You've Got Mail: National Sample RADV Audit Scores are In
By now you may have received your score from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) regarding the national sample for Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) audits.
Wondering how you compare to your peers or competitors and what the implications of your score are?
Factors that should be taken into account regarding your score compared to the national average:
- If you were to extend your score across your entire membership, would you be satisfied with the results?
- What is the impact on your revenue and bid/benefit design?
- Are inaccuracies going to have an impact on HEDIS measures and Medical Trend Management?
- Do you have a long-term strategy to positively affect your results through concurrent reviews and targeted provider education/engagement strategies?
Regardless of what your results are, you need to have a solid action plan in place for improvement and maintenance. Due to the size of the sample, it is not statistically significant enough for your organization to receive the large scale impact this number potentially poses on revenue, medical costs related to beneficiaries, and your organization as a whole.
Mock RADV's and concurrent chart reviews should be a part of your risk adjustment program, and should be coupled with targeted provider education and engagement strategies.
Critical next steps:
- Implement standard operating procedures for internal Mock RADV audit programs
- Leverage analytics to target and profile your provider network for education and engagement
- Implement year-round concurrent reviews to ensure optimal results for revenue capture and avoidance of RADV exposure and potential overpayment recovery requests from CMS.
Gorman Health Group supports our clients in evaluating the efficiency, compliance, and strategic value of risk adjustment programs from start to finish. We have a unique opportunity to collaborate with our clients and design, implement and operationalize year-round processes to ensure risk score accuracy and alignment. Together, we can develop enterprise-wide strategies to manage medical costs and improve clinical quality outcomes.
If you have any questions or would like to hear more about how we can help, please contact me directly at dweinrieb@ghgadvisors.com.
Resources
Gorman Health Group (GHG) announced its new vision for maximizing healthcare analytics and optimizing risk adjustment programs. Read the full press release >>
Spring Fever Focus: Grievances and Appeals
Spring is here, showing us all different signs of renewal. It motivates us to clean out clutter, open those windows, and start the year fresh. Audit season is also upon us, and people are taking a close, hard look at internal processes that surround grievances and appeals processing. Findings in this area keep showing up, like that college grad that keeps popping in to visit his friends back on campus. Just leave already, you've had your time!
What is causing the frequent failures that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) describes? I spoke recently at the 2015 GHG Forum regarding this issue. We believe it is one of the following factors: people, processes, or technology. It's time to perform an assessment on this area. Ask yourself these questions:
- How much specialized training has this team received this year? How do I know our team leaders are up on the regulations and best practices? Is the Grievances and Appeals (G&A) Department a dumping ground for service issues that could have been handled in Member Services? With constant call center turnover, is G&A working closely with Member Services management to educate new staff?
- Are procedures for case processing overly complicated? Is staff empowered to effectuate change, or are they hampered by rigid workflows? Are the procedures even referenced anymore, or are they just a placeholder document for the intranet policy and procedure (P&P) library?
- Can I customize our case database to meet my changing reporting needs? Are the reports I am getting out of the system providing me with the information leadership needs to make decisions? Are there steps in place to ensure all aspects of the case were completed? Can it produce universes according to CMS audit specifications, or do I need to prep them manually?
These are tip-of-the-iceberg questions that we consider during an operational assessment of Complaints Tracking Module (CTM), grievances, and appeals processes. As one of the highest risk, beneficiary-facing areas of your plan, this is a great place to kick off spring cleaning. Create a checklist of your own to conduct an assessment of these processes. Chances are, you already know your pain points, and you just haven't documented and escalated as of yet. Don't wait until a CMS audit notice, as illustrated by a very truthful sentiment (thanks someecards!)
Resources
Gorman Health Group's Complaints Tracking Module (CTM), grievances, and appeals processes, provides a new way to ensure your cases come to a timely and compliant resolution. Created with CMS in mind, as it captures key information related to intake, processing, categorization, determinations and higher appeals or re-openings to process cases according to CMS' complex and detailed requirements. Contact us >>
How Do You Cross a Threshold to Success When There Isn't One?
