Search

In early 2018, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services released the Medical Review of Evaluation and Management (E/M) Documentation, which allows supervising teaching physicians to rely on a medical student's documentation to support billing for E/M services. This change has potential to enhance education, clinical documentation quality, and the satisfaction of students, postgraduate trainees, and teaching physicians. However, its practical adoption presents many challenges that must be navigated successfully to realize these important goals in compliance with federal and local requirements, while avoiding unintended downstream problems. Implementation requires careful planning, policy creation, education, and monitoring, all with collaboration between institutional leaders, compliance and information technology professionals, educators, and learners. In this paper, we review the 2018 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services rule change, address common questions and potential impacts, outline practical workflows to meet the supervision requirement, and discuss steps for successful implementation., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Elderly woman. Low-income. Chronic pain. Needs to see a rheumatologist. Needs physical therapy. Struggling to pay rent. Has no insurance. Has no disability coverage. As a family physician at a federally qualified health center (FQHC) in Austin, Sharad Kohli, MD, sees a lot of cases like this. In similar health care settings, the patient might face two bad choices: wage bureaucratic war to obtain better health care benefits or simply give up. At People's Community Clinic, Dr. Kohli referred her to an in-house lawyer who successfully appealed her denial of disability insurance. "[The lawyer] got her a significant income, which allowed her to pay her rent and also helped her get insurance through Medicaid and Medicare," Dr. Kohli said. "And then she was able to see the rheumatologist and the physical therapist." This kind of success helps explain why medical-legal partnerships (MLPs) like the one at People's Community Clinic came about in 1993 and began expanding nationally after 2001. Texas has 10 MLPs - all in large or medium-size cities and all tied either to hospitals or FQHCs like People's Community Clinic, according to the National Center for Medical-Legal Partnership in Washington, D.C. Texas MLPs stand among 333 nationwide.

Dialysis-requiring acute kidney injury (AKI) has increased markedly in the United States. At the same time, mortality rates have recently improved. As such, increasing numbers of patients with AKI are surviving to hospital discharge, including up to 30% who will continue to require outpatient dialysis. In recent years, policy changes have significantly affected the care of this high-risk population. Beginning in 2017, new legislation reversed a previous Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services policy that prohibited dialysis for AKI at end-stage renal disease (ESRD) facilities. This has improved dialysis options for patients, but the impact on patient outcomes remains uncertain. Unfortunately, there is currently a lack of evidence basis to guide management of this vulnerable patient population. Moving forward, additional data reporting and analyses will be required, analogous to how the US Renal Data System has helped inform ESRD care. As the dialysis setting for patients with AKI shifts to the ESRD setting, it is incumbent on the nephrology community to identify best practices to promote kidney recovery, recognizing that these practices will differ from standard ESRD protocols., (Copyright © 2019 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Persons with comprehensive health insurance use more hospital care than those who are uninsured or have high-deductible plans. Consequently, analysts generally assume that expanding coverage will increase society-wide use of inpatient services. However, a limited supply of beds might constrain this growth., Objective: To determine how the implementations of Medicare and Medicaid (1966) and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (2014) affected hospital use., Design: Repeated cross-sectional study., Setting: Nationally representative surveys., Participants: Respondents to the National Health Interview Survey (1962 to 1970) and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2008 to 2015)., Measurements: Mean hospital discharges and days were measured, both society-wide and among subgroups defined by income, age, and health status. Changes between preexpansion and postexpansion periods were analyzed using multivariable negative binomial regression., Results: Overall hospital discharges averaged 12.8 per 100 persons in the 3 years before implementation of Medicare and Medicaid and 12.7 per 100 persons in the 4 years after (adjusted difference, 0.2 discharges [95% CI, -0.1 to 0.4 discharges] per 100 persons; P = 0.26). Hospital days did not change in the first 2 years after implementation but increased later. Effects differed by subpopulation: Adjusted discharges increased by 2.4 (CI, 1.7 to 3.1) per 100 persons among elderly compared with nonelderly persons (P < 0.001) and also increased among those with low incomes compared with high-income populations. For younger and higher-income persons, use decreased. Similarly, after the ACA's implementation, overall hospital use did not change: Society-wide rates of discharge were 9.4 per 100 persons before the ACA and 9.0 per 100 persons after the ACA (adjusted difference, -0.6 discharges [CI, -1.3 to 0.2 discharges] per 100 persons; P = 0.133), and hospital days were also stable. Trends differed for some subgroups, and rates decreased significantly in unadjusted (but not adjusted) analyses among persons reporting good or better health status and increased nonsignificantly among those in worse health., Limitation: Data sources relied on participant recall, surveys excluded institutionalized persons, and follow-up after the ACA was limited., Conclusion: Past coverage expansions were associated with little or no change in society-wide hospital use; increases in groups who gained coverage were offset by reductions among others, suggesting that bed supply limited increases in use. Reducing coverage may merely shift care toward wealthier and healthier persons. Conversely, universal coverage is unlikely to cause a surge in hospital use if growth in hospital capacity is carefully constrained., Primary Funding Source: None.

