CMS opening up options for states to better manage dual-eligible patients

CMS opening up options for states to better manage dual-eligible patients

Image result for medicare dual eligible

According to data from CMS, while dual-eligible patients make up only 15 percent of Medicaid enrollees, they are responsible for 33 percent of the program’s expenditures.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is looking to partner with states to determine better models to treat the 12 million dual-eligible Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries in the country.

CMS and states spend more than $300 billion annually on this patient population, many of whom suffer from multiple chronic conditions made more difficult to treat by social and economic barriers.

The cost for dual-eligible population is outsized when compared to its size. According to data from CMS, while dual-eligible patients make up only 15 percent of Medicaid enrollees, they are responsible for 33 percent of the program’s expenditures.

“Less than 10 percent of dually eligible individuals are enrolled in any form of care that integrates Medicare and Medicaid services, and instead have to navigate disconnected delivery and payment systems,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement.

“This lack of coordination can lead to fragmented care for individuals, misaligned incentives for payers and providers, and administrative inefficiencies and programmatic burdens for all.”

The goal from the agency is to promote new models which can better integrate Medicare and Medicaid services and create a more seamless experience for both beneficiaries and providers working across the two programs.

One major goal is to allow states to share in savings and benefits gained from investment in better care for the dual-eligible population.

In a letter addressed to state Medicaid leaders, Verma laid out a few potential payment approaches to address the issue of dual eligible patients, including a capitated payment model which would provide the full array of Medicare and Medicaid services with a set dollar reimbursement amount.

Nine states are currently piloting the model, which creates a three-way contract between the state, CMS and Medicare-Medicaid Plans. So far, CMS said state savings for states have averaged 4.4 percent in these test markets.

Through the experiments, Verma said the agency has been able to foster a competitive marketplace with multiple offerings that incentivizes health plans to invest in services that address the patient population.

CMS said it is currently open to extending the initial state pilots and expanding the geographic scope of the capitated programs.

For states that administer dual-eligible patients on a fee-for-service basis, Verma laid out a merged managed care model that would allow states to share in Medicare savings for metrics like reducing hospital readmissions.

Washington and Colorado are currently testing out the model. In one instance, providers in Washington are using Medicaid health homes to deliver high-intensity care to high-risk beneficiaries and sharing in the cost savings.

CMS said preliminary data from Washington’s program has been positive, with gross savings for Medicare Part A and Part B of 11 percent over three years. This has resulted in $36 million in performance payments to the state.

The letter from CMS also opens up the opportunity to potentially partner on state-specific models developed internally meant to better serve dual eligible patients and reduce Medicare and Medicaid expenditures.

CMS has made payment delivery reform a key initiative, with the ultimate goal of moving towards a outcomes-based payment system and reducing expenditures as Medicare faces an uncertain future.

A few recent initiatives include the launch of the agency’s Primary Cares Model, as well as the recent expansion of supplementary benefits for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries meant to tackle social determinants of health.

 

 

 

Health Care Valuations: The New, the Old and the Ugly

https://www.wipfli.com/insights/blogs/health-care-perspectives-blog/health-care-valuations-the-new-the-old-and-the-ugly?

Image result for business valuations

The shift in health care from volume-based, fee-for-service to value-based reimbursement (VBR) continues to push forward. In its wake, unintended consequences and new challenges have emerged — not only in aspects of delivery but also when determining fair market value (FMV) and remaining compliant with the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law. Below we touch on those consequences and how they’ve emerged from both new and old regulations.

The New: MACRA

Now in play, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) promises to fundamentally change the way the country evaluates and pays for health care. Its new payment schedules, however, have created ramifications that not only tangle the hospital-physician relationship but also create implications for VBR transactions and valuations.

As part of the transition to value-based medicine, four new MACRA elements in particular represent significant changes:

1. Pay for Performance (P4P) Arrangements: The remuneration system makes part of payment dependent on performance, measured against a defined set of criteria, and creates measurements and performance standards for establishing target criteria.