Many plans are reacting to the changes affecting the Star Ratings as described by the most recent release of the 2016 Advanced Notice. One of the most impactful changes is that of the removal of the thresholds for plan year 2016 measures. CMS gave early warning of the removal of the thresholds for many of the measures and restates their position as per page 86 of the Call Letter:
"Our primary goal in eliminating the thresholds is to improve the accuracy of the assignment of overall and Part C and D summary Star Ratings and to make certain the system creates incentives for quality improvement. While there is general support for this change, some sponsors and stakeholders remain concerned that it is difficult to improve without published targets for achieving 4 or more stars on a measure. We also understand that some sponsors are concerned that eliminating pre-determined 4-star thresholds will make it more difficult to set targets for performance or value-based contracting."
It will be difficult for many plans to manage the removal of the thresholds when that has been the reliance for the benchmark of improvement in many instances — from improvement in the quality work plan (which, by the way, don't forget, will have to be modified) to the provider incentive plan to the overall strategy for value-based contracting many plans are now trying to implement.
Because CMS stated that having pre-determined thresholds may restrict continued quality improvement, plans now must begin to become stronger in the quality improvement/assurance arena. What does this mean for you? This means rethinking your quality work plan, the benchmarks or baselines used, and asking yourself as a plan: What other data sources can we now use to make sure we are on the road to continuous quality improvement? This also means re-evaluating your Stars work plan/strategy and the tools used to support it. How can you create a better dashboard for 2016? Think about using industry standards already out there for the new "thresholds" and incorporate those into the dashboard. In fact, why not try that exercise now — start running "new" thresholds" alongside the ones in place today for 2015 and see where your plan will land. CMS believes this change of threshold removal will not impact the industry greatly. In fact, they cited that their research shows close to 7% of plans would possibly have their ratings raised one-half a percentage point, and approximately 10% would go down by the same rate. If plans want to be certain this really is the outcome, it is time to start preparing now, especially if your plan will experience a reduction to a greater percentage.
So what are good baseline or benchmark replacements, you ask? Well, let's start with the easy one — HEDIS. NCQA publishes a memo which reports the national benchmarks and national and regional thresholds for HEDIS/CAHPS. Plans could start comparing themselves in this fashion now and preparing for the removal of thresholds, strategizing on the results they see.
Another thought: plans certainly have the capability to trend historically on their own performance — examine those 19 measures that have no threshold today and think about the interventions or methods used in the management of these. Don't be afraid to use the document published by CMS, "Trends in Part C & D Star Rating Measure Cut Points," and conduct the same exercise within your organization if you have not already. That document can be found here.
Also, have the discussion within your plan's provider networking/contracting area and ask the question, "What does the threshold removal do to our contracting strategy and the use or identification of high performing providers?" Will we, as a plan, need to redefine what high performance means so we can measure it correctly? Will we, as a plan, need to change what measures/benchmarks on which we are paying bonuses? I think you will.
Plan to start tying providers to measures they can influence and then talk with those providers about changing outcomes for measured improvement. Remember, you will have to help them prioritize now.
Plan and be prepared for the changes by reviewing your quality program, the QIPs you have in place, and how will they need to be modified to account for the changes coming down the road.
With a few simple steps, you can still cross over to success, even without a threshold!
Don't know where to start? Contact me today at jscott@ghgadvisors.com.
Resources
Our team of experts can help you develop or enhance care coordination within your programs and processes. Contact us today, and let's work together to help your plan achieve 4 Stars.
GHG can evaluate your Star Ratings approach, and identify tactics you can begin implementing immediately, to integrate initiatives, eliminate redundancies, and build an enterprise-wide Star management structure. Visit our website to learn more >>
Gorman Health Group Client Forum Takeaways: Government Programs are Booming, Bar is Rising
We just wrapped our best-ever Gorman Health Group 2015 Client Forum at National Harbor with over 200 of our closest clients and partners. There was both great and tough news, so here's a few takeaways, including a couple stunners:
- For the first time, a prominent Wall Street analyst said he could see a path to 100% Medicare Advantage penetration. Barclay's eminent health care observer, Josh Raskin, stunned our audience with projections of over 29 million Medicare Advantage enrollees by 2023, a penetration rate of over 42%, with the potential to go all the way with Ryan Plan-like legislation now feasible this decade.
- 47 states now hold Section 1915(c) home and community-based services waivers for Medicaid, which will unleash a new flood of dual eligibles into health plans. Special Needs Plans (SNPs) for duals are now on a path to permanent reauthorization, and over 30 states now use D-SNPs to enroll over 1.6 million beneficiaries. That number will more than double in the next 2 years.
