This is important for clinical laboratory leaders to watch, because medical labs often interface with hospital EHRs to exchange vital patient data, a key component of complying with Medicare’s EHR incentive programs. If claims of interoperability are shown to be false, could labs engaged with those hospital systems under scrutiny be drawn into the DOJ’s investigations?
Violating the False Claims Act
In May, Coffey Health System (CHS), which includes Coffey County Hospital, a 25-bed critical access hospital located in Burlington, Kan., agreed to pay the US government a total of $250,000 to settle a claim that it violated the False Claims Act.
CHS’ former CIO filed the qui tam (aka, whistleblower) lawsuit, which allows individuals to sue on behalf of the government and share in monetary recovery. He alleged that CHS provided false information to the government about being in compliance with security standards to receive incentive payments under the EHR Incentive Program.
According to a DOJ press release, “the United States alleged that Coffey Health System falsely attested that it conducted and/or reviewed security risk analyses in accordance with requirements under a federal incentive program for the reporting periods of 2012 and 2013. The government contended that the hospital submitted false claims to the Medicare and Medicaid Programs pursuant the Electronic Health Records (EHR) Incentive Program.”
“Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries expect that providers ensure the accuracy and security of their electronic health records,” said Stephen McAllister (above), United States Attorney for the District of Kansas, in the DOJ press release. “This office remains committed to protecting the federal health programs and to hold accountable those whose conduct results in improper payments.” (Photo copyright: US Department of Justice.)
The Recovery Act allocated $25 billion to incentivize healthcare professionals and facilities to adopt and demonstrate meaningful use (MU) of electronic health records by January 1, 2014. The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released the incentive funds when providers attested to accomplishing specific goals set by the program.
The website of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), HealthIt.gov, defines “meaningful use” as the use of digital medical and health records to:
Improve quality, safety, efficiency, and reduce
health disparities;
Engage patients and their families;
Improve care coordination and population and
public health; and
Maintain privacy and security of patient health
information.
The purpose of the HITECH Act was to address privacy and security concerns linked to electronic storage and transference of protected health information (PHI). HITECH encourages healthcare organizations to update their health records and record systems, and it offers financial incentives to institutions that are in compliance with the requirements of the program.
When eligible professionals or eligible hospitals attest to being in compliance with Medicare’s EHR incentive program requirements, they can file claims for federal funds, which are paid and audited by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) through Medicare and Medicaid.
Institutions receiving funds must demonstrate meaningful use
of EHR records or risk potential penalties, including the delay or cancellation
of future payments and full reimbursement of payments already received. In
addition, false statements submitted in filed documents are subject to criminal
laws and civil penalties at both the state and federal levels.
EHR Developers Under Scrutiny by DOJ
EHR vendors also have been investigated and ordered to make
restitutions by the DOJ.
In February, Greenway Health, a Tampa-based EHR developer, agree to pay $57.25 million to resolve allegations related to the False Claims Act. In this case, the government contended that Greenway obtained certification for its “Prime Suite” EHR even though the technology did not meet the requirements for meaningful use.
And EHR vendor eClinicalWorks paid the government $155 million to settle allegations under the False Claims Act. The government maintained that eClinicalWorks misrepresented the capabilities of their software and provided $392,000 in kickbacks to customers who promoted its product.
Legal cases such as these demonstrate that the DOJ will
pursue both vendors and healthcare organizations that misrepresent their
products or falsely attest to interoperability under the terms laid out by
Medicare’s EHR Incentive Program.
Clinical laboratory leaders and pathology groups should carefully
study these cases. This knowledge may be helpful when they are asked to create
and maintain interfaces to exchange patient data with client EHRs.
Growing interest in more transparency for the prices of prescription drugs is reflected in a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that highlights disparities in pharma prices for patients, pharmacies, and payers
However, while reference pricing and pricing databases help savvy patients compare prices across a range of procedures, much about pharmaceutical pricing remains shrouded in mystery. This is why calls for greater transparency in how prescription drugs are priced are increasing as well.
The Trump administration, state governments, and advocacy groups have each targeted drug costs as a problem in the current healthcare system. And a March 2018 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) may further fuel the fires facing big pharma.
Overpayments and the Silence Behind Them
Analyzing 9.5 million claims from Optum’s Clinformatics Data Mart over the first half of 2013, researchers found that approximately 23% of all claims involved overpayments—situations in which the co-pay charged to the patient exceeded what the insurer paid the pharmacy to fill the prescription.