2. Shared Savings Arrangements: The new approach incentivizes providers to reduce health care spending for a defined patient population by offering a percentage of net savings realized as a result of their efforts.

3. Episodic Payments: An episode payment system offers a single price for all the services needed by a patient for an entire episode of care; for example, all the inpatient and outpatient care needed following a heart attack. The intent is to reduce the incentive to overuse unnecessary services within the episode. It also gives health care providers the flexibility to decide what services should be delivered rather than constraining them by fee codes and amounts.

4. Global Budget: With a fixed prepayment made to a group of providers or to a health care system (as opposed to a health care plan), this arrangement covers most or all of a patient’s care during a specified time period.

Clearly the value equation is shifting. Value is defined no longer solely by how much revenue a physician generates but rather by solving problems for patients and patient experience. Value can also be derived not by revenue per patient, but by how many patient lives a physician directs, and with that comes control over how some payments are allocated for patient related services.

As the value dynamics change, hospitals have sought to establish closer relationships with physicians. Acquisitions of physician practices by hospitals have continued at dramatic rates alongside the move toward direct physician employment and provider service agreements. New players in the market and marketplace forces have also emerged as competition to hospitals. Private equity groups and insurance companies are pursuing the acquisition of physicians and clinics for control of patient lives, and therefore revenue.

While the trend toward hospital-physician alignment is intended to improve health care delivery, it has come under scrutiny for potential fraud and abuse violations due in part to established laws that now appear at odds with the new VBR movement.

The Old: Anti-Kickback Statute and Stark Law

Health care organizations, providers and their counsels are well aware of the laws in place they must abide by, namely the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and the Stark Law, which have been in force for more than three decades.

Such regulatory considerations related to fraud and abuse have long had significant impact on the value attributable to each property interest and on the valuation process itself. There are in fact several distinct meanings of fraud within the context of the health care regulatory framework, and they affect a property’s profitability and sustainability, creating significant risk and uncertainty for business entities.

What constitutes fraud, however, is now under the microscope and creating potential liability under the False Claims Act. The new direction of collaborative relationships on behalf of the patient and patient outcomes can make some arrangements suspect. How do physicians refer patients in the new MACRA environment without it being considered a conflict of interest or fraudulent? How will payments made to physicians not exceed the range of FMV and be deemed commercially reasonable? How can alignment strategies be constructed to provide a full continuum of care under VBR reforms?

While there have been no changes to the longstanding regulations, discord between the old laws and the new VBR direction is necessitating a different approach to compliance. The American Hospital, in a letter to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee in a hearing on the Stark law, said, “As interpreted today, the two ‘hallmarks’ of acceptability under the Stark law — fair market value and commercial reasonableness — are not suited to the collaborative models that reward value and outcomes.”

The Ugly: The Push and Pull of the New and the Old

The friction between the enforcement of fraud and abuse laws by the Department of Justice and the Office of the Inspector General, and the VBR models being implemented by Health and Human Services is warranting a review of MACRA and the threshold and definition of commercial reasonableness. With no one clear definition of commercial reasonableness, its analysis is ripe for distortion.

Many regulators’ arguments are centered around Practice Loss Postulate (PLP) — that the acquisition of a physician practice that then operates at a “book financial loss” is dispositive evidence of the hospital’s payment of consideration based on the volume and/or value of referrals.

The problem? In maintaining the economic delineation between physicians and hospitals, the PLP focuses exclusively on immediate and direct financial (cash) returns on, and returns of, investments by health care organizations related to vertical integration transactions. The PLP ignores other economic benefits associated with vertical integration, such as social benefits, qualitative gains, efficiency gains and avoiding costs.

As a consequence, such a vertical integration move could be viewed by regulators as evidence of legally impermissible referrals under the Stark law. However, it would prevent vertically integrated health systems from withstanding fraud and abuse scrutiny. And it would create barriers to satisfying the threshold of commercial reasonableness.

More “New” Is in the Future Forecast

Active industry input and congressional committee discussion is underway in hopes of generating workable strategies to reduce the law’s burden. And although the actual outcomes are uncertain, changes are clearly ahead.