PPACA Impact and Opportunities : Health Care Lawyer & Attorney : Epstein Becker Green Law Firm : Insurance & Costs : Health Reform Musings Blog

Our colleagues at Epstein Becker Green have issued a client alert: "Federally Facilitated Exchanges Are Almost Ready," by Linda V. Tiano.

Following is an excerpt:

On March 1, 2013, the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight ("CCIIO") and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS") released lengthy and detailed draft guidance regarding the federally facilitated exchanges ("FFEs") that will operate in the 26 states that have chosen not to establish their own exchange or partner with CMS. Although the guidance was issued in draft form, CCIIO and CMS allowed only two weeks for the public to submit comments and, as described in this alert, CMS intends to start accepting issuer applications to the FFEs on April 1, 2013. As such, it seems unlikely that the guidance will be materially revised.

Read the full alert here.

The Physician Payment Sunshine Act, which was incorporated into Section 6002 of the Affordable Care Act, requires pharmaceutical, medical device, biological and medical supply manufacturers to file annual reports on payments to physicians and teaching hospitals. Despite the requirement in the law that manufacturers submit their first report in March 2013 disclosing payments made during 2012, two events have pushed back that obligation or taken the sting out of noncompliance.

First, although Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) was required to publish standards for reporting information and making that information available online to the public, it has yet to publish final regulations. As recently as May 2012, it posted a blog notice on its website announcing that manufacturers will not be required to start collecting data until January 1, 2013. The reason given for the delay was that it simply needed time to sort through the over 300 comments that were received.

The second event that should be good news to manufacturers comes from Vermont. Vermont, along with eight other states and the District of Columbia, already have laws requiring manufacturers to report payments to physicians as well as financial penalties for failing to submit reports. Even though the Sunshine Act supersedes those state laws, any part of a state law that contains different or broader reporting requirements than the federal law remains in effect. However, since CMS has not published its regulations, answering that question may be more difficult than it appears at first. The good news is that the Vermont Attorney General has offered a limited amnesty to manufacturers of medical devices and biologics (but not pharmaceuticals) who did not report during any period between July 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011. The reprieve waives the penalties, but not registration fees or penalties under other state laws. While a complete report is not required immediately, the offer is for a limited time only and is good through October 1, 2012. Any inquiries should be sent to the Vermont Attorney General’s office at prescribedproducts@atg.state.vt.us.

For more information, contact the author at rwanerman@ebglaw.com.

by George B. Breen and Amy F. Lerman

On March 9, 2012, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) released a final rule that modifies several of the durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies ("DMEPOS") supplier standards. Most notably, the final rule modifies restrictions on the "direct solicitation" of Medicare beneficiaries by DMEPOS suppliers. CMS stated in the final rule that its reason for making this modification is that the definition of "direct solicitation" was not feasible and has been criticized for being overly broad. DMEPOS suppliers and other providers need to be aware of this modification to the supplier standards set forth in the final rule, and, in particular, the revised guidelines regarding direct solicitation, because suppliers may need to modify their business practices with respect to interactions with Medicare beneficiaries for DMEPOS items and services.

Read the full alert here

by Jesse M. Caplan and Serra J. Schlanger

Since November 2011 the Center for Consumer Information & Insurance Oversight (“CCIIO”) in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has completed 22 reviews of health insurance premium rate increase filings in the individual and small group markets. Under the new federal rate review regulations, CCIIO has determined that six of the reviewed premium rate increases represented “unreasonable” increases while 16 of the rate increases were deemed “not unreasonable.”

This Implementing Health and Insurance Reform alert provides a summary and analysis of the completed federal rate review determinations to date. It also provides a link to Epstein Becker Green’s interactive National Health Insurance Rate Review Scorecard, which offers insurance carriers, lawyers, and other stakeholders an up-to-date resource on federal and state health insurance rate review programs, standards, and initiatives.