The Appropriate Use Criteria Program, enacted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in response to the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA), aims to reduce inappropriate and unnecessary imaging by mandating use of clinical decision support (CDS) by all providers who order advanced imaging examinations (magnetic resonance imaging; computed tomography; and nuclear medicine studies, including positron emission tomography). Beginning 1 January 2020, documentation of an interaction with a certified CDS system using approved appropriate use criteria will be required on all Medicare claims for advanced imaging in all emergency department patients and outpatients as a prerequisite for payment. The Appropriate Use Criteria Program will initially cover 8 priority clinical areas, including several (such as headache and low back pain) commonly encountered by internal medicine providers. All providers and organizations that order and provide advanced imaging must understand program requirements and their options for compliance strategies. Substantial resources and planning will be needed to comply with PAMA regulations and avoid unintended negative consequences on workflow and payments. However, robust evidence supporting the desired outcome of reducing inappropriate use of advanced imaging is lacking.

Importance: Since the introduction of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP), readmission penalties have been applied disproportionately to institutions that serve low-income populations. To address this concern, the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid introduced a new, stratified payment adjustment method in fiscal year (FY; October 1 to September 30) 2019., Objective: To determine whether the introduction of a new, stratified payment adjustment method was associated with an alteration in the distribution of penalties among hospitals included in the HRRP., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, US hospitals included in the HRRP for FY 2018 and FY 2019 were identified. Penalty status of participating hospitals for FY 2019 was determined based on nonstratified HRRP methods and the new, stratified payment adjustment method. Hospitals caring for the highest proportion of patients enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid based on quintile were assigned to the low-socioeconomic status (SES) group., Exposures: Nonstratified and stratified Centers for Medicare & Medicaid payment adjustment methods., Main Outcomes and Measures: Net reclassification of penalties among all hospitals and hospitals in the low-SES group, in states participating in Medicaid expansion, and for 4 targeted medical conditions (acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and pneumonia)., Results: Penalty status by both payment adjustment methods (nonstratified and stratified) was available for 3173 hospitals. For FY 2019, the new, stratified payment method was associated with penalties for 75.04% of hospitals (2381 of 3173), while the old, nonstratified method was associated with penalties for 79.07% (2509 hospitals), resulting in a net down-classification in penalty status for all hospitals by 4.03 percentage points (95% CI, 2.95-5.11; P < .001). For the 634 low-SES hospitals in the sample, the new method was associated with penalties for 77.60% of hospitals (492 of 634), while the old method was associated with penalties for 91.64% (581 hospitals), resulting in a net down-classification in penalty status of 14.04 percentage points (95% CI, 11.18-16.90; P < .001). Among hospitals that were not low SES (quintiles 1-4), the new payment method was associated with a small decrease in penalty status (1928 vs 1889; net down-classification, 1.54 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.38-2.69; P = .01). Among target medical conditions, the greatest reduction in penalties was observed among cardiovascular conditions (net down-classification, 6.18 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.96-7.39; P < .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: The new, stratified payment adjustment method for the HRRP was associated with a reduction in penalties across hospitals included in the program; the greatest reductions were observed among hospitals in the low-SES group, lessening but not eliminating the previously unbalanced penalty burden carried by these hospitals. Additional public policy research efforts are needed to achieve equitable payment adjustment models for all hospitals.