- While year 2 of open enrollment for ObamaCare was dramatically improved from its messy launch, problems persist, especially with membership reconciliation and issues related to the interim process to auto-enroll most members staying in their plans. Cleanup of membership discrepancies will likely take another year or even longer.
- Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) audits will become the new normal in Medicare Advantage. 2015 will be the first time we see plans prosecuted under the False Claims Act and hundreds of millions clawed back by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for unsubstantiated codes submitted for higher payments.
- Maximizing data, strong provider partnerships, documentation and ICD-10 preparedness are keys to audit proofing your Risk Adjustment program.
- The Star Ratings system of performance-based payment is the new cornerstone of competition among health plans. Stars has expanded into more than a dozen state Medicaid programs, and to ObamaCare's issuers as well, and the bar is rising. Technical changes to several measures mandate much higher performance to stay ahead of the curve and avoid falling below 4 Stars, where bonus payments and bid rebates vanish. 2015 will be the first year where plans below 3 Stars are terminated.
- Medicare Advantage plans won several lobbying victories in this year's "Call Letter", the rate and policy announcement for 2016, including an average 1.25% benchmark increase from a cut in the February draft. This signals a new era of influence muscle for the industry, where CMS will increasingly fight out policy changes "below the waterline" in subregulatory guidance and enforcement, where politicians are less likely to intervene.
- Appeals and grievances and pharmacy benefit management vendor performance remain the #1, 2 and 3 regulatory infractions in Medicare Advantage, and integration of long-term care and supports and services the leading challenge facing Medicaid health plans.
- CMS is on pace for its most aggressive enforcement year ever, with over a dozen actions taken against plans this year already.
As we've said since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, we are now in the Golden Age of government-sponsored health programs, and the opportunities and challenges that come with this shift have never been greater. Our clients went home with a clear grasp of both, and we are thrilled so many joined us this year.
Resources:
Join John Gorman, GHG's Founder & Executive Chairman, as well as Bill MacBain, GHG's Senior Vice President of Strategy on April 14 as they provide a hard-hitting analysis of critical areas addressed and finalized in the document from 1-2pm ET. Register now >>
GHG's Senior Vice President, Healthcare Analytics & Risk Adjustment Solutions, Dan Weinrieb, recaps the Risk Adjustment rulings in the Final Call Letter and provides keys to success in an article on the GHG blog. Read more here >>
Risk Adjustment Recap & Keys to Success
The 2016 Final Call Letter released on Monday, April 6, confirmed proposed rulings highlighting the following categories:
- End the Blend; For payment year 2016, CMS will only use the 2014 HCC Risk Adjustment Model.
- Coding Pattern Adjustment; CMS has increased the adjustment factor for MA coding pattern differences by 0.25 percent, the lowest amount possible under the statute. As such, the updated adjustment factor for 2016 is 5.41 percent.
- Encounter Data as a Source for 2014; CMS will apply the 90/10 rule until they implement "risk adjustment using Medicare Advantage diagnostic, cost, and use data," meaning until they have recalibrated the model using MA encounter data.
- ICD-10; CMS will not accept or process ICD-9 codes for risk adjustment for services with dates of service beginning October 1, 2015.
- RXHCC Model; The model has been updated to reflect the 2016 benefit structure, updates to the data years used to calibrate the model, and clinical updates to the diagnoses included in some prescription drug hierarchical condition categories.
- In-Home Assessment; Adopt a core set of components and best practices for In-Home Assessments, Track subsequently provided care: In CY 2015, CMS will track and analyze care provision following in-home visits.
These are the facts. Gorman Health Group is focused on providing you the tools in order to succeed and implement an enterprise-wide risk adjustment model. Based on The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), collaborative partnerships between health plans and providers will ensure optimum performance outcomes for revenue, medical management and quality. Is your organization currently assessing, enhancing and managing the following critical success factors.
Leverage and integrate data and processes
- Is MRA included in your Medical Management and Quality Improvement Strategies? AND Pharmacy!
- Do your systems talk to each other: Interoperability and Integration
- Show me your spreadsheet!