Read the full alert here

by Jason B. Caron, O. Benton Curtis III, Anjali N.C. Downs, and Jennifer K. Goodwin

Almost two years after the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) released a proposed rule regarding overpayments to providers and suppliers, as provided for under Section 6402(a) of the ACA. To date, regulators, courts, clients, and members of the bar have interpreted the requirements of Section 6402(a) in various ways. The proposed rule provides CMS's view on this matter, and, given that CMS is proposing a number of potentially onerous requirements with regard to investigating, reporting, and returning overpayments, stakeholders should consider submitting comments. This health reform alert provides an overview of CMS's proposed rule and its potentially burdensome implications.

Read the full alert here

by Kathleen A. Peterson, Benjamin S. Martin, Wendy C. Goldstein, and Constance A. Wilkinson

This issue of Implementing Health & Insurance Reform summarizes and discusses some issues raised by the proposed rule ("Proposed Rule") that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS") published on February 2, 2012, to implement changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program ("MDRP") and to reimbursement limits for outpatient drugs covered by Medicaid.

In Part 1, we discuss proposals relating to the MDRP that would change the manner in which pharmaceutical manufacturers calculate Average Manufacturer Price ("AMP") and Best Price for Medicaid-covered outpatient drugs and the manner in which rebates that manufacturers pay on prescriptions of those drugs dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries are calculated. The topics covered include: the sales and price concessions manufacturers would include in their calculate AMP calculations, as well as those that would be excluded; the alternate methodology manufacturers would use to calculate AMP for so-called "5i" drugs not generally dispensed in retail community pharmacies; the calculation of Medicaid rebates for line extensions of other drugs; and new reporting obligations for manufacturers. CMS is accepting comments on the Proposed Rule until April 2, 2012.

Read the full alert here

by Gretchen Harders, Daly D.E. Temchine, and Joseph J. Kempf, Jr.

On December 7, 2011, final rules on the medical loss ratio (“MLR”) requirements for insured health plans (and an interim final rule for non-federal governmental plans) were issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The MLR requirements are effective January 1, 2012, and any issuer who does not meet the MLR requirements for the 2011 MLR reporting year must pay rebates by August 1, 2012. This alert will address who should get a rebate and what we should expect to see under the MLR rules.

Read the full alert here 

by George B. Breen and Amy F. Lerman

According to a new report released in December 2011 by the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”), more than 25 percent of all durable medical equipment (“DME”) suppliers faced enforcement actions by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services during their first year of participation in the Medicare program. In its report, the OIG reviewed a sample of 229 newly enrolled suppliers and examined multiple data sources in order to assess the extent, if any, that the suppliers in the sample had program integrity issues. According to the report, during the first year of participation in the Medicare program, 26 percent of those suppliers classified as medium or high risk by the National Supplier Clearinghouse (“NSC”) for committing fraud, and 2 percent of those deemed low-risk by the NSC, had their Medicare billing privileges revoked or were subjected to prepayment claims review. This Alert addresses why DME suppliers, being among those that are subject to the highest levels of screening and scrutiny, need to be aware of these finding and offers thoughts on what suppliers need to do now to prevent and detect potential fraud, avoid prepayment review, and/or revocation of Medicare billing privileges.

Read the full alert here

by Lynn Shapiro Snyder and Lesley R. Yeung

On December 16, 2011, the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight ("CCIIO") within the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS") released a "bulletin" to provide information and solicit comments on the regulatory approach that the Department of Health and Human Services plans to propose to define essential health benefits ("EHB") under section 1302 of the Affordable Care Act. The "bulletin" provides information to stakeholders (i.e., consumers, states, employers, and health insurance issuers) about what benefits are likely to be required under the EHB package. CCIIO is proposing to give states a significant role in defining the EHB package by allowing them to select from one of four benchmark health plan types that will serve as the standard for the health plans offered through the new state exchanges starting in 2014. Public comments may be submitted to CMS by January 31, 2012. Comments should be sent to EssentialHealthBenefits@cms.hhs.gov. Stakeholders interested in the EHB package definition process should consider submitting comments and actively engaging in public dialogue with HHS on the process now.

Read the full alert here

by Sarah K. Giesting, Wendy C. Goldstein, Kathleen A. Peterson, and Natasha F. Thoren

On December 14, 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued long-awaited proposed rules (“Proposed Rules”) related to the federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act applicable to pharmaceutical, medical device, biological and medical supply manufacturers and group purchasing organizations (“GPOs”). The Proposed Rules outline CMS’s proposals regarding implementation of the Physician Payment Sunshine Act and seek comments regarding these proposals. This health reform alert provides an overview of the Proposed Rules and then discusses some key considerations for manufacturers and GPOs as they evaluate and prepare comments to the Proposed Rules.