This final rule with comment period updates the home health prospective payment system (HH PPS) payment rates, including the national, standardized 60-day episode payment rates, the national per- visit rates, and the non-routine medical supply (NRS) conversion factor, effective for home health episodes of care ending on or after January 1, 2019. This rule also: Updates the HH PPS case-mix weights for calendar year (CY) 2019 using the most current, complete data available at the time of rulemaking; discusses our efforts to monitor the potential impacts of the rebasing adjustments that were implemented in CYs 2014 through 2017; finalizes a rebasing of the HH market basket (which includes a decrease in the labor-related share); finalizes the methodology used to determine rural add-on payments for CYs 2019 through 2022, as required by section 50208 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-123) hereinafter referred to as the "BBA of 2018"; finalizes regulations text changes regarding certifying and recertifying patient eligibility for Medicare home health services; and finalizes the definition of "remote patient monitoring" and the recognition of the costs associated with it as allowable administrative costs. This rule also summarizes the case-mix methodology refinements for home health services beginning on or after January 1, 2020, which includes the elimination of therapy thresholds for payment and a change in the unit of payment from a 60-day episode to a 30-day period, as mandated by section 51001 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018. This rule also finalizes changes to the Home Health Value-Based Purchasing (HHVBP) Model. In addition, with respect to the Home Health Quality Reporting Program, this rule discusses the Meaningful Measures Initiative; finalizes the removal of seven measures to further the priorities of this initiative; discusses social risk factors and provides an update on implementation efforts for certain provisions of the IMPACT Act; and finalizes a regulatory text change regarding OASIS data. For the home infusion therapy benefit, this rule finalizes health and safety standards that home infusion therapy suppliers must meet; finalizes an approval and oversight process for accrediting organizations (AOs) that accredit home infusion therapy suppliers; finalizes the implementation of temporary transitional payments for home infusion therapy services for CYs 2019 and 2020; and responds to the comments received regarding payment for home infusion therapy services for CY 2021 and subsequent years. Lastly, in this rule, we are finalizing only one of the two new requirements we proposed to implement in the regulations for the oversight of AOs that accredit Medicare-certified providers and suppliers. More specifically, for reasons set out more fully in the section X. of this final rule with comment period, we have decided not to finalize our proposal to require that all surveyors for AOs that accredit Medicare-certified providers and suppliers take the same relevant and program-specific CMS online surveyor training that the State Agency surveyors are required to take. However, we are finalizing our proposal to require that each AO must provide a written statement with their application to CMS, stating that if one of its fully accredited providers or suppliers, in good- standing, provides written notification that they wish to voluntarily withdraw from the AO's CMS-approved accreditation program, the AO must continue the provider or supplier's current accreditation until the effective date of withdrawal identified by the facility or the expiration date of the term of accreditation, whichever comes first.

We are revising the Medicare hospital inpatient prospective payment systems (IPPS) for operating and capital-related costs of acute care hospitals to implement changes arising from our continuing experience with these systems for FY 2019. Some of these changes implement certain statutory provisions contained in the 21st Century Cures Act and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, and other legislation. We also are making changes relating to Medicare graduate medical education (GME) affiliation agreements for new urban teaching hospitals. In addition, we are providing the market basket update that will apply to the rate-of-increase limits for certain hospitals excluded from the IPPS that are paid on a reasonable cost basis, subject to these limits for FY 2019. We are updating the payment policies and the annual payment rates for the Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) for inpatient hospital services provided by long-term care hospitals (LTCHs) for FY 2019. In addition, we are establishing new requirements or revising existing requirements for quality reporting by specific Medicare providers (acute care hospitals, PPS-exempt cancer hospitals, and LTCHs). We also are establishing new requirements or revising existing requirements for eligible professionals (EPs), eligible hospitals, and critical access hospitals (CAHs) participating in the Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs (now referred to as the Promoting Interoperability Programs). In addition, we are finalizing modifications to the requirements that apply to States operating Medicaid Promoting Interoperability Programs. We are updating policies for the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program, the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, and the Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program. We also are making changes relating to the required supporting documentation for an acceptable Medicare cost report submission and the supporting information for physician certification and recertification of claims.