Partner with your partners: Quality over Quantity
- Convene with your vendors and coordinate efforts
- Ensure compliance, patient-centered care and reduce provider abrasion
- Use Provider Incentives wisely
Targeted, Meaningful, Valuable, Actionable Provider Engagement and Education
- Deliver results: Good and Bad
- What is your strategy to engage specialists?
- Support Practice Transformation Models through incentives
Evaluate your current infrastructure to support Clinical Documentation
- More than just Coding- Population Health Management
For health plans: Make sure you are prepared for ICD-10, studies show that your providers don't think you are
- Have you modeled the impact to your Risk Score?
- Are you prepared for DENIALS?
In-Home Assessments: Bring the PCP's back into the fold
- Target based on complexity and patient care needs, not a money grab
- Care Coordination and medical management is key- align with quality
Shift your chart review and storage strategy
- Retrospective chart reviews…transition to concurrent chart reviews, not a last stich effort
- Do you have a Clinical Documentation Improvement (CDI) strategy?
- Use targeting strategies for patient and provider engagement, not just code collection
Benefit Design and New Member Onboarding
- Pilot new strategies to gather comprehensive patient data from the beginning
- Engage providers for preventive services off the bat
Resources
You Got Them . . . Now How Do You Keep Them?
Your plan's marketing and sales efforts have proven fruitful, and the Annual Election Period (AEP) was a success! The question is . . . do you have a member for life?
New members are bombarded with information they need to digest and questions they need to answer. And everyone speaks in acronyms, e.g., OOA, OEV, LEP, LIS, BAE, OHI, MSP, HRA, and POA. How many hand-offs will it take before your new members' questions are answered? Are your members aware of all the great services your plan can provide? Does their healthcare experience generate a feeling that you are all in it together? Do you have a complete and accurate dashboard of your members' needs?
At Gorman Health Group (GHG), we believe every member interaction — every member touch-point — creates an opportunity to leave your member with a positive impression. Developing a process where members have a positive experience with your plan should be the goal of every high-performing plan. Reaching out to members to ensure they are benefiting from all their health plan has to offer will translate to member satisfaction, loyalty, and the best marketing outcome money can't buy . . . a positive referral for your plan.
Developing a comprehensive member onboarding program not only requires data analytics at the member level but, most importantly, the ability to quickly solve those pesky problems that pop up with new enrollees.
GHG will work with your plan to develop a member onboarding process and dashboards to ensure you are capturing the data that is critical to providing 5-Star services and engineering a positive experience for your members.
When it comes to developing positive outcomes from member interactions, developing a robust onboarding process should be job number ONE!
Visit our website to learn more.
Resources
Even as you are enrolling beneficiaries for the new plan year, your team should be working on your strategic positioning for the following year — reviewing the past year's performance, conducting feasibility analyses, testing assumptions — all to ensure future success. Contact us for more information >>
We have an unparalleled track record working with clients in government programs to develop cost-effective strategies and tactics to help plans achieve maximum potential for their products. We build highly efficient marketing plans, from demographic analysis to material development. We've reviewed, rebuilt and re-contracted dozens of distributions channels, supporting clients with expert counsel and unique tools. Learn more >>
Medicaid Reimbursement Rates and the Future of the Program
A recent monumental decision by the Supreme Court was just passed, and it will define the way Medicaid providers will be reimbursed now and in the future. Many Medicaid providers, including doctors, hospitals, and healthcare organizations, are already concerned with the low reimbursement rates, but now, due to the 5-4 vote by the Supreme Court, many will not have the right to push the states into increasing their payments.
In 2009, there was a ruling passed by the lower courts in Idaho to increase the state's reimbursement rates. The ruling came about due to the fact that the centers that provided care for about 6,000 mentally disabled adults and children were being reimbursed at the 2006 Medicaid reimbursement rates. The centers stated in their filings that the cost to maintain the treatment of these patients was substantially higher than what they were being reimbursed by the state. But then the Supreme Court stepped in and overturned this decision, citing that the Medicaid providers have no right to sue under the current laws pertaining to the federal funding for Medicaid programs.
The positive result of the 2009 ruling of the case, Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center Inc., was that it set a precedence on enforcing federal payment requirements. Many of the other Medicaid states were using this as a foundation for their pursuit of fairer reimbursement. The basis of the argument was that federal requirements for rates must be "sufficient to enlist enough providers so that care and services are available under the plan. . . to the general population in the geographic area (42 U. S. C. §1396a(a)(30)(A) ("§30(a)"). Now, with the overturn of the decision, this could mean that fewer providers of service will participate in the Medicaid program, which will mean that Medicaid members will have fewer choices and restricted access to care.