Read the full alert here

by Jesse M. Caplan and Serra J. Schlanger

On November 21, 2011, the Center for Consumer Information & Insurance Oversight, in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), announced its determination that a health insurance premium rate increase of 11.58 percent in the small group market in Pennsylvania represented an “unreasonable” rate increase, while an 11.10 percent increase in the individual market in Montana did not. These long-awaited determinations represent the first application of CMS’s rate review regulations under federal health reform.

This Implementing Health and Insurance Reform alert discusses these first federal rate review determinations, and their implications for insurance carriers and future insurance premium rate reviews. It also provides a link to Epstein Becker Green’s interactive National Health Insurance Rate Review Scorecard, which offers insurance carriers, lawyers, and other stakeholders an up-to-date resource on federal and state health insurance rate review programs, standards, and initiatives.

Read the full alert here 

Expansion of the DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program; Legislative Inquiry Related to Fraud and Abuse Enforcement Actions; and Automated Pre-Enrollment Provider Screening

by George B. Breen, Amy F. Lerman, Emily E. Bajcsi, Deepa B. Selvam

In order to be prepared for upcoming changes and to respond to new initiatives, providers and suppliers participating in Medicare must be aware of recent Congressional activity that would hold the federal government accountable for its intended enforcement efforts designed to curb health care fraud, waste, and abuse, as well as an effort by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) to implement automated pre-enrollment provider and supplier screening in January 2012. One example of the pressures that providers and suppliers face in this enhanced regulatory and enforcement climate is the upcoming expansion of the Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (“DMEPOS”) Competitive Bidding Program, which is targeted to launch in July 2013 and for which the Round 2 bidding timeline was announced on November 30, 2011.

Read the full alert here

by René Y. Quashie and Lynn Shapiro Snyder

As the health care industry analyzes the recently released final rule and related guidance regarding the Medicare Shared Savings Program (“MSSP”) for accountable care organizations (“ACOs”), it is important for the industry to also pay attention to key deadlines related to initiatives being implemented by the Center for Medicare and Medicare Innovation (“CMMI” or “Innovation Center”) within the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”).

While the MSSP ACO initiative is a permanent Medicare program, CMMI is developing and promoting other initiatives—some related to the MSSP, others not—which should be part of any provider’s considerations related to the “Medicare Menu” of options now available to customize an entity’s Medicare payment methodologies. This alert will address a number of key Medicare initiatives currently under way at the Innovation Center and another to be implemented by the Center for Medicare within CMS.

To explore the MSSP and other value-based initiatives further, Epstein Becker Green will cohost the following webcast:

Healthcare Transformation Accelerates:
What Could the MSSP and Other Value-Based Purchasing
Initiatives Mean for Your Organization?
Webcast: Nov. 9, 2011, 1 pm ET

Epstein Becker Green, KPMG Healthcare, and the JHD Group invite you to join the fourth webcast in a series that will explore the new regulations and the broader implications of moving toward payment systems that reward enhancements to quality, cost, and access.

The 120-minute session, which will dedicate 30 minutes to Q&A, will focus on how organizations can begin to connect the dots from the final MSSP rule to accountable care organizations, the increasing movement across the industry to new quality and cost-based payment models, and the regulations' strategic and operational implications for care delivery systems.

Read the full alert here         Register for the webinar here 

by Ross K. Friedberg, Shawn M. Gilman, Mark E. Lutes, David E. Matyas, René Y. Quashie, Serra J. Schlanger, Carrie Valiant, Dale C. Van Demark, and Lesley R. Yeung

On October 20, 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS") released its final rule ("Final Rule") implementing the voluntary Medicare Shared Savings Program ("Program") for accountable care organizations ("ACOs"). The Program was established by Section 3022 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Final Rule was released in conjunction with revised antitrust guidance from the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") and the Department of Justice ("DOJ"), as well as with the establishment by CMS and the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General ("OIG") of several waivers from various fraud and abuse laws. As part of this interagency effort to facilitate participation in the Program, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") also issued a fact sheet regarding nonprofit organizations' participation in ACOs.