We are revising the Medicare hospital inpatient prospective payment systems (IPPS) for operating and capital-related costs of acute care hospitals to implement changes arising from our continuing experience with these systems for FY 2018. Some of these changes implement certain statutory provisions contained in the Pathway for Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) Reform Act of 2013, the Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation Act of 2014, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, the 21st Century Cures Act, and other legislation. We also are making changes relating to the provider-based status of Indian Health Service (IHS) and Tribal facilities and organizations and to the low-volume hospital payment adjustment for hospitals operated by the IHS or a Tribe. In addition, we are providing the market basket update that will apply to the rate-of-increase limits for certain hospitals excluded from the IPPS that are paid on a reasonable cost basis subject to these limits for FY 2018. We are updating the payment policies and the annual payment rates for the Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) for inpatient hospital services provided by long-term care hospitals (LTCHs) for FY 2018. In addition, we are establishing new requirements or revising existing requirements for quality reporting by specific Medicare providers (acute care hospitals, PPS-exempt cancer hospitals, LTCHs, and inpatient psychiatric facilities). We also are establishing new requirements or revising existing requirements for eligible professionals (EPs), eligible hospitals, and critical access hospitals (CAHs) participating in the Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs. We are updating policies relating to the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program, the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, and the Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program. We also are making changes relating to transparency of accrediting organization survey reports and plans of correction of providers and suppliers; electronic signature and electronic submission of the Certification and Settlement Summary page of the Medicare cost reports; and clarification of provider disposal of assets.

Providing affordable, high-quality care for the 10 million persons who are dual-eligible beneficiaries of Medicare and Medicaid is an ongoing health-care policy challenge in the United States. However, the workforce and the care provided to dual-eligible beneficiaries are understudied. The purpose of this article is to provide a narrative of the challenges and lessons learned from an exploratory study in the use of clinical and administrative data to compare the workforce of two care models that deliver home- and community-based services to dual-eligible beneficiaries. The research challenges that the study team encountered were as follows: (a) comparing different care models, (b) standardizing data across care models, and (c) comparing patterns of health-care utilization. The methods used to meet these challenges included expert opinion to classify data and summative content analysis to compare and count data. Using descriptive statistics, a summary comparison of the two care models suggested that the coordinated care model workforce provided significantly greater hours of care per recipient than the integrated care model workforce. This likely represented the coordinated care model's focus on providing in-home services for one recipient, whereas the integrated care model focused on providing services in a day center with group activities. The lesson learned from this exploratory study is the need for standardized quality measures across home- and community-based services agencies to determine the workforce that best meets the needs of dual-eligible beneficiaries.

This final rule revises the conditions of participation (CoPs) that home health agencies (HHAs) must meet in order to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The requirements focus on the care delivered to patients by HHAs, reflect an interdisciplinary view of patient care, allow HHAs greater flexibility in meeting quality care standards, and eliminate unnecessary procedural requirements. These changes are an integral part of our overall effort to achieve broad- based, measurable improvements in the quality of care furnished through the Medicare and Medicaid programs, while at the same time eliminating unnecessary procedural burdens on providers.

This final rule amends the regulations relating to exclusion authorities under the authority of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or the Department). The final rule incorporates statutory changes, early reinstatement provisions, and policy changes, and clarifies existing regulatory provisions.

The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) eliminated the flawed Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) act formula - a longstanding crucial issue of concern for health care providers and Medicare beneficiaries. MACRA also included a quality improvement program entitled, "The Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, or MIPS." The proposed rule of MIPS sought to streamline existing federal quality efforts and therefore linked 4 distinct programs into one. Three existing programs, meaningful use (MU), Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), value-based payment (VBP) system were merged with the addition of Clinical Improvement Activity category. The proposed rule also changed the name of MU to Advancing Care Information, or ACI. ACI contributes to 25% of composite score of the four programs, PQRS contributes 50% of the composite score, while VBP system, which deals with resource use or cost, contributes to 10% of the composite score. The newest category, Improvement Activities or IA, contributes 15% to the composite score. The proposed rule also created what it called a design incentive that drives movement to delivery system reform principles with the inclusion of Advanced Alternative Payment Models (APMs).Following the release of the proposed rule, the medical community, as well as Congress, provided substantial input to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS),expressing their concern. American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) focused on 3 important aspects: delay the implementation, provide a 3-month performance period, and provide ability to submit meaningful quality measures in a timely and economic manner. The final rule accepted many of the comments from various organizations, including several of those specifically emphasized by ASIPP, with acceptance of 3-month reporting period, as well as the ability to submit non-MIPS measures to improve real quality and make the system meaningful. CMS also provided a mechanism for physicians to avoid penalties for non-reporting with reporting of just a single patient. In summary, CMS has provided substantial flexibility with mechanisms to avoid penalties, reporting for 90 continuous days, increasing the low volume threshold, changing the reporting burden and data thresholds and, finally, coordination between performance categories. The final rule has made MIPS more meaningful with bonuses for exceptional performance, the ability to report for 90 days, and to report on 50% of the patients in 2017 and 60% of the patients in 2018. The final rule also reduced the quality measures to 6, including only one outcome or high priority measure with elimination of cross cutting measure requirement. In addition, the final rule reduced the burden of ACI, improved the coordination of performance, reduced improvement activities burden from 60 points to 40 points, and finally improved coordination between performance categories. Multiple concerns remain regarding the reduction in scoring for quality improvement in future years, increase in proportion of MIPS scoring for resource use utilizing flawed, claims based methodology and the continuation of the disproportionate importance of ACI, an expensive program that can be onerous for providers which in many ways has not lived up to its promise. Key words: Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, merit-based incentive payment system, quality performance measures, resource use, improvement activities, advancing care information performance category.