Supreme Court Justice Beyer stated his decision was made based upon the rationale on "several characteristics of federal statute," in particular the Administrative Procedure Act. The debate that ensued during the session, and the final determination made, was mainly focused on alternative remedies, one of which was to engage the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") and cite §30(a) to withhold Medicaid funding, if the rates were inadequate.
The ruling has caused multiple groups, including 28 states, to voice their concerns with the decision. While this will be a long-term debate on both sides of the spectrum, conservatives and liberals, one thing is for sure: in the current environment, there needs to be risk strategies set into place so that the current, and future, players in Medicaid can keep sustaining the care provided with the ever-changing financial atmosphere. Gorman Health Group (GHG) understands the complexities of the numerous shifting of variables and has a team with the expertise and knowledge to perform risk adjustment models and make recommendations based on revenue vs. medical spend. Most states have rates that vary and are often moving targets; many organizations need to operate on projections or estimates.
GHG can provide assistance with identifying current and future costs of doing business while building in anticipated adjustments that make sense for the population served. We will position you for success by building a strategy that takes into account the service area, market environment, core competencies, and vision for the future. Contact us today to get started >>
Resources
Over the last several years, GHG has committed our time to understanding the needs of the dual population, which has allowed us to build systems and processes that yield quality outcomes. As states begin to increase oversight activities and implement more robust compliance and fraud waste and abuse practices, our expertise in compliance program development will be an asset to any organization. Visit out website to learn more >>
The Risk in DIY: CMS Mandated Material
"Do It Yourself", or DIY, has been the rave for years now. From social media sites like Pinterest to television networks like HGTV, Americans have become fond of this philosophy. Now, I am a big believer in being self-sufficient and must say that I have been sucked into marathon viewings of DIY shows often (Nicole Curtis of Rehab Addict is no joke!). And, while I have seen my share of success stories, more often than not, I see DIY projects result in complete frustration from those attempting to DIY and very costly mistakes.
A prime example of this within the MA industry is the DIY approach to creating CMS mandated material. Year after year, I see organizations attempt to produce upcoming plan year material in-house with the intention of saving budget dollars, but ending up with a costly mess due to lack of subject matter expertise and lack of adequate resources. When you think about the overall importance that is placed on CMS mandated material and the level at which these materials are scrutinized by CMS, it begs the question, "Is the risk in DIY really worth it?"
Picture this: your organization decides to use existing staff to prepare mandated material for the upcoming plan year. Initially, the approach seems feasible and the cost savings looks attractive. Although the process is very time intensive, your organization completes the undertaking, or so you think. It turns out that the amount of time it took to review materials before HPMS submission could not be supported by your Medicare Compliance Department due to lack of resources. That results in functional areas being made accountable for not only the development of respective mandated material, but also the compliance review. With business-as-usual responsibilities not changing, the Enrollment department, which was tasked with creating ANOC/EOCs did not factor in a review for accuracy of information and compliance. Although your organization met the CMS distribution deadline, it is discovered that many of ANOC/EOCs contain cost-sharing errors and do not follow the CMS model templates and allowances. This discovery impacts about half of your membership and must be reported to CMS. CMS initially requires your organization to create errata for these documents, but when it is identified that the errors are so significant and high in volume, CMS requires your organization to recreate the affected ANOC/EOCs in their entirety and slaps on a civil monetary penalty. With a clear understanding of what led to inaccuracies in the first place, your organization seeks outside help from subject matter experts to limit the risk of non-compliance errors. It is later identified that an original version of an ANOC/EOC is still being sent to members upon request for a particular plan benefit package because a process for document version control was non-existent. In the end, this is a DIY project gone horribly wrong. The intention to save money by DIY resulted in something exponentially more expensive between CMPs and the exorbitant cost to reproduce materials. Most important of all, your beneficiaries were impacted by these inaccuracies.
I know we would all like to think that DIY is always a contending option, which it is, when you have the necessary resources and expertise to do so. But just as I will never claim to be an expert in building houses just because I've performed some wall patchwork here and there, organizations need to face the reality of the risks in DIY. Take the time to seriously consider how well-equipped your organization is to handle the development of CMS mandated materials as the season rapidly approaches. Is it time to bring in the experts?