While data from 2013 might not reflect the current state of pharmaceutical pricing, the study brings exposure to trends in both politics and media coverage surrounding the industry.
The study authors found that overpayments totaled $135-million in 2013. Generic medications saw a higher portion of overpayments with more than one in four generic prescriptions costing patients more than what payers paid the pharmacy. However, in the 6% of claims involving branded medication, overpayments were nearly twice as high with an average overpayment of $13.46 per claim.
The researchers also cited data from a National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA) survey of 628 pharmacies in which 49% claimed to have seen 10-50 occurrences of “clawback fees” in the past month. A further 35% reported seeing more than 50 clawback fees in the past month. These “fees” are part of contractual obligations that payers can use to recoup such overpayments to pharmacies.
Other contractual arrangements, such as “gag clauses” (AKA, non-disclosure agreements), wherein pharmacists cannot disclose to patients when their copay exceeds the cost of filling the prescription without coverage, have garnered coverage in the media.
The Hill recently outlined efforts from senators to stop this practice for both traditional insurance plans and Medicare Advantage and Part D participants. “Americans have the right to know which payment method—insurance or cash—would provide the most savings when purchasing prescription drugs,” Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) told The Hill.
Rebates, Secretive Deals, and Red Tape in Government Crosshairs
Rebates are another contested aspect of current pricing models. Traditionally, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) serve as a middleman between pharmaceutical companies and pharmacies to negotiate prices and maintain markets. PBMs negotiate deals for insurers in the form of rebates. Insurers, however, are using these savings to offer lower premiums, rather than forwarding the savings directly to the customer.
UnitedHealthcare unveiled plans to pass these rebates directly to consumers in early March, The Hill reported.
In a press release, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex M. Azar II stated, “Today’s announcement by UnitedHealthcare is a prime example of the movement toward transparency and lower drug prices for millions of patients that the Trump Administration is championing. Empowering patients and providers with the information and control to put them in the driver’s seat is a key part of our strategy … to bring down the price of drugs and make healthcare more affordable.” (Photo copyright: Washington Post.)
The Trump Administration also recently outlined their new “American Patients First” plan for reducing drug prices and out-of-pocket costs for patients.
Key elements of their proposed approach include:
Eliminating gaming of regulations, such as the Risk Evaluation and Mitigating Strategies (REMS) requirements manufacturers use to avoid sending samples to creators of generics;
Restricting rebates through Anti-Kickback Statue revisions; and,
Eliminating gag clauses or clawback fees.
However, pharma industry coverage of the plan is mixed. MarketWatch sees little to worry about, predicting, “[the plan] isn’t expected to hurt drug makers or pharmacy-system middlemen.” Meanwhile, Forbes claims, “[the plan] represents a sea of change in pharmaceutical pricing policy, one that will have a significant effect on drug prices in the future.”
Anatomic pathology groups, medical laboratories, and other diagnostics providers can view this as yet another example of healthcare providers trying to shore up financials and protect profits by protecting sensitive pricing information, as the industry faces increasing scrutiny. Nevertheless, regardless of the outcome, these latest trends emphasize the role that transparency is likely to play—and how clinical laboratories will be impacted—as healthcare reform progresses, both in terms of public relations and regulatory requirements.
In filing Monday, lawsuit seeks to force HHS to comply with PAMA’s statutory requirements and to withhold applying the new Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule until HHS has revised the final rule appropriately
Many clinical laboratory executives will welcome the news that a lab industry trade association has filed a lawsuit in federal court in an effort to delay and fix the final rule for Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA) private payer lab test market price reporting that Medicare officials used to lower prices on the Medicare Part B Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS) that is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2018.
The ACLA asked the US District Court for the District of Columbia to force HHS to comply with PAMA’s statutory requirements, to withhold applying the new CLFS until HHS has revised the final rule appropriately. The CLFS is due to take effect on Jan. 1.
Final Prices for the 2018 Part B Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule
Last month, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued the final CLFS rates and said at the time that it did so in compliance with the 2016 final rule implementing changes to the Medicare clinical laboratory fee schedule under PAMA section 216.