This final rule amends the civil monetary penalty (CMP or penalty) rules of the Office of Inspector General to incorporate new CMP authorities, clarify existing authorities, and reorganize regulations on civil money penalties, assessments, and exclusions to improve readability and clarity.

In this final rule, OIG amends the safe harbors to the anti-kickback statute by adding new safe harbors that protect certain payment practices and business arrangements from sanctions under the anti-kickback statute. The OIG also amends the civil monetary penalty (CMP) rules by codifying revisions to the definition of "remuneration," added by the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (ACA). This rule updates the existing safe harbor regulations and enhances flexibility for providers and others to engage in health care business arrangements to improve efficiency and access to quality care while protecting programs and patients from fraud and abuse.

This final rule updates the Home Health Prospective Payment System (HH PPS) payment rates, including the national, standardized 60-day episode payment rates, the national per-visit rates, and the non-routine medical supply (NRS) conversion factor; effective for home health episodes of care ending on or after January 1, 2017. This rule also: Implements the last year of the 4-year phase-in of the rebasing adjustments to the HH PPS payment rates; updates the HH PPS case-mix weights using the most current, complete data available at the time of rulemaking; implements the 2nd-year of a 3-year phase-in of a reduction to the national, standardized 60-day episode payment to account for estimated case-mix growth unrelated to increases in patient acuity (that is, nominal case-mix growth) between CY 2012 and CY 2014; finalizes changes to the methodology used to calculate payments made under the HH PPS for high-cost "outlier" episodes of care; implements changes in payment for furnishing Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) using a disposable device for patients under a home health plan of care; discusses our efforts to monitor the potential impacts of the rebasing adjustments; includes an update on subsequent research and analysis as a result of the findings from the home health study; and finalizes changes to the Home Health Value-Based Purchasing (HHVBP) Model, which was implemented on January 1, 2016; and updates to the Home Health Quality Reporting Program (HH QRP).

This final rule will revise the requirements that Long-Term Care facilities must meet to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. These changes are necessary to reflect the substantial advances that have been made over the past several years in the theory and practice of service delivery and safety. These revisions are also an integral part of our efforts to achieve broad-based improvements both in the quality of health care furnished through federal programs, and in patient safety, while at the same time reducing procedural burdens on providers.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has released a proposed rule that details a consolidated pay-for-performance provider payment system within the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act. This proposed rule establishes policy for the new provider Merit-Based Incentive System and Alternative Payment Models. While the rule is extremely complex, and not yet finalized, there are significant implications for nursing and advanced practice providers. This proposed rule intends to drastically change the current provider payment system and reward providers who demonstrate better quality outcomes at a lower cost. It also aligns with the current administration's intention to reform the payment and delivery system to a value-based methodology. Within the proposed rule, there is much at stake and will likely transform the way in which providers are reimbursed for Medicare beneficiaries. There are many strategies that can be deployed to help drive success within this new legislation. Among them are a renewed focus on quality outcomes, knowledge of clinical performance, care coordination, and deploying new models of care that address a lower cost structure. It is imperative that nurses and advanced practice providers are aware of this new legislation and how their practice will be implicated by payment reform.