Resources
For questions regarding consulting services for CMS mandated materials, contact me directly at rpennypacker@ghgadvisors.com
The Gorman Health Group 2015 Forum is April-7-9! Attendees can expect timely, actionable advice on the trends shaping health care from notable speakers, including Barclay's analyst, Joshua Raskin, and regulatory guidance directly from Jennifer Smith, a Director in the Medicare Parts C and D Enforcement Group at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Register your team for the Gorman Health Group 2015 Forum today!
Reenergized After RISE…Now What?
It's the Wednesday after a jam-packed RISE conference, focused on "Best Practices and Actionable Tools for Improving Risk Adjustment and Achieving Exceptional Quality Performance."
I am sure I speak for most of my colleagues that attended the Summit when I say, "I'm reenergized, but what should I do first?" The large group sessions and the breakout meetings delivered valuable insights into why the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) keeps moving the target for both health plans and providers. As usual, the presentations were top notch.
This year, a sea of risk adjustment vendors lined the conference room, each with a solution that touted superior performance in maximizing revenue by applying innovative technology, provider/member engagement strategies, and robust analytics. Bright lights, big graphics, dashboards that actually closed the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS®) gap for the colonoscopy measure??? So many options, all impressive in their own right, but where do you go from here?
When I attended these events on behalf of my health plan, I would bring a box of pens and a few notebooks, head back home, and try and piece it all together. Without fail, something would get lost in translation, or my presentation back to the executive team on my takeaways left us all wondering how we're going to prioritize these initiatives, generate buy-in from across the company, and put these strategies to work.
Hearing and sharing best practices with clinicians, analysts, and other thought leaders in the risk adjustment space always proves to be informative, practical, and actionable. There always just seems to be one thing missing - your co-workers and executives weren't there to hear how important ALL of this is, and decisions continue to be made in a silo, and programs are perpetually designed with a one-dimensional approach to risk, quality, and medical trend management.
Being the only consultant at the conference who wasn't aligned with a vendor, I was able to take a very agnostic approach to the entire event. I couldn't help but notice that more providers were in attendance, voicing their concerns about managing data, navigating the complexities for Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) coding, and still trying to deliver quality care to their patients. I listened to the health plan representatives discuss the challenges of selecting the right vendor partners, making the decision to bring these risk adjustment business functions back in-house, and integrating people, processes, and data across their entire enterprise.
Now that I am back home, and before I head back out to work with clients on their risk adjustment strategies, I wanted to take this time to stress the importance of being thoughtful about which vendors you select, which strategies you choose to pilot, and which operational processes you decide to uproot.
Just remember a few things:
- Trust that what you are doing now is most likely on the right track - it just might need a little face-lift, especially when the final Call Letter is announced.
- Technology enables an organization to launch and manage interventions that support corporate priorities. Making these investments without a solid plan to leverage the tools and analytics will only set you up for disappointment. More often than not, creating the playbook falls on your "To Do List.
- Be confident that you know the basics, and taking your programs to the next level shouldn't rest on your shoulders alone - we heard loud and clear that this needs to be a cross-departmental, integrated approach in order to really move the needle.
If you can read the above takeaways and feel confident that you and your organization are on the right path, GREAT- please continue to share your best practices with your industry colleagues.
On the other hand, if you are on information overload and not quite sure how or where to begin, know that Gorman Health Group and our team of healthcare analytics and risk adjustment experts have a proven track record of helping our health plan and provider clients assess, prioritize, and design initiatives that make sense for you and the communities in which you serve.
If you have any questions or would like to hear more about how we can help, please contact me directly at dweinrieb@ghgadvisors.com.
Resources
Whether you rely on multiple vendors or a largely internal team, GHG can help you streamline the execution of your risk adjustment approach, and build a roadmap to ensure you're keeping pace with CMS expectations in both compliance and health care outcomes. Visit our website to learn more >>
Don't miss Dan's presentation next week at the Gorman Health Group 2015 titled "Risk Adjustment: Cracking the Code" where he will provide key takeaways from the final Call Letter and future implications, discuss vendor selection, management and oversight, as well as Provider Network strategies and the value of collaboration. Not yet registered for the event? No problem, register here today!
