The Affordable Care Act includes many provisions aimed at improving the quality of care provided by different types of health care professionals and providers. Along these lines, the ACA expands the types of facilities and providers for which quality data will be publically available. The Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services was therefore directed to develop a Hospital Compare website (amongst other similar sites such as Physician Compare and Nursing Home Compare) that would allow Medicare enrollees to compare scientifically sound measures of physician quality and patient experience.
In accordance with these directives, on April 16, 2015 the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) released the first ever Hospital Compare Star Ratings on its public information website. The site is intended to make it easier for consumers to choose a hospital and understand the quality of care they deliver. The data set from the website contains hospital-specific quality data for over 4,500 hospitals nationwide. The ratings are based on the 11 publicly reported measures in the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (“HCAHPS”) survey, which assesses patient experiences.
The star ratings allow for an easy comparison using a five-star scale, with more stars indicating better quality care. The quality data on Hospital Compare includes clinical process of care, patient outcomes and patient experience of care measures. The national rankings are based on hospitals’ performance on the clinical process of care measures and a national survey of patients’ experience of care. The hospitals’ ranks are combined into an overall, composite performance ranking, with process of care measures contributing 70% and patient experience of care measuring 30%.
However, just 251 out of 3,553 hospitals received the highest score in the rating system based on the experiences of patients who were admitted between July 2013 and June 2014. Hospitals had an opportunity to preview the ratings in the fall and many have already expressed concern. Hospitals question the methodology and whether the ratings reflect meaningful reflections of performance. They also assert that the ratings are oversimplifying the hospital’s performance to a single score.
Notably, the patient experience star ratings are only based on the information on quality of care that is reported by patients. The surveys are provided to a random sampling of patients within two days after discharge from a hospital and must be completed within 42 days. Further, positive results may mean that the hospital is delivering good care. However, these results are not taking into account other factors such as timely and efficient care and results or outcomes of care measures. Moreover, the results places substantial reliance on patient review, which is just one measurement of hospital quality. Lastly, if one does not review Hospital Compare extensively, information aside from the star ratings may easily be overlooked. For example, the complete results for each HCAHPS measure can be found in the “Survey of Patients’ experiences” section.
On the other hand, supporters of Hospital Compare argue that while it’s not a perfect measurement system, it creates a healthy competition among hospitals.
For more information on Hospital Compare, other CMS initiatives or related issues, please feel free to contact Daniel Meier or any member of our health care practice group for a further discussion.
Posted in Acute Care, DHHS, Health & Human Services, Health Care, Health Care Providers, Hospital, Medicare, Physicians
Tagged ACA, Affordable Care Act, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, Consumer, Healthcare Reform, Patient
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) recently released the civil money penalty (“CMP”) analytic tool used by CMS Regional Offices (“RO”) to review, approve or modify the proposed fines for nursing facilities (“NF”) and skilled nursing facilities (“SNF”)(collectively “NF”) (Link). Regulatory guidance CMS S&C 15-16-NH was released on December 19, 2014 and includes a description and the components of the analytic tool used by CMS since April, 2013 to determine the adequacy of the proposed CMPs for survey violations for NFs. The RO is required to review and either approve or modify the proposed CMPs issued by each State Agency based upon NF Medicare and Medicaid certification citations. Providers have often wondered about the actual calculation method being utilized by CMS and this analytic tool lays out the interpretation factors being used by CMS when applying the factors in the required by 42 CFR 488.404 for consideration when imposing a CMP on a facility as result of a single survey or for multiple surveys in a survey cycle.
CMPs and other enforcement remedies are required to be imposed based upon the scope and severity of the regulatory citations either for health deficiencies or life safety code deficiencies. CMS indicates that the analytic tool does not replace professional judgment but it to be used as a guideline in the CMP calculation process. The guidance states that the tool is “provide logic, structure, and defined factors for mandatory consideration in the determination of CMPs.” The analytic tool distinguishes between the use of Per Instance penalty use and a Per Day penalty use. A Per Instance penalty is a single defined fine amount between $1,000 and $10,000 for the survey cycle. The analytic tool indicates that a Per Day penalty is to be used unless the specific requirements are met for the Per Day penalty. A Per Instance penalty is often less costly to a provider than a Per Day penalty and is typically preferred by providers due to the certainty of the actual amount being imposed.