This final rule establishes national emergency preparedness requirements for Medicare- and Medicaid-participating providers and suppliers to plan adequately for both natural and man-made disasters, and coordinate with federal, state, tribal, regional, and local emergency preparedness systems. It will also assist providers and suppliers to adequately prepare to meet the needs of patients, residents, clients, and participants during disasters and emergency situations. Despite some variations, our regulations will provide consistent emergency preparedness requirements, enhance patient safety during emergencies for persons served by Medicare- and Medicaid-participating facilities, and establish a more coordinated and defined response to natural and man-made disasters.

This notice announces the Provider Enrollment Moratoria Access Waiver Demonstration of Part B Non-Emergency Ground Ambulance Suppliers and Home Health Agencies in 6 states. The demonstration is being implemented in accordance with section 402 of the Social Security Amendments of 1967 and gives CMS the authority to grant waivers to the statewide enrollment moratoria on a case-by-case basis in response to access to care issues, and to subject providers and suppliers enrolling via such waivers to heightened screening, oversight, and investigations.

This document announces the extension of temporary moratoria on the enrollment of new Medicare Part B non-emergency ground ambulance suppliers and Medicare home health agencies (HHAs), subunits, and branch locations in specific locations within designated metropolitan areas in Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Texas, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey to prevent and combat fraud, waste, and abuse. It also announces the implementation of temporary moratoria on the enrollment of new Medicare Part B non-emergency ground ambulance suppliers and Medicare HHAs, subunits, and branch locations in Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Texas, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey on a statewide basis. In addition, it announces the lifting of the moratoria on all Part B emergency ground ambulance suppliers. These moratoria, and the changes described in this document, also apply to the enrollment of HHAs and non-emergency ground ambulance suppliers in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.

The April 2015 passage of the Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act is accelerating the move of the US health care industry from traditional fee-for-service provider payments to alternative payment methods that are focused on value rather than volume of services. Medicaid, private employers, and consumer groups are also developing similar payment models. Learning from the experience of the 27 early accountable care organizations in North Carolina, such as Cornerstone Health Care, will help to accelerate the transformation that will be necessary across the health care delivery ecosystem in our state., (©2016 by the North Carolina Institute of Medicine and The Duke Endowment. All rights reserved.)

This final rule will amend the fire safety standards for Medicare and Medicaid participating hospitals, critical access hospitals (CAHs), long-term care facilities, intermediate care facilities for individuals with intellectual disabilities (ICF-IID), ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), hospices which provide inpatient services, religious non-medical health care institutions (RNHCIs), and programs of all-inclusive care for the elderly (PACE) facilities. Further, this final rule will adopt the 2012 edition of the Life Safety Code (LSC) and eliminate references in our regulations to all earlier editions of the Life Safety Code. It will also adopt the 2012 edition of the Health Care Facilities Code, with some exceptions.

This rule implements a provision enacted by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 and reflects the transfer of the State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP) from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to the Administration for Community Living (ACL) in HHS. The previous regulations were issued by CMS under the authority granted by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA `90), Section 4360.

Background: International Board Certified Lactation Consultants (IBCLCs) are associated with increased rates and duration of breastfeeding. Recent US legislation offers opportunities for private and public insurers to include IBCLC services as a covered benefit., Objective: To explore US states' Medicaid coverage of IBCLC services following January 2014 legislative expansions of coverage for preventive health services., Methods: To assess IBCLC reimbursement practices, 20 states, stratified by Medicaid expansion (yes/no) and 3-month exclusive breastfeeding rates, were selected to participate. An electronic survey was sent to Medicaid and Maternal Health Directors, breastfeeding coordinators, and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) coordinators between July and December 2014. Email follow-ups clarified missing or ambiguous responses., Results: Of the 15 states responding, 9 had Medicaid expansion. None of the states permitted IBCLCs to bill for services autonomously. In 9 states, IBCLC services were covered with some type of stipulation, for example, billing under a physician. Of the 9 states with IBCLC coverage, 7 had accepted Medicaid expansion. States with higher rates of exclusive breastfeeding were also more likely to provide IBCLC coverage., Conclusion: Recent legislative changes to public and private insurance that could expand coverage of IBCLCs have not yielded appreciable changes, particularly in states without Medicaid expansion. There is a need for research on the effects of adopting expanded coverage for IBCLCs and advocacy to do so., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