“We have repeatedly advised CMS that there are significant, substantive deficiencies in the final rule, which fail to follow the specific commands of the PAMA statute,” said ACLA President Julie Khani in an ACLA press release. “Contrary to Congress’ intent, instead of reforming Medicare reimbursement rates to reflect the broad scope of the laboratory market, the Secretary’s final rule will disrupt the market and prevent beneficiaries from having access to the essential laboratory services they need.”
Shown above is Julie Khani, President of the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA) speaking at the Executive War College on Laboratory and Pathology Management last May in New Orleans. In a press release announcing ACLA’s lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services, Khani emphasized that many clinical laboratories had advised officials at the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) about the “significant, substantive deficiencies in the final rule” for private payer market price reported that CMS designed. (Photo copyright: The Dark Report.)
22 Healthcare Organizations Opposed Cuts to Clinical Laboratory Test Prices
The ACLA, the American Hospital Association (AHA), and more than 20 other organizations had urged CMS to suspend implementation of the new CLFS rates, which are scheduled to take effect Jan. 1. The organizations cited concerns over the data-collection process used to establish the rates, and the fact that the rates would cause clinical laboratories to struggle financially and possibly close. If the rates set under PAMA affect Medicare beneficiaries’ access to clinical lab testing, the law would have the opposite effect of its intent.
To bring the lawsuit, ACLA retained Mark D. Polston, JD, of the Washington, DC, law firm of King and Spaulding. A specialist in representing healthcare systems seeking to navigate Medicare regulations, Polston is the former Chief Litigation counsel for CMS and specializes in complicated Medicare reimbursement litigation. Recently, he successfully challenged Medicare’s so-called “two-midnight” rule that imposed a 0.2% rate cut on hospitals billing for some patients.
Medicare Program Prohibited Most Medical Laboratories from Reporting
Contrary to Congress’ directives, most laboratories were prohibited from reporting private payer data under CMS’ market-rate data-collection process, ACLA said in a prepared statement. “As a result, CMS failed to protect access to laboratory services for Medicare beneficiaries. This flawed process could cause serious financial harm to potentially thousands of hospitals, independent and physician office laboratories, and make it harder for Medicare beneficiaries to get access to medical testing, particularly in remote rural areas and in nursing homes that depend on laboratory testing services,” ACLA said.
In the lawsuit, ACLA alleged that more than 99.3% of hospitals were prohibited from reporting their market-rate data. It is believed that this is the first time this figure has been reported. In 2015, the lawsuit charged, more than 261,500 entities received Medicare payment for laboratory services but only 1,942 laboratories reported market-rate information in 2016 under the PAMA final rule. The 1,942 labs that reported market-rate data is about 0.7% of the total number of laboratories that serve Medicare beneficiaries, the lawsuit said.
Only 21 of 7,000 Hospital Laboratories Reported Data
“Moreover, contrary to Congress’ intent, the laboratories that did report information are not representative of the market as a whole,” the lawsuit added. “For example, although approximately 7,000 hospital laboratories billed Medicare for laboratory services in 2015—accounting for 24% of the Medicare payments made under the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule—no more than 21 hospital laboratories (and probably even fewer) reported information to the secretary, leaving hospital laboratories effectively unrepresented in the data collected by the secretary.
“Hospital laboratories are often the only laboratories available to patients in certain areas of the country, and the private payer rates they receive are often much higher than other laboratories, due to differences in competitive markets, volumes of services, and other factors,” the lawsuit charged.
The Dark Report, Dark Daily’s sister publication, provided a compelling example of the serious flaws in the market price study conducted by CMS. Writing about the state of Michigan, The Dark Report noted: “At Joint Venture Hospital Laboratory Network (JVHL), CEO John Kolozsvary said Michigan’s hospitals serve 70% of the office-based physicians in the state with outreach lab testing services. Included among these hospitals are the 120 JVHL member laboratory facilities.”
“Since our network, plus the outreach programs of another 25 or 30 hospitals, hold a significant share of outreach lab testing in Michigan, how can CMS conduct an accurate, representative market study of what private insurers pay for lab tests in Michigan if it doesn’t collect data on what private payers reimburse hospital lab outreach programs in Michigan?” stated Kolozsvary in his interview with The Dark Report.
Did CMS ‘Disregard and Violate’ PAMA Statute?
