregivers to parents or other family members, do they have a special hobby they enjoy discussing, are they saving for a major purchase like a vehicle, boat, or home?

Caring about the lives of your team affirms their value to you. Giving them a $500 bonus deposited into their joint checking account is a currency over which they may have limited control and when it is spent, it is forgotten. Giving them a handwritten note or sincere verbal praise is a “currency” they can keep for their very own and use again and again as they replay the message in their minds. The praise costs your practice a little of your time and a modicum of empathy.

After a culture of merited praise is established, it is easier to correct or discipline them when necessary. Ignoring mistakes or poor conduct is a sign of not caring about the person. Think of the influential family members, teachers and coaches in your life. Weren’t they candid with you about times when your efforts were not your best? If the staff rest in the certainty of your gratefulness for them, they can handle the truth about poor performance from you better. Always praise their character and criticize their actions. In other words, speak to the actions, but don’t attack their character. Avoid a “compliment sandwich” where you say something nice, slip in the problem, and then end with another positive. Be brief, be clear, be firm, but be nice.

New employees need some corrective discussion as early in their employment as possible. Not only is there usually an area for enhancement, but it establishes that you will exercise the right to address them when you deem necessary. For the millennials in your office, this discipline may come as a great shock. They were raised in an era when every child received a participation trophy just for showing up, and as children, they were assured they could be anything they wanted to be. If there were problems at school, their parents went to the school and took care of it for them. Now you are telling them they are special but not in a good way, and their only trophy may be dismissal if the behavior continues. This might be a difficult message to absorb, but you owe it to the great staff to communicate it in a timely manner.

At a recent practice management roundtable, we discussed the fact that some medical staff members underperform until the leadership assigns part of their duties to the better performing staff, so that things get done. Permitting this transfer of work, is unfair to all staff and must be remedied.

With a balance of praise and discipline in place, have some fun at work! Every holiday is a good time to have fun. At Christmas, let them have a contest to decorate a door. For Thanksgiving let them write something about each member of their work area for which they are thankful. Compile the results and share with the staff in a lunch meeting. Halloween, the start of football season, Groundhog Day and anything else is a reason to celebrate. Have each bring a baby photo of themselves, and let the team guess which baby is the staff member, let them send in photos of what they did this summer and have a collage review in the fall of the pictures with narrative by each staff to share the joy, take them bowling, have a new baby “pool” where all can guess the delivery details of an expectant mother on the team, and select secret pals among the staff with a low limit on any expenditures. The point is to permit them to have fun at work. You do not have to entertain them, just give them permission to entertain themselves.

It is essential medical practices provide a fair salary and benefit structure to their staff. Underpaying your people is not compensated by the provision of a good work environment. However, remember people accept a job for the initial pay and benefits, but they remain in a position because they feel appreciated, know their best efforts are expected, and they are encouraged to have fun at their work. Make your practice a place where these three things are true, and you will have a stable, patient-caring and happy staff. It will make everything else you have to do so much more enjoyable.

Article contributed by Sae Evans, Maddox Casey and Jim Stroud, Members, Warren Averett Healthcare Consulting Group. Warren Averett is an official Gold Partner with the Medical Association.

Posted in: Management

Leave a Comment (0) →

CMS Publishes 2019 Physician Fee Schedule

CMS Publishes 2019 Physician Fee Schedule

UPDATED JULY 27, 2018: CMS Overhauls Office Visit Pay In Proposed 2019 Physician Fee Rule

CMS is proposing to overhaul how Medicare pays for office visits and how doctors document those visits in what Administrator Seema Verma said would be “one of the most significant reductions in provider burden ever taken by any administration.” The change, which is included in the proposed 2019 Physician Fee Schedule released Thursday, July 12, would simplify coding and create a single payment amount for “evaluation and management” visits, or E/M visits, and some specialists could see payment reductions as a result. The Medical Association is continuing to analyze the proposed fee schedule to see what potential impact it will have on physician practices in Alabama. We will keep you posted as more information becomes available.