Per Instance penalties can only be applied if:
1. The facility is not a special focus facility;
2. Findings are no more than a G level (actual harm, isolated) or an F level (no actual harm, widespread with substandard care) and the facility has a good compliance history for the past 3 standard surveys; and
3. Findings of past noncompliance are not cited at a G level or an F level substandard care.
In addressing the discretion and professional judgment to be used by the RO personnel the guidance provides for a 35% increase or decrease in the CMP amount without CMS Central Office approval. If the RO proposes to increase or decrease the CMP amount by more than 35%, Central Office must provide approval of those changes. The stated purpose of the utilization of the analytic tool is to provide a more consistent application of enforcement remedies. The guidance also states that a Per Day CMP is to begin on the first day of noncompliance which may or may not be during the on-site survey. Also, the Per Day CMP is to start on the first day of identified noncompliance even if that date is prior to the survey. However, the CMP start date cannot be prior to the date of the last standard survey. This guidance reaffirms the imposition of CMPs that are applied retrospectively with a possibility that CMPs may be imposed as far back as 15 months. A retrospective CMP imposition can be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for providers for an immediate jeopardy citation and can result in significant ramifications for providers.
A few of the factors that change the proposed amount of CMPs and are calculated with the tool include:
1. Scope and severity of the citations;
2. Number of citations;
3. Repeated citations;
4. Facility culpability; and
5. Facility financial condition.
The guidance provides some examples related to application of criteria for facility culpability based upon Departmental Appeals Board (“DAB”) cases. Those examples include repeated failure to follow or clarify doctor’s treatment orders; repeated failure to notify doctor of significant changes; repeated failure to supervise resident with a known history of elopement; staff failure to report physical, verbal or sexual abuse and egregious dignity issues.
Providers should carefully review this recently issued S&C guidance to have a clear understanding of how the CMPs are calculated by CMS and what factors can affect the increase or decrease of those CMPs. Understanding the factors related to fines and sanctions imposed by CMS and the amount of discretion that is allowed in the imposition of fines are important in the operation of NFs on an ongoing basis.
Posted in Certification, CMS Transmittals, Long Term Care, Medicaid, Medicare, Nursing Facility, Nursing Home, Participation, Skilled Nursing Facility, Survey and Certification Letters
Tagged Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Nursing Home, Skilled Nursing Facility
On October 30, 2013, the New York State Office of the Medicaid Inspector General (“OMIG”) issued a press release that New York recovered $211 million from the federal government out of an identified $496 million in Medicaid erroneous payments related to home care recipients who are dually eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid funds. On October 1, 2013, the New York State Department of Health’s Fiscal Group received the $211 million payment through the action of OMIG, which was the largest single monetary recovery in OMIG’s history.
These payments were recovered by New York State as part of a federal project, the Third-Party Liability Home Health Care Demonstration Project, which is reviewing home health care involving dual eligible recipients, and is being conducted in conjunction with the University of Massachusetts Medical School. Continue reading
Posted in DHHS, Health & Human Services, Health Care, Home Health, Long Term Care, Medicaid, Medicare, New York, Nursing Facility, Nursing Home, Participation, Participation, Payers, Reimbursement, Skilled Nursing Facility
Tagged Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, Home Health, Medicaid, Medicare, New York, Nursing Home, OMIG, Skilled Nursing Facility, SNF
On October 9, 2013, the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) issued a report (OEI-05-12-00340) entitled “Questionable Billing for Polysomnography Services.” The report found that Medicare paid nearly $17 million for sleep study (polysomnography) services that did not meet one or more of the three Medicare requirements and that 180 providers demonstrated patterns of questionable billing for these services. The OIG chose to study this issue because Medicare spending for sleep study services rose from $407 million to $565 million from 2005 to 2011, and fraud investigators and sleep medicine professionals have identified specific vulnerabilities regarding polysomnography services. The findings of the OIG’s report are significant because just as we accurately predicted that the OIG’s December 2010 Report: “Questionable Billing by Skilled Nursing Facilities” would generate increased investigations of therapy services for skilled nursing facilities (“SNFs”), the findings in this Report represents an area in which sleep study service providers can also expect increased enforcement. Continue reading
Posted in Clinical Laboratory, Diagnostic Testing, Durable Medical Equipment, Fraud and Abuse, Health Care, Health Care Providers, Hospital, Medicare, OIG, OIG Reports, Self-Referral
Tagged Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, DME, Durable Medical Equipment, Hospital, Medicare, Physician, Polysomnography, Sleep Study Centers