The Medicare "Doc Fix"
The "doc fix," as just passed by the House of Representatives, would fix the annual sustainable growth rate (SGR) calculation by eliminating it. The SRG was enacted nearly 18 years ago as a way to tie physician compensation under Medicare to the growth in the national economy. It has never worked well, and Congress has had to override it 17 times to prevent sizeable cuts to Medicare's physician payment rates. The current SGR cut is about 21% and will take effect March 31 of this year.
The House bill eliminates the SGR. The estimated 10-year cost of eliminating these cuts to physician fees is in the neighborhood of $175 billion. After adding the cost of extending the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and funding for community health centers, the total price tag over 10 years is $210 billion.
The doc fix has no direct impact on payments to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. For many years, CMS would calculate the Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) per capita cost trends it used to set MA benchmarks by assuming that the SGR cuts would happen. Year after year, the cuts were rescinded, requiring CMS to add a sizeable correction to the next year's trend to compensate. But that was offset by the following year's SGR impact, leaving the trends chronically depressed. CMS finally fixed this with the 2014 benchmarks, which were calculated using trends that assumed that Congress would again rescind the SGR cuts. This policy was repeated in calculating the 2015 benchmarks. For both years, CMS assumed a 0% trend for physician fees.
However, the "doc fix" may still have a small indirect impact on MA. If the final bill looks like the House bill, physicians will receive 0.5% annual increases in fees through 2019. This 0.5% trend will be incorporated into the trend used to set the benchmarks. Since CMS has been using a 0% trend for physician fees, the doc fix will elevate the trends for 2016 and following years, at least through 2019. The impact will probably be in the range of positive 0.2%, or 20 basis points, more or less. The House's doc fix would also tie physician compensation to pay-for-performance scores after 2019. We will need to wait and see whether CMS interprets this as generating an increase or decrease in physician fees when they calculate the 2020 benchmarks.
The House bill would also reduce the trend applied to payments to post-acute providers, relative to prior year trends, and make a small reduction in hospital payments relative to current law. This may have a very small negative impact on the benchmark trend since it is based on projected trends in total FFS per capita costs. But the overall impact for MA benchmarks will still be slightly positive because of the positive physician trend.
A greater impact in future years may be the impact on physician claims payment. In the near term, physician contracts that are tied to Medicare-allowable fees will experience a 0.5% increase as the fees rise. Since prior years' annual SGR corrections have included similar nominal increases, it is probable that most MA plans have already incorporated a rise of similar magnitude into their bids and budgets, meaning that the pending doc fix may have no noticeable impact. Looking at the longer term, the performance-based payment program that CMS devises to calculate payments after 2019 may have a greater impact. MA plans should be watching this closely, since any physician contracts that are tied to Medicare allowable fees will automatically incorporate this same performance-based calculation. This may also be an opportunity for plans to develop new and better value-based payment models of their own.
For now, it's time to watch what happens in the Senate, to see if this thing passes. It won't come up for a vote until the Senate gets back from Spring Break in mid-April. By then, the SGR cut of 21% will have officially taken effect. In the past when Congress dawdled on the SGR, CMS has found temporary ways to avoid cutting doctor payments, and we expect they will be able to engage in the same sleight of hand this year.
Update as of 4/1/15. Note that the 21% cut went into effect April 1, since the Senate didn't pass the bill before it went on a two-week recess. CMS can hold claim payment a couple of weeks to allow the Senate to get its act together and pass the bill. However, the Senate will need to act quickly when it returns from recess. The current estimate is that the bill will be introduced on April 13. While leadership of both parties say everyone is on board in the Senate, that clearly was not the case in the hours leading up to the spring recess, since the bill never came up for a vote. This indicates that there may be some unresolved issues. Stay tuned! There may be some interesting maneuvering in the next few weeks.
Resources
Gorman Health Group's Summary and Analysis of the 2016 Draft Call Letter and the Medicare Advantage (MA) Advance Notice is now available. Download it today >>
The Gorman Health Group 2015 Forum is April-7-9! Attendees can expect timely, actionable advice on the trends shaping health care from notable speakers, including Barclay's analyst, Joshua Raskin, and regulatory guidance directly from Jennifer Smith, a Director in the Medicare Parts C and D Enforcement Group at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Register your team for The Gorman Health Group 2015 Forum today!