Affordable Care Act

Virtual Health Care May Become All the Rage

August 22, 2016 | Kevin S. Little

mobile-phone-in-hand-1438231-1-m How could it not?

The healthcare industry is rapidly evolving. As recently reported in U.S. News and World Report, next on telemedicine’s horizon may be virtual care clinics. In fact, so-called virtual care will likely revolutionize the delivery of health care in the coming years. “Virtual,” in this context, alludes to the fact that care providers, doctors, nurses and therapists, may provide most care from many miles away.

Georgia Health Care Law Firm

Various genres of “virtual care” delivery exists already. One notable pioneer is Mercy Virtual. Mercy, based in Chesterfield, Missouri, emphasizes that an objective of its mission is to ensure access to quality care, explaining: “Mercy Virtual’s mission is to connect patients with leading care providers whenever, wherever they need help.” In recent years, many other medical businesses are finding and developing their own niches in the evolving virtual healthcare world. Several of the numerous examples are: Teladoc, which provides online, 24/7 access to primary care physician services; American Well, which claims to offer “telehealth” to more than 100 million people in an online marketplace where customers select their healthcare provider from a list; Carena provides a range of healthcare services that include virtual visits for the employees of self-insured companies; Zipnosis is a platform that, through “phone and video care,” helps patients get answers to their healthcare questions and helps physicians treat primary care ailments; MeVisit enables “e-visits” that allow patients to use their mobile device to connect with a doctor.

Fraud and Abuse Update: St. Joseph’s Hospital Health Center Agrees to Pay $3.2 Million to Resolve Allegations that it Violated the New York False Claims Act

August 3, 2016 | Kevin S. Little

gavel-952313-m On August 1, 2016, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), through the United States Attorney’s Office, Northern District of New York issued a press release regarding the DOJ’s resolution of fraud allegations against St. Joseph’s Hospital Health Center (St. Joseph’s). No determination of fraud by a Court has been determined nor have the allegations of fraud been proven. Our Georgia healthcare law firm follows legal developments with regard to healthcare reimbursement and fraud and abuse.

The Federal Government’s allegations against St. Joseph concern the state’s Medicaid program. The DOJ alleged that St. Joseph’s staff was not qualified to provide certain mental health services for which Medicaid reimbursement was sought and obtained. St. Joseph provided the services in question under its program known as the Comprehensive Psychiatric Emergency Program (CPEP). The CPEP maintained a mobile unit that would serve patients in particular counties who could not, or would not, access mental health crisis intervention services available in the emergency room. New York law has regulations with which CPEPs must comply. Those State regulations delineate the proper composition of professional staff who must be involved with the applicable intervention services when such services are provided somewhere other than in the emergency room. Reimbursement for such services is expressly conditioned upon compliance with the New York regulations that govern proper staffing.

The DOJ alleged that St. Joseph violated the New York False Claims Act by submitting payment to Medicaid for “mobile-crisis outreach services” by individuals who did not meet New York’s CPEP qualifications to provide such services. The alleged violation of the New York False Claims Act was premised on the submission of claims for payment without disclosing that St. Joseph’s staff (allegedly) failed to meet the qualification requirements under State law for the particular services provided. St. Joseph’s agreed to pay $3.2 million to conclude the matter.

PAY IT BACK OR ELSE: CMS’ NEW OVERPAYMENT RULE FOR REPORTING AND RETURNING SELF-IDENTIFIED OVERPAYMENTS UNDER MEDICARE PARTS A AND B

April 29, 2016 | Kevin S. Little

889854_freedom_2 The U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently finalized a final rule to effectuate the federal government’s ability under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to recover self-identified overpayments, applicable to Medicare Parts A and B. CMS’ implementing overpayment rule is the latest sword in the government’s formidable arsenal to combat fraud and abuse with regard to healthcare reimbursement under federal programs. Physicians and other healthcare businesses and suppliers should take heed, as they will be subject to considerable potential financial liability and professional risks for noncompliance with the new overpayment rules. Our Atlanta/Augusta business and healthcare law firm follows developments in healthcare fraud and abuse laws.