In the ACLA’s announcement of the lawsuit, Polston said, “CMS clearly disregarded and violated the statute’s specific, unambiguous directives requiring commercial rate information to be reported and collected from a broad, diverse group of market participants. Instead, information was collected from less than 1% of US laboratories.”
In the press announcement, ACLA Board Chair Curt Hanson, MD, Chief Medical Officer of Mayo Medical Laboratories said, “This lawsuit reflects our obligation to those who are providing critical testing services, and to those millions of Americans who rely on the services our industry provides.” Others supporting the lawsuit include Laboratory Corporation of America and Quest Diagnostics.
Compliance with PAMA Law’s Statutory Requirements
In the lawsuit, ACLA seeks to require HHS to comply with the statutory requirements and to set aside the provisions in the final rule, “that unlawfully exempts thousands of laboratories from the reporting obligations that Congress imposed” under PAMA. A central feature of PAMA Section 216 is that laboratories must report market rate data so that HHS can ensure that Medicare reimbursement rates closely reflect the rates laboratories receive from private payers, the lawsuit said.
“ACLA was a strong supporter of Congress’ market-based reforms, which resulted in the most extensive changes to the system for reimbursing clinical laboratories since 1984,” the lawsuit said.
In challenging the final regulations, the lawsuit said HHS disregarded and violated, “the statute’s specific, unambiguous directives requiring that all applicable laboratories report relevant data.”
Congress Specified Which Medical Laboratories Are Obligated to Report
“In imposing these requirements, Congress took care to specify which laboratories would be obligated to report market data to ensure that information would be collected from a broad, diverse group of market participants,” the lawsuit said. “Congress made clear that any ‘laboratory’ would be required to report data if, ‘with respect to its revenues under [the Medicare program], a majority of such revenues are from’ the Physician Fee Schedule or the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule,” the lawsuit charged.
In promulgating the regulations, however, HHS, disregarded Congress’ instructions and “unreasonably and arbitrarily exempted significant categories and large numbers of laboratories that meet the statutory definition from the reporting requirements that Congress imposed,” the lawsuit said.
“The secretary’s final rule fatally undermines one of PAMA’s purposes, which is to require a broad spectrum of Medicare-participating laboratories to report market information to the secretary. Instead, in ultra vires (Latin for “beyond the powers”) fashion, the secretary has carved out large categories of laboratories—ultimately resulting in the exclusion of some 99.3% of the laboratory market—from the statutory reporting requirements,” the lawsuit charged. Ultra vires acts fall outside the authority of the organization in question.
In the lawsuit, the ACLA claims under:
count 1: ultra vires agency action not in accordance with law, in excess of statutory authority;
count 4: violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, injunctive and declaratory relief.
Seeking an Injunction to Have HHS Secretary to Withhold or Suspend Final Rule
In its final section, “Prayer for Relief,” the lawsuit asks the court to vacate, “any agency action found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;” to require the Secretary of HHS to comply with the statutory requirements, “including faithfully implementing the statutory definition of ‘applicable laboratory;’” and enter an “injunction that (1) directs the Secretary to withdraw or suspend his final rule until such time as it can be brought into compliance with the statute, and (2) directs the Secretary to withhold applying the new Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule until such time as the Secretary has made appropriate revisions to his final rule.” The lawsuit also asked the court to award to the ACLA “costs and disbursements of this action and reasonable attorneys’ fees.”
Price transparency trend is altering decision-making in many aspects of healthcare and providing lesson for medical laboratory executives
Medical laboratory executives are well aware that price transparency is an increasingly powerful trend in healthcare. Now, as consumers increasingly opt for lower-cost options when making healthcare decisions, the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) provides a notable example of this new reality, with consumers making cost, not choice, their top concern when selecting health plans through the federal health insurance marketplace exchanges.
A recent New York Times article reported that millions of people purchasing insurance in ACA marketplaces are motivated by how little they can pay in premiums, not the size of the physician and hospital networks, or an insurer’s reputation.
This economic reality may help explain why cost containment is a focus of healthcare reform bills currently under discussion in Congress. Whether you agree or disagree with the American Health Care Act (HR1628), the Republican Party’s plan to repeal and replace the ACA, it should be viewed in this broader context: Healthcare consumers are avoiding higher-priced healthcare plans in droves, and millions of younger Americans are finding the cost of coverage a barrier to entry. This is the challenge facing politicians of both parties, whether they will admit it publicly or not.