In what industry lobbyists said would be another significant change, the proposed rule also seeks to establish new payment codes for two new virtual services: telephone “check-ins” between clinicians and beneficiaries, and the remote evaluation of photos or videos that a patient submits to a clinician.

In addition, the proposed rule would enact provisions of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 to expand telehealth services for beneficiaries with end-stage renal disease receiving home dialysis and beneficiaries with acute stroke. CMS was expected to use its 2019 pay rules to expand telehealth in Medicare.

Verma touted the proposed overhaul of the E/M payment system as a way to reduce the time that doctors spend “copying, pasting, and clicking” to comply with the current system’s onerous documentation requirements.

“Doctors should not be spending time typing in information strictly to bill a certain level of code,” Verma said on a conference call with reporters.

The proposed rule would change the current system, which has four sets of documentation requirements for physicians, to a system with a single set of documentation requirements. It would establish a single, blended rate for E/M visits–a change that Verma said could result in a 1-2 percent pay reduction for doctors who typically bill at the higher rates under the existing system.

“We believe any negative payment adjustments will be outweighed by the dramatic reduction in administrative burden, allowing clinicians more time to spend with their patients,” Verma said.

The proposed rule also retains a so-called site-neutral policy under which certain off-campus hospital outpatient departments are paid 40 percent of what they would have received under the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System. The American Hospital Association released a statement calling that portion of the proposed rule short-sighted.

The proposed rule includes a request for information on how CMS could make health care costs more transparent. In the 2019 Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System proposed rule, CMS said it would require hospitals to post their standard charges online, but the agency said Thursday that it thinks more can be done on price transparency and is seeking suggestions from the public on how it can better inform patients about out-of-pocket costs.

Other provisions in the proposed rule include:

  • Reducing the level of physician supervision required for services provided by radiologist assistants.
  • Allowing payment for communication technology-based services and remote evaluation services furnished by rural health clinics and federally qualified health centers.
  • Discontinuing functional status reporting requirements for outpatient therapy.
  • Implementing a statutory pay reduction for services provided by therapy assistants.
  • Seeking comments on how to combat opioid use disorder in Medicare.

The proposed rule’s conversion factor, a value used in CMS’ formula to calculate payment rates, is $36.05, up from the 2018 conversion factor of $35.99. Public comments on the proposed rule are due Sept. 10.


CMS has published the proposed Physician Fee Schedule Rule for 2019, which includes provisions for the Quality Payment Program for 2019 as well as the physician fee schedule. Medical Association staff is reviewing the proposed rule and would appreciate any comments you might have concerning its contents.

This is a brief summary of the key Medicare Fee Schedule proposals:

  • With the budget neutrality adjustment to account for relative value changes, as required by law, the proposed 2019 PFS conversion factor is $36.05, a slight increase above the 2018 PFS conversion factor of $35.99.
  • CMS has proposed to collapse payment for office and outpatient visits.  New patient office visit (99202-99205) payments would be blended to be $135. Established office visits (99212-99215) would be blended to be paid at $93. New codes would be created to provide add-on payments to office visits for specific specialties ($9) and primary care physicians ($5).
  • To replace existing documentation guidelines, CMS proposes to allow use of (1) 1995 or 1997 documentation guidelines; (2) medical decision-making or (3) time. Documentation for history and exam will focus on interval history since last visit. Physicians will be allowed to review and verify certain information in the medical record entered by ancillary staff or the beneficiary, rather than re-entering the information.
  • When physicians report an E/M service and a procedure on the same date, CMS proposes to implement a 50% multiple procedure reduction to the lower paid of the two services.
  • CMS will implement new CPT codes and payment for remote monitoring and interprofessional consultations.
  • CMS updated supplies and equipment pricing. The re-pricing of antigens has a significant impact on allergy and immunology payments, with an estimated 6% reduction for the specialty.