New Teeth for ACA Fraud and Abuse Provisions

Section 6402 of the ACA requires physicians, healthcare providers and suppliers, managed care plans, and other groups to self-report and refund to the government any Medicare or Medicaid overpayments by the latter of 60 days from the date the overpayment is identified or the date any corresponding cost report is due. The failure to do so subjects the offending party to civil monetary penalties and exclusion from all federal healthcare reimbursement programs. Additionally, according to the new overpayment rules, the retained overpayment is an “obligation” under the False Claims Act (FCA), subjecting the violator to all the financial consequences that attend FCA liability. The new rule is part of CMS’ final regulations to implement the ACA’s requirements with regard to overpayments as concerns Medicare Part A and B.

CMS Announces Medicare’s New Primary Care Reimbursement Initiative, “Comprehensive Primary Care Plus”

April 25, 2016 | Kevin S. Little

usa-dollar-bills-1431130-m CMS recently announced what it describes as the largest-ever multi-payer initiative to improve primary care in America,” known as Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+). Though much of the press release is couched in terms of improving patient care — and surely CPC+ is intended to do so — the real impetus appears to be the government’s critical need to control healthcare costs funded by federal programs.

Atlanta/Augusta, Georgia Physician Practice Lawyers

The idea is to support a new primary care delivery model that will incentivize and reward value and quality. The current Administration’s goal is to have 50% of all Medicare fee-for-service payments made via alternative payment models by 2018. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, which exists pursuant to Section 1115A of the Social Security Act (added under the Affordable Care Act) for the purpose of testing new payment and service delivery models, developed CPC+ as part of its mission, to aid the federal government in its efforts to curb its healthcare costs and enhance the quality of healthcare delivery.

CMS Expected To Provide New Guidance For Hospitals’ Uncompensated Care

April 18, 2016 | Lee H. Little

pill-shadows-1200049

For several years, hospital administrators have been adjusting to changes in federal rules for calculating patients’ unpaid medical bills into hospital Medicare reimbursement.

The federal government provides funding to hospitals that treat indigent patients under so-called “Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) programs,” which provide partial compensation to facilities based on a formula. Many of the roughly 3,100 hospitals receiving DSH payments are teaching hospitals or those in large urban areas.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act changed the formula for calculating DSH payments in fiscal year 2014, significantly reducing the share hospitals received, with goals of reducing funding for the Medicare DSH payments initially by 75 percent and subsequently increasing payments based on the percent of the population uninsured and the amount of uncompensated care provided; and to reduce the Medicaid DSH program by $18.1 billion by 2020.

ACA Open Enrollment Season: Answers to Consumer Frequently Asked Questions

November 16, 2015 | Lee H. Little

1084630_question_mark_1 Open Enrollment Season for federal and state exchanges offering insurance coverage in the “Health Insurance Marketplace” for 2016 began this month, and will run through January 31, 2016. During this period, individuals may newly enroll with, renew or change their health insurance plans or providers. In fact, more than 543,000 people have already obtained coverage in the Marketplace during the first week of open enrollment for 2016. Thirty-four percent of those were new consumers, per a report by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

According to an article published by “Shots,” the online channel for health stories from the National Public Radio Science Desk, the occasion of Open Enrollment Season has prompted many consumer questions about details of enrollment and available marketplace plans, including the impact of high deductible plans; options in obtaining in- and out-of-network health services; and confronting cost increases in marketplace health plans.

Some guidance provided in response to consumer questions are as follows:

HHS Lauds Savings Opportunities Available to American Consumers with ACA November 1, 2015 Open Enrollment

October 31, 2015 | Kevin S. Little

The United States Department of Health & Human Resources (HHS) is promoting what it styles as “affordability and choice” in the Health Insurance Marketplace used by US consumers to buy health insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Tomorrow, the Open Enrollment Period for shopping health insurance coverage within the Health Insurance Marketplace begins. In a 33-page report, entitled “2016 Marketplace Premium Landscape Issue Brief 10-30-15 Final,” issued yesterday, HHS indicates that the ACA is “continuing to promote competition, choice and affordability in the Marketplace for plan year 2016.”