Read the full alert online

As the health care world awaits the Medicare Shared Savings Program regulations expected to be issued soon by CMS, below is a wish list for key attributes that I hope the regulations evidence:

1. Flexibility. 

 "Transforming health care everywhere starts with transforming it somewhere." I hope that CMS takes Atul Gawande's advice and avoids being too proscriptive in launching the Share Savings Program. To me, the biggest risk to the program is being deemed a failure for having gone down too narrow a path that turns out to be unsuccessful.

Useful approaches have been suggested for tiering ACOs and providing for related payment methodologies based on levels of ACO capability. If some form of risk sharing model is going to be included along with simple share savings, let's not at the outset go so far along the risk axis that many start-up but promising ACOs would be excluded. Flexibility will encourage positive experimentation and inclusiveness in the interest of learning over time.

2. Discipline.

 At the same time, the ACO regulations need to have teeth. Despite the ongoing policy debates about how to measure quality and value, we know enough now for CMS to provide strong minimum requirements that will separate ACOs that show real promise from those that do not. In order to qualify for bonus or risk-based payments, ACOs will need to demonstrate both the current capability and the future capacity to further the triple aim goals of accountable care--improved patient outcomes, patient satisfaction and cost efficiency.

Such evidence will then justify appropriate recognition and protection under the fraud and abuse laws and antitrust laws, among others. And the discipline must be ongoing and progressive--continued qualification and continued improvement. Failure to maintain such qualification must have consequences--both financial and legal.

3. Simplicity.

One of the risk factors in the success of the Medicare Shared Savings Program is that it will be too complicated to implement effectively. There are a million ideas out there about ACOs--regarding structure and governance, assigning beneficiaries, what measures to use, how to allocate savings, etc.

Failure to construct a manageable pathway and an understandable set of rules at the outset--for diverse providers to follow and for consumers to understand and embrace--will severely threaten the ultimate success of the program. It would be easy to try to do too much too fast due to the pressure to "bend the cost curve," among others. I hope that CMS keeps it simple, straightforward and understandable with achievable program goals.

4. Patience.

Even if the regulations evidence flexibility, discipline and simplicity, we will need to be patient. "We" means CMS, Congress, private payers, providers and consumers. This program is one component of a broader set of ideas relating to health care payment and delivery reform in both public and commercial settings. The overall goal is to achieve the triple aim stated above--or as CMS Administrator Berwick often puts it, "better care, better health and lower costs"--through a variety of means and over time.

The Affordable Care Act in its entirety encompasses new quality reporting requirements, value-based purchasing programs, bundling pilots, gainsharing demonstrations, readmissions penalties and other methods of "testing, testing." Not to mention the efforts of the new Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation. If the Medicare Shared Savings Program tries to do too much too quickly on its own and the goals are not measured and paced, it inevitably will be judged unfairly and will not make as helpful a contribution as it otherwise might.

5. Harmony.

Another word I might have chosen here is coordination, but coordination is a means to harmonizing the activities and impact of the relevant federal agencies involved in ACO implementation, the various payment and delivery reform components of the Affordable Care Act and the public and private sector initiatives in this arena. Is such harmony too much to hope for? Perhaps, but it should be a goal and it should be achievable over time.

CMS, OIG, FTC and DOJ already have evidenced coordination in the days before and following their October 5, 2010 public workshop on the antitrust issues and fraud and abuse issues related to ACOs. Coordinated guidance is reasonable to expect. The ACA explicitly allows for the coordination of ideas and best practices in accountable care efforts in connection with both governmental and commercial health care payment practices. It certainly is within the power of Secretary Sebelius and Administrator Berwick to harmonize the implementation of Sections 3021, 3022 and 3023 of the ACA, along with the many other provisions that relate to achieving accountable care.

                                                   *                    *                   *

The ACO regulations should be out soon. They of course will constitute a start, not a finish. There will be much more work to be done. But my wish--and I am hopeful--is that they lay out a constructive and manageable pathway that fits with others in helping to advance the triple aim.

Doug Hastings