Perhaps more significantly, millions of people fewer than expected have enrolled in Obamacare. A CNN Money report noted that 10.3-million people enrolled in an ACA marketplace as of mid-March 2017, down from the 12.2-million who signed up for coverage when enrollment ended on January 31.
Mark T. Bertolini (left), Chief Executive of Aetna, and Joseph R. Swedish (right), Anthem’s Chief Executive, testified before a House committee hearing last fall. Major insurers are struggling to find a business model that works in the marketplaces created by the federal healthcare law. (Caption and photo copyright: New York Times/Jacquelyn Martin/Associated Press.)
Those numbers fall short of recent federal government projections for Obamacare and are dramatically less than original estimates. A 2015 report from Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected marketplace enrollment would increase to 15-million in 2017, before rising to between 18-million and 19-million people a year from 2018 to 2026.
Shortly after Congress passed the ACA, the CBO projected that by 2016, 32-million people would gain healthcare coverage overall.
As a New York Times article pointed out, not only are young and healthy people selecting the cheapest ACA marketplace plans, but also many are opting to risk tax penalties and go without healthcare coverage.
“The unexpected laser focus on price has contributed to hundreds of millions of dollars in losses among the country’s top insurers, as fewer healthy people than expected have signed up,” the New York Times article noted.
Healthy younger people were expected to join the ranks of the insured and provide an essential counter balance that would offset insurers’ cost of care for newly insured unhealthy people. That prediction also has failed to materialize, forcing major insurance companies to re-evaluate their role in the marketplace or to exit Obamacare completely.
“The marketplace has been and continues to be unsustainable,” stated Joseph R. Swedish, Chairman, President and Chief Executive of Anthem, a Blue Cross and Blue Shield company, in the New York Times article.
In a CNN Money article, Anthem announced it would not participate in Ohio’s Obamacare exchange in 2018 and added that it was evaluating its participation in all 14 states where it currently offers plans.
“A stable insurance market is dependent on products that create value for consumers through the broad spreading of risk and a known set of conditions upon which rates can be developed,” Anthem stated in a press statement. “Today, planning and pricing for ACA-compliant health plans has become increasingly difficult due to the shrinking individual market as well as continual changes in federal operations, rules, and guidance.”
Inaccurate CBO Predictions Impact Clinical Laboratories and Pathology Groups
Anthem is not the only large insurer losing money selling insurance in the marketplaces. Humana and Aetna also this year scaled back their involvement with Obamacare, with Aetna citing $430-million in losses selling insurance to individuals since January 2014.
“Providing affordable, high-quality healthcare options to consumers is not possible without a balanced risk pool,” Aetna Chairman and CEO Mark T. Bertolini declared in an Aetna statement.
How this plays out may matter a great deal to the nation’s clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology practices. As noted above, in 2010, at the time that the Affordable Care Act was passed, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that as many as 32-million additional people would have health insurance in 2016 because of the ACA. The reality is much different. Less than a third of that number have health insurance policies because of the Affordable Care Act.
Pathologists and medical laboratory managers may want to consider how wrong that 2010 CBO estimate of coverage was. If the CBO’s estimate could be off by 66% in 2016, how reliable are CBO estimates when the federal agency scores the various “repeal and replace” bills that Republicans have proposed during the current Congress?
CMS Director speaks at ACLA meeting; acknowledges that labs are alerting the agency to problems with Protecting Access to Medicare Act (PAMA) private payer market reporting, but did not say whether a delay in implementing either reporting or lab test fee cuts would be possible
WASHINGTON, DC—Last week, it was symbolic that, as members of the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA) assembled for their annual meeting, members of the House of Representatives were preparing to vote on the first of several bills intended to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act.
The symbolism comes from the fact that the nation’s medical laboratories and the United States Congress find themselves at major crossroad. For medical laboratories, the issue is the substantial cuts to Medicare Part B clinical laboratory test fees that are scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2018. Predicted by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to be a total cut of $400 million in 2018 alone, many expect these Medicare fee cuts to be the single most financially-disruptive event to hit the medical laboratory profession in 25 years.
There’s a similar make-or-break issue unfolding in Congress. Republicans in the House and Senate are caught up in battles to design and pass a series of bills intended to “repeal and replace” the ACA. At their respective crossroads, it remains unclear which path forward each group will follow. (more…)