Background: Medicare policy regarding telemedicine reimbursement has changed little since 2000. Many individual states, however, have added telemedicine reimbursement for either Medicaid and/or commercial payers over the same period. Because telemedicine programs must serve patients from all or most payers, it is likely that these state-level policy changes have significant impacts on telemedicine program viability and utilization of services from all payers, not just those services and payers affected directly by state policy. This report explores the impact of two significant state-level policy changes-one expanding Medicaid telemedicine coverage and the other introducing telemedicine parity for commercial payers-on Medicare utilization in the affected states., Materials and Methods: Medicare claims data from 2011-2013 were examined for states in the Great Lakes region. All valid claims for live interactive telemedicine professional fees were extracted and linked to their states of origin. Allowed encounters and expenditures were calculated in total and on a per 1,000 members per year basis to standardize against changes in the Medicare population by state and year., Results: Medicare telemedicine encounters and professional fee expenditures grew sharply following changes in state Medicaid and commercial payer policy in the examined states. Medicare utilization in Illinois grew by 173% in 2012 (over 2011) following Medicaid coverage expansion, and Medicare utilization in Michigan grew by 118% in 2013 (over 2012) following adoption of telemedicine parity for commercial payers. By contrast, annual Medicare telemedicine utilization growth in surrounding states (in which there were no significant policy changes during these years) varied somewhat but showed no discernible pattern., Conclusions: Although Medicare telemedicine policy has changed little since its inception, changes in state policies with regard to telemedicine reimbursement appear to have significant impacts on the practical viability of telemedicine programs that bill Medicare for telemedicine services.

In February 2009 the U.S. Congress unexpectedly passed the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH). HITECH provides up to $27 billion to promote adoption and appropriate use of Electronic Medical Records (EMR) by hospitals. We measure the extent to which HITECH incentive payments spurred EMR adoption by independent hospitals. Adoption rates for all independent hospitals grew from 48 percent in 2008 to 77 percent by 2011. Absent HITECH incentives, we estimate that the adoption rate would have instead been 67 percent in 2011. When we consider that HITECH funds were available for all hospitals and not just marginal adopters, we estimate that the cost of generating an additional adoption was $48 million. We also estimate that in the absence of HITECH incentives, the 77 percent adoption rate would have been realized by 2013, just 2 years after the date achieved due to HITECH., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

This final rule with comment period specifies the requirements that eligible professionals (EPs), eligible hospitals, and critical access hospitals (CAHs) must meet in order to qualify for Medicare and Medicaid electronic health record (EHR) incentive payments and avoid downward payment adjustments under the Medicare EHR Incentive Program. In addition, it changes the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs reporting period in 2015 to a 90-day period aligned with the calendar year. This final rule with comment period also removes reporting requirements on measures that have become redundant, duplicative, or topped out from the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs. In addition, this final rule with comment period establishes the requirements for Stage 3 of the program as optional in 2017 and required for all participants beginning in 2018. The final rule with comment period continues to encourage the electronic submission of clinical quality measure (CQM) data, establishes requirements to transition the program to a single stage, and aligns reporting for providers in the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs.

Objectives: Healthcare expenditures for dually eligible individuals covered by both Medicare and Medicaid constitute a disproportionate share of spending for the 2 programs. Fragmentation, inefficiency, and low-quality care have been long standing issues for this population. The objective of this study was to conduct an early evaluation of an innovative program that coordinates benefits for elderly dual eligibles., Study Design: Longitudinal cohort study., Methods: Comparable sources of administrative claims from 2007 to 2009 were used to examine differences in 30-day rehospitalization between dual eligibles in Massachusetts participating in Senior Care Options (SCO), an integrated managed care program, and dual eligibles in Medicare fee-for-service. Multivariable logistic regression models with county and time fixed effects were used for estimation., Results: We found no statistically significant effect of SCO on rehospitalization, an area where coordinated care would be expected to make a substantial difference., Conclusions: Our results suggest that coordinating the financing and delivery of services through an integrated managed program may not sufficiently address the problems of inefficiency and fragmentation in care for hospitalized dual eligible enrollees.