Here are some of the highlights of the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) proposals:

  • Retain the low-volume threshold but add a third criteria of providing fewer than 200 covered professional services to Part B patients.
  • Retaining bonus points for: care of complex patients, end-to-end reporting, small practices
  • Allowing eligible clinicians to opt-in if they meet one or two, but not all, of the low volume threshold criterion.
  • Consolidating the low-volume threshold determination periods with the determination period for identifying a small practice.
  • Eliminate the base and performance categories and reduced the number of measures in the Promoting Interoperability category.
  • Require Eligible clinicians to move to 2015 CEHRT.
  • Providing the option to use facility-based scoring for facility-based clinicians.
  • For 2019 performance year the weights are: Quality  – 45%; Cost- 15%; Promoting Interoperability – 25%; Improvement Activities- 15%

As a reminder, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 provided additional flexibility for CMS on several MIPS issues including:

  • Excluding Medicare Part B drug costs from MIPS payment adjustments and from the low-volume threshold determination;
  • Allowing CMS to reweight the cost performance category to not less than 10 percent and not more than 30 percent for 2019-2021 performance years; and
  • Allowing CMS flexibility in setting the performance threshold for performance years 2019-2021 to provide a gradual and incremental transition for physicians.

 

 

 

 

CMS has provided Fact Sheets on the major components of the rule which are available at the following links:

https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Fact-sheets/2018-Fact-sheets-items/2018-07-12-2.html

https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Payment-Program/Resource-Library/2019-QPP-proposed-rule-fact-sheet.pdf .

In addition, the specialty impact table from the rule is attached for your information.

Posted in: CMS

Leave a Comment (0) →

CMS Issues Final Rule on 2018 Medicare Reimbursement

CMS Issues Final Rule on 2018 Medicare Reimbursement

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has issued a final rule that includes updates to payment policies, payment rates, and quality provisions for services furnished under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) on or after Jan. 1, 2018.

Background on the Physician Fee Schedule

Payment is made under the PFS for services furnished by physicians and other practitioners in all sites of service. These services include but are not limited to, visits, surgical procedures, diagnostic tests, therapy services and specified preventive services.

In addition to physicians, payment is made under the PFS to a variety of practitioners and entities, including nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physical therapists, as well as radiation therapy centers and independent diagnostic testing facilities.

Payments are based on the relative resources typically used to furnish the service. Relative Value Units (RVUs) are applied to each service for work, practice expense, and malpractice. These RVUs become payment rates through the application of a conversion factor. Payment rates are calculated to include an overall payment update specified by statute.

Patients Over Paperwork

CMS recently launched the “Patients Over Paperwork” Initiative, a cross-cutting, collaborative process that evaluates and streamlines regulations with a goal to reduce unnecessary burden, increase efficiencies, and improve the beneficiary experience. This effort emphasizes a commitment to removing regulatory obstacles that get in the way of providers spending time with patients. The Medicare Physician Fee Schedule final rule includes the following as part of this initiative:

  • reducing reporting requirements
  • removing downward payment adjustments based on performance for practices that meet minimum quality reporting requirements 

Payment Provisions 

Changes in Valuation for Specific Services

CMS reviews the resource inputs for several hundred codes under the annual process referred to as the potentially misvalued code initiative. Recommendations from the American Medical Association-Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) are critically important to this work. For CY 2018, CMS is finalizing the values for individual services that generally reflect the expert recommendations from the RUC without as many refinements as CMS made in recent years.

Overall Payment Update and Misvalued Code Target

The overall update to payments under the PFS based on the finalized CY 2018 rates will be +0.41 percent. This update reflects the +0.50 percent update established under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015, reduced by 0.09 percent, due to the misvalued code target recapture amount, required under the Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act of 2014.

After applying these adjustments, and the budget neutrality adjustment to account for changes in RVUs, all required by law, the final 2018 PFS conversion factor is $35.99, an increase to the 2017 PFS conversion factor of $35.89.

Payment Rates for Nonexcepted Off-campus Provider-Based Hospital Departments Paid Under the PFS

Section 603 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 requires that certain items and services furnished by certain off-campus hospital outpatient provider-based departments are no longer paid under the OPPS beginning Jan. 1, 2017. For CY 2017, CMS finalized the PFS as the applicable payment system for most of these items and services.

For CY 2018, CMS is finalizing a reduction to the current PFS payment rates for these items and services by 20 percent. CMS currently pays for these services under the PFS based on a percentage of the OPPS payment rate. Specifically, the final policy will change the PFS payment rates for these services from 50 percent of the OPPS payment rate to 40 percent of the OPPS rate. CMS believes this adjustment will provide a more level playing field for competition between hospitals and physician practices by promoting greater payment alignment.

Medicare Telehealth Services

For CY 2018, CMS is finalizing the addition of several codes to the list of telehealth services, including:

  • HCPCS code G0296 (visit to determine low dose computed tomography (LDCT) eligibility);
  • CPT code 90785 (Interactive Complexity);
  • CPT codes 96160 and 96161 (Health Risk Assessment);
  • HCPCS code G0506 (Care Planning for Chronic Care Management); and
  • CPT codes 90839 and 90840 (Psychotherapy for Crisis).

CMS is finalizing its proposal to eliminate the required reporting of the telehealth modifier GT for professional claims in an effort to reduce administrative burden for practitioners and finalizing separate payment for CPT code 99091, which describes certain remote patient monitoring, for CY 2018.

In the proposed rule, CMS sought comment on whether to make separate payment for CPT codes that describe remote patient monitoring or other existing codes that describe extensive use of communications technology. Some commenters raised concerns with our proposal, citing concerns that existing CPT codes were overly broad and not always reflective of current technology. Other commenters were supportive of the proposal generally but noted that CPT is currently working on codes that more accurately describe remote patient monitoring. In the final rule, CMS is finalizing separate payment for CPT code 99091 (Collection and interpretation of physiologic data (e.g., ECG, blood pressure, glucose monitoring) digitally stored and/or transmitted by the patient and/or caregiver to the physician or other qualified health care professional, qualified by education, training, licensure/regulation (when applicable) requiring a minimum of 30 minutes of time, for 2018 pending anticipated changes in CPT coding.

Malpractice Relative Value Units (RVUs)

For CY 2017, CMS collected updated professional liability insurance data for the purposes of updating the malpractice geographic practice cost indices but did not propose to use the data to update the specialty risk factors used in the calculation of malpractice RVUs at that time. Rather, CMS solicited comment on whether it should consider updating the malpractice RVUs based on the updated professional liability insurance data prior to the next expected 5-year update (CY 2020).

After consideration of public comments received, for CY 2018, CMS is not finalizing its proposal to develop malpractice RVUs using the most recent data available. Implementation not finalizing the proposal to use premium data collected for the would occur by CY 2017 malpractice geographic practice cost indices to update the specialty risk factors for CY 2018-2020. Additionally, CMS is not finalizing the proposal to align the update of malpractice premium data with the malpractice geographic practice cost index updates, which has been done once every three years, at this time.

Care Management Services

CMS is continuing efforts to improve payment within traditional fee-for-service Medicare for chronic care management and similar care management services to accommodate the changing needs of the Medicare patient population. CMS is finalizing its proposals to adopt CPT codes for CY 2018 for reporting several care management services currently reported using Medicare G-codes and clarifying a few policies regarding chronic care management in this final rule.

Improvement of Payment Rates for Office-based Behavioral Health Services

CMS is finalizing an improvement in the way physician fee schedule rates are set that will positively impact office-based behavioral health services with a patient. The final policy will increase payment for these important services by better recognizing overhead expenses for office-based face-to-face services with a patient.

Evaluation and Management Comment Solicitation

Most physicians and other practitioners bill patient visits to the PFS under a relatively generic set of codes that distinguish level of complexity, site of care, and in some cases whether or not the patient is new or established, or Evaluation and Management (E/M) visit codes. Billing practitioners must maintain information in the medical record that documents they have reported the appropriate level of E/M visit code. CMS maintains guidelines that specify the kind of information that is required to support Medicare payment for each level.

CMS agreed with continued feedback from stakeholders that these guidelines are potentially outdated and need to be revised.

CMS thanks the public for the comments received in response to the proposed rule’s comment solicitation on the E/M guidelines and summarizes these comments in the final rule. Commenters suggested additional avenues for collaboration with stakeholders prior to implementing any changes, and CMS will consider the best approaches for such collaboration and will take the public comments into account for future rulemaking.

Emergency Department Visits Comment Solicitation

CMS sought comment from stakeholders on whether emergency department visits are undervalued due to increasing heterogeneity of the settings under which emergency department visits are furnished and changes to the patient population. A number of comments were received suggesting these services are potentially misvalued and will be reviewing emergency department visits (CPT codes 99281-99385) as potentially misvalued for future rulemaking.

Solicitation of Public Comments on Initial Data Collection and Reporting Periods for Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule

The Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS) final rule entitled “Medicare Program: Medicare Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests Payment System” implements Section 1834A of the Social Security Act (the Act), which requires extensive revisions to the Medicare payment, coding, and coverage for Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests (CDLTs) paid under the CLFS. Under the final rule, the payment amount for a test on the CLFS furnished on or after Jan. 1, 2018, generally will be equal to the weighted median of private payer rates determined for the test, based on the data of applicable laboratories that is collected during a specified data collection period and reported to CMS during a specified data reporting period. The first data collection period was from Jan. 1 through June 30, 2016, and the first data reporting period was from Jan. 1, 2017, through March 31, 2017.

Laboratory industry feedback suggested that many reporting entities would not be able to submit a complete set of applicable information to CMS by the March 31, 2017, deadline. As a result, on March 30, 2017, CMS announced a 60-day period of enforcement discretion until May 30, 2017, with respect to the data reporting period for reporting applicable information under the Medicare CLFS and the application of the Secretary’s potential assessment of civil monetary penalties (CMPs) for failure to report applicable information.

In the proposed rule, CMS solicited public comments from applicable laboratories and reporting entities to better understand applicable laboratories’ experiences with the data reporting, data collection, and other compliance requirements for the first data collection and reporting periods under the new private payor rate-based CLFS.

Part B Drugs: Payment for Biosimilar Biological Products

In the CY 2016 PFS final rule with comment period, CMS finalized a proposal to make clear that biosimilar products that rely on a common reference product’s biologics license application are grouped into the same payment calculation for determining a single average sales price payment limit, and that a single Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) code is used for such biosimilar products.

In the CY 2018 PFS proposed rule, CMS asked for comments on the effects of its payment policy based on experience with the United States’ biosimilar product marketplace.

CMS received numerous comments on this issue. In response to concerns raised in the comments, CMS is changing the policy to separately code and pay for biological biosimilar products under Medicare Part B. Effective Jan. 1, 2018, newly approved biosimilar biological products with a common reference product will no longer be grouped into the same billing code.

CMS believes a solution that increases provider and patient choice is superior to existing policy and may lead to additional cost savings over the long-term. By encouraging innovation and greater manufacturer participation in the marketplace, this policy change will result in the licensing of more biosimilar products, creating a stable and robust market, driving competition and decreasing uncertainty about access and payment. Carrying out this policy change as early as possible, rather than waiting, is expected to bring more certainty to the new and developing marketplace.

Part B Drug Payment: Infusion Drugs Furnished through an Item of Durable Medical Equipment (DME)

The 21st Century Cures Act transitioned payment for infusion drugs or biologicals furnished through a covered item of DME from average wholesale price (AWP) to average sales price (ASP) pricing methodology on Jan. 1, 2017. CMS is finalizing the proposed revision to 42 CFR §414.904(e)(2) to conform regulations with the statutory payment requirements in section 5004(a) of the 21st Century Cures Act.

New Care Coordination Services and Payment for Rural Health Clinics (RHCs) and Federally-Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs)

CMS is finalizing the proposal to revise payment for chronic care management in RHCs and FQHCs, and establish requirements and payment for RHCs and FQHCs furnishing general behavioral health integration (BHI) services and psychiatric collaborative care model (CoCM) services. Effective Jan. 1, 2018, RHCs and FQHCs will be paid for CCM, general BHI, and psychiatric CoCM using two new billing codes created exclusively for RHC and FQHC payment. This payment would be in addition to the payment for an RHC or FQHC visit.

Appropriate Use Criteria for Advanced Diagnostic Imaging

CMS is finalizing a start date for the Medicare Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) Program for Advanced Diagnostic Imaging. The program will begin in a manner that allows practitioners more time to focus on and adjust to the Quality Payment Program before being required to participate in the AUC program. The Medicare AUC program will begin with an educational and operations testing year in 2020, which means physicians would be required to start using AUCs and reporting this information on their claims. During this first year, CMS is proposing to pay claims for advanced diagnostic imaging services regardless of whether they correctly contain information on the required AUC consultation. This allows both clinicians and the agency to prepare for this new program.

CMS posted newly qualified provider-led entities and clinical decision support mechanisms in July of this year. Qualified provider-led entities are permitted to develop AUC, and qualified clinical decision support mechanisms are the tools that physicians use to access the AUC. Physicians may begin exploring these mechanisms well in advance of the start of the Medicare AUC program through the voluntary participation period that will begin mid-2018 and run through 2019. During this time CMS will collect limited information on Medicare claims to identify advanced imaging services for which consultation with appropriate use criteria took place.

In addition, by having qualified clinical decision support mechanisms available (some of which are free of charge) clinicians may use one of these mechanisms to earn credit under the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System as an improvement activity. This improvement activity was included in the 2018 Quality Payment Program final rule.

Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program Expanded Model

The final rule also implements the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program (MDPP) expanded model starting in 2018. The MDPP expanded model was announced in early 2016, when it was determined that the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) model test through the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation’s Health Care Innovation Awards met the statutory criteria for expansion. The final rule includes additional policies necessary for suppliers to begin furnishing MDPP services nationally in 2018, including the MDPP payment structure, as well as additional supplier enrollment requirements and supplier compliance standards aimed to enhance program integrity.

Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS)

Under the PQRS, individual eligible professionals and group practices who did not satisfactorily report data on quality measures for the CY 2016 reporting period are subject to a downward payment adjustment of 2.0 percent in 2018 to their PFS covered professional services. 2016 was the last reporting period for PQRS. The final data submission timeframe for reporting 2016 PQRS quality data to avoid the 2018 PQRS downward payment adjustment was January through March 2017. PQRS is being replaced by the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) under the Quality Payment Program (QPP). The first MIPS performance period is January through December 2017.

CMS proposed and is finalizing a change to the current PQRS program policy that requires reporting of nine measures across three National Quality Strategy domains to only require reporting of six measures for the PQRS with no domain requirement. We are also finalizing similar changes to the clinical quality measure reporting requirements under the Medicare Electronic Health Record Incentive Program for eligible professionals who reported electronically through the PQRS portal.

We finalized these changes based on stakeholder feedback and to better align with the MIPS data submission requirements for the quality performance category. For MIPS, eligible clinicians need only report six quality measures for the quality performance category, except those reporting via the Web Interface, and there is no requirement to ensure that the measures span across three National Quality Strategy domains.

Patient Relationship Codes

In May 2017, CMS posted the operational list of patient relationship categories that are required under section 101(f) of MACRA. In this rule, we finalized certain Level II HCPCS modifiers to be used on claims to indicate these patient relationship categories. Further, we finalized a policy that the reporting of these HCPCS modifiers may be voluntarily by clinicians associated with these patient relationship categories beginning Jan. 1, 2018. We anticipate that there will be a learning curve with respect to the use of these modifiers, and we will work with clinicians to ensure their proper use.

Medicare Shared Savings Program

CMS is finalizing several modifications to the rules for accountable care organizations (ACOs) participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program. These modifications are designed to reduce burden and streamline program operations. The new policies include the following:

  • Revisions to the assignment methodology for ACOs that include FQHCs and RHCs by eliminating the requirement to enumerate each physician working in the FQHC or RHC on the ACO participant list;
  • Reduction of burden for ACOs submitting an initial Shared Savings Program application or the application for use of the skilled nursing facility (SNF) Three-Day Rule Waiver; and
  • The addition of three new chronic care management codes (CCM) and four behavioral health integration (BHI) codes to the definition of primary care services used in the ACO assignment methodology.