Atlanta/Augusta Georgia Business and Healthcare Law Firm

As new and prior enrollees weigh options available in the Health Insurance Marketplace to determine what insurance plans may best suit their needs and resources, they should consider the “premiums, deductibles, out-of-pocket costs, provider network, formulary, and customer service” particulars of the various plan options, according to the report. The HHS report outlines “Key Findings,” which include those summarized as follows:

The ACA promotes access to affordable health insurance plans
Shopping saves money: about 86 percent of enrollees “can find a lower premium plan in the same metal level before tax credits by returning the Marketplace to shop for coverage.
About 72 percent of current enrollees can find a plan for $75/month, or less, after factoring tax credits.
About 57 percent of current enrollees can find a plan for $75/month or less within their metal level.
Next year, a 27-year-old with $25,000/year income will on average receive an annual tax credit of $1,164, compared to $972 this year. A family of four with an income of $60,000 will on average receive an annual tax credit of $5,568, compared to $4,848 this year.
The average consumer has 10 insurance issuers in his/her state. On average, enrollees can pick from 5 issuers for coverage next year.

Will Employee Flexible Spending Accounts Be Eliminated Under Looming ACA Tax?

September 14, 2015 | Lee H. Little

dark-dollar-2-1193021-m Many employers planning ahead as to their employee health benefit plans are considering modifying or eliminating employee flexible spending accounts (FSAs), according to an article this week in the Atlanta Business Chronicle. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) will begin to tax high-cost employer health insurance at 40 percent on benefits over a set threshold in 2018. The Chronicle notes that numerous other news sources have cautioned that this upcoming tax, known as the “High Cost Plan Tax” or “Cadillac Tax,” will cause employers to rethink their offering of employee FSAs, with some employers capping the amounts their employees may place in the accounts, and other employers eliminating FSAs altogether. See Wall Street Journal article; Politico article; Healthline article. The intent behind the ACA’s Cadillac Tax was to discourage employers from offering premium health insurance plans that drive up healthcare costs and to generate revenue to help pay for coverage of the uninsured.

Physician Payment Sunshine Act: Should it Be Expanded to Include Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants?

July 15, 2015 | Lee H. Little

medical-doctor-1314902-m Recent articles by ProPublica and NPR spotlight the absence of reporting requirements by pharmaceutical companies of their payments to nurse practitioners and physician assistants under the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) Physician Payment Sunshine Act. The two web articles reference a case in which a Connecticut nurse practitioner pled guilty to accepting $83 million in kickbacks “from a drug company in exchange for prescribing its high-priced drug to treat cancer pain. In some cases, she delivered promotional talks attended only by herself and a company sales representative.” Because the law does not require reporting of industry payments to nurse practitioners such as this Connecticut provider, if not for the lawsuit, the public might have remained unaware of such payments to her and others like her.

Supreme Court Decision Keeps Affordable Care Act Alive: Benefits to Georgians and Health Providers Across the U.S. Continue

June 26, 2015 | Lee H. Little

u-s--supreme-court-1-745242-m This week in a 6 to 3 ruling, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in King versus Burwell, a case brought as a major threat to the viability of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Congress, health providers, Supreme Court and Affordable Care Act watchers and more than 6.4 million consumers who benefit from health coverage assistance in the form of federal subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) had anxiously awaited a ruling in the case following the presentation of oral arguments in March.

Justice John Roberts issued the majority opinion, stating: “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”

Plaintiffs in the King case had argued that the language of the ACA allows for certain subsidies only as to state-established exchanges, but not as to federally-established exchanges. This premise challenged the Internal Revenue Service interpretation that U.S. Treasury regulation 26 C.F.R. § 1.36B provides for tax subsidies as to both federal- and state-established health insurance exchanges, not just exchanges established by the states. The Plaintiffs’ rationale was that their more narrow interpretation of the ACA revealed Congressional intent in establishing tax subsidies as incentives for states to benefit their citizens by creating health exchanges.