2018 Value Modifier

In order to better align incentives and provide a smoother transition to the new Merit-based Incentive Payment System under the Quality Payment Program, we are finalizing the following changes to previously-finalized policies for the 2018 Value Modifier:

  • Reducing the automatic downward payment adjustment for not meeting the criteria to avoid the PQRS adjustment from negative four percent to negative two percent (-2.0 percent) for groups of ten or more clinicians; and from negative two percent to negative one percent (-1.0 percent) for physician and non-physician solo practitioners and groups of two to nine clinicians;
  • Holding harmless all physician groups and solo practitioners who met the criteria to avoid the PQRS adjustment from downward payment adjustments for performance under quality-tiering for the last year of the program; and
  • Aligning the maximum upward adjustment amount to 2 times the adjustment factor for all physician groups and solo practitioners.
  • Given final policy changes for the Physician Quality Reporting System and the Value Modifier, we finalized that we will not report 2018 Value Modifier data in the Physician Compare downloadable database as this would be the first and only year such data would have been reported. However, to promote transparency we will continue to make available the Value Modifier public use and research identifiable files.

Posted in: CMS

Leave a Comment (0) →

Legislative Update: What Happened This Week in Washington…

Legislative Update: What Happened This Week in Washington…

From President Trump’s new tax plan to renewed funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program to former President Obama’s Independent Payment Advisory Board, health care has been at the center of a lot of discussions this week on Capitol Hill.

Vote Expected Today for CHIP — The House is expected to vote today to pass legislation to refund Children’s Health Insurance Program and send federal funds to community health centers. However, questions remain about how to pay for the funding efforts. The original funding legislation for CHIP expired a month ago leaving state programs scrambling to extending their budgets to cover millions of covered children. It’s expected that the bill will face party opposition in the Senate. While both parties have agreed to renew CHIP, how to pay for the program remains the sticking point.

New Tax Plan Proposed — The proposal repeals the student loan interest deduction — a policy that helped more than 12 million students with education loans save up to $2,500 on their tax bills in 2015. Taxpayers aren’t required to itemize their deductions to claim it, but it’s available to anyone paying interest on either private or public student loans and makes less than $80,000 in a year. Many of those student loan holders are recent medical school graduates, who make a median $54,600 in their first year of residency, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.

No More IPAB? — The House voted Thursday to abolish the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a federal panel that was intended to find ways to curb Medicare spending with little Congressional oversight. It was a creation of the ACA, yet the IPAB’s presidentially-appointed members were never named. The bill now moves to the Senate where Republicans may have difficulty finding the necessary votes to pass it as a stand-alone bill before the end of the year.

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →

Medicare Releases 2017 Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule

Medicare Releases 2017 Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released its final rule for its 2017 physician fee schedule payment policies, which updates payment policies and payment rates for services provided under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) starting Jan 1, 2017.

The 1,400-page 2017 final rule discusses changes to a number of new policies that reflect a broader agencywide strategy to enhance quality, spend smarter and improve Americans’ health.

Here are eight changes to note:

CMS will begin gathering data on postoperative visits. The final rule requires reporting of postoperative visits for high-volume/high-cost procedures by a sample of practitioners in practices with 10 or more physicians. Reporting is required for services related to global procedures provided on or after July 1, 2017.

Changes were made to provider and supplier requirements for Medicare Part C. Providers and suppliers will be screened and enrolled in Medicare to contract with a Medicare Advantage organization to provide items and services to those enrolled in Medicare Advantage health plans.

CMS finalized its proposal to expand eligible telehealth services. The additional codes include those for end-stage renal disease-related dialysis, advanced care planning and critical care consultations. The critical care consultations provided via telehealth will use the new Medicare G-codes.

CMS will improve data transparency. Medicare Advantage organizations use a bidding process to apply to participate in the Medicare Advantage program, and the bidding process will reflect the organization’s estimated costs to provide benefits to enrollees. Under the final rule, Medicare Advantage organizations are required to release data associated with these bids on an annual basis. CMS will also require Medicare Advantage organizations and Part D sponsors to release medical loss ratio data on a yearly basis to help beneficiaries make enrollment decisions.

The agency revised the methodology used to calculate geographic practice cost indices. CMS adjusts payments under the physician fee schedule to reflect local differences in practice costs using geographic practice cost indices. The agency will revise the methodology used to calculate GPCIs to increase overall physician fee schedule payments in Puerto Rico. The updates will be phased in over 2017 and 2018.

CMS finalized expansion of the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program. The 2017 rule finalizes some aspects of the expanded model, but future rulemaking will address payment policies, program safeguards and other issues. CMS expects to begin payment for MDPP services in 2018.

CMS revised the billing codes to more accurately pay for primary care, care management and other cognitive specialties. Among the changes are new codes to pay primary care practices that use interprofessional care management resources to treat patients with behavioral health conditions.

Physician payment rates will increase by 0.24 percent in 2017. CMS arrived at this increase after accounting for a 0.5 percent increase required by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act and mandated budget neutrality cuts, according to the American Hospital Association.

For more information, please see Final Policy, Payment, and Quality Provisions in the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule for Calendar Year (CY) 2017

Posted in: Medicare

Leave a Comment (0) →

What You Said About MACRA…

What You Said About MACRA…

Just a few weeks ago, the Department of Health & Human Services dropped the finalized Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) rule – a landmark new payment system moving health care to a merit-based payment system. The rule, weighing in at almost 2,400 pages, has garnered more than 4,000 public comments since its proposal in April, is scheduled to become effective Jan. 1, 2017. With so little time to prepare, we asked some of Alabama’s physicians what they think about MACRA.


 

“MACRA is a very complex law and will be a burden for many of our physicians. However, please remember that MACRA repealed and replaced the SGR, the flawed program where we all annually faced pay cuts of 20 percent and greater and were always at the mercy of Congress to provide relief that almost always came at the last minute. With MACRA, we have the stability of knowing what to expect, we have the potential of increased payments and even bonus payments along with the possibility of negative updates as well. If you participate in Pick-Your-Pace at any level of participation in 2017, you will avoid any potential penalties in 2019, the first year of MACRA implementation. The MACRA updates in 2019 start at +/- as much as 4 percent and go up slowly each year but come nowhere close to the 21 percent cuts we faced under SGR. MACRA is by no means perfect, but it does begin the Medicare transition from volume-based Fee-For-Service payments to a value-based payment system. I would encourage all physicians to participate in Pick Your Pace at whatever level you are able to accomplish in 2017 to avoid potential penalties in 2019. As we delve deeper into this law, stay tuned for future updates and recommendations.” – John Meigs Jr., M.D., Brent

“Because I see very little Medicare patients, I have not studied MACRA or MIPS other than to know it will be a burden to physicians and staff in time or expense to hire a third party to do the reporting requirements. For physicians like me that see little Medicare patients, but just enough (about 100 a year) to be required to do the reporting to be penalized, it is burdensome. I may take the penalty and then ultimately not see Medicare anymore because it isn’t cost efficient for my practice. The government is continually putting more costly regulations and requirements on physician practices pressuring the overall viability of a private practicing physician in the future. There will come a breaking point.” – McCain Ashurst, M.D., Montgomery

“They’re talking about a reduction in payments for failing to meet standards, but how do you assess that — what metric do you use? How do you assess quality? And there’s a lot of flippant interpretations of what they’ll pay.” – Clifford Black, M.D., Anniston, quoted in The Anniston Star

“We’ll just have to pay more attention to what we do … how often patients get treatment … show that patients are getting proper quality of care … if you do it enough it’ll eventually become second nature. But it is a slightly greater bureaucratic level on physicians. Generally, the quality of care is good right now … maybe there will be a 1 to 2 percent improvement.” – Todd Scarbrough, M.D., Anniston, quoted in The Anniston Star

Posted in: MACRA

Leave a Comment